SpicyIP Weekly Review (July 15- July 21)

/ By / Copyright, Patent, Trademark

Here is our recap of last week’s top IP developments including summary of the posts on the “origin” of Khadi, an empirical study on the ways “scandalous” and “obscene” marks are prosecuted by the Trademark Registry, quia timet injunction in Roche v. Zydus. This and much more in this SpicyIP Weekly Review. Anything we are missing out on? Drop a comment below to let us know. Highlights of the Week Notes from the Doctoral Diary: 42nd ATRIP Congress in Rome (30th […]

SpicyIP Weekly Review (July 15- July 21) Read More »

https://mms.businesswire.com/media/20240416207524/en/1056493/23/PMI_global_V_Blue_HIRES.jpg

Gone Up In Smoke: Analysing the Controller’s Rejection of an E-cigarette Patent under Section 3(b)

/ By / Patent

The single judge bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of J. Mini Pushkarna on 4 July 2024 passed an order in Phillip Morris Products SA v. Assistant Controller Of Patents And Design admitting an appeal against the Controller’s decision rejecting a patent application for “aerosol generating article with multi material susceptor” and directed similar appeals to be clubbed together along with the extant appeal (Para 10). The rejection had been based on the invention being “contrary to public order

Gone Up In Smoke: Analysing the Controller’s Rejection of an E-cigarette Patent under Section 3(b) Read More »

Notes from the Doctoral Diary: 42nd ATRIP Congress in Rome (30th June – 3rd July 2024)

/ By / Others

Salaam … Recently, I met Prashant Reddy who shared his experience of the 2018 WIPO-WTO colloquium for Teachers of IP from Developing Countries and Countries in Transition. While I was planning to save my experience in writing, meeting Prashant motivated me to share my experience of the 42nd ATRIP Congress with all our readers. My hope is twofold: Firstly, to encourage scholars, particularly from the Global South, to participate in next year’s Congress and leave their mark. This is a

Notes from the Doctoral Diary: 42nd ATRIP Congress in Rome (30th June – 3rd July 2024) Read More »

Journey Through “Aprils” on SpicyIP (2005 – Present)

/ By / Others

As I said in the “Marchs” post, here’s the April sift and 11th post of our Sifting through SpicyIP pages series. Previously, we have journeyed through the SpicyIP’s pages from June to March, which you can take a quick glance through this SpicyIP Flashbacks. Let’s get into what Aprils offered on SpicyIP: Juggling around Jurisdiction issues: “Where do I file my case?” is a fundamental question in legal disputes, as jurisdiction determines the proper court for initiating a case. Traveling

Journey Through “Aprils” on SpicyIP (2005 – Present) Read More »

Journey Through “Marchs” on SpicyIP (2005 – Present)

/ By / Others

Namaskar … I am back with the “Sifting Through SpicyIP Pages” series! Apologies for the long delay; life got busier for some undesirable reasons. But things have finally gotten better, and this blogger is back. Mind you, I haven’t returned with just one post. Nope! I did two rounds this time – March and April to compensate for the wait. This is the “Marchs” Sift; the “Aprils” edition is here.  As we dive into the 10th post of this series

Journey Through “Marchs” on SpicyIP (2005 – Present) Read More »

Ulm University v. Asst. Controller of Patents and Designs: Madras High Court quashes unreasoned order of Patent Office

/ By / Patent

The Madras High Court, vide judgement dated 3 July 2024 in University of Ulm v. Asst. Controller of Patents and Designs, came down heavily on the IPO for its shoddy order rejecting the patent application filed by the appellant. The judgment raises serious concerns regarding the quality of functioning of the patent office. Facts In the given case, the University of Ulm (Germany) filed a patent application (Application No.645/CHENP/2011 filed on 31.01.2011) concerning use of Opioids or Opioid Mimetics for the Treatment

Ulm University v. Asst. Controller of Patents and Designs: Madras High Court quashes unreasoned order of Patent Office Read More »

Part 2- Khadi’s Origin and Legal Battles: Back to the Future

/ By / Geographical Indication, Trademark

Following the Part 1’s discussion on the “origin” of Khadi’s meaning under the Khaddar Act, in Part II of his two part post Subhadeep builds an argument for an interdisciplinary approach to study IP with the concept of origin as the subject matter. Subhadeep is a Doctoral Research Fellow for the European Research Council (ERC) funded “Creative IPR” project at the Department of Archaeology, Conservation and History, University of Oslo. His research interest includes histories of institutional connections of the Global

Part 2- Khadi’s Origin and Legal Battles: Back to the Future Read More »

Part 1: Khadi’s Origin and Legal Battles: Unraveling the Historical Significance

/ By / Overlaps in IP, Trademark

Discussing “Origin” as a legal concept as enshrined under different IP laws with “Khadi” as a case study, we are pleased to bring to you this very interesting historical dive by Subhadeep Chowdhury. In this post, Subhadeep discusses the recent legal battles pertaining to “Khadi” and recounts how Khadi derived its meaning (legally) in light of the Khaddar (Name Protection) Act, 1934. In Part 2, he continues from here to build an argument for an interdisciplinary approach to study IP

Part 1: Khadi’s Origin and Legal Battles: Unraveling the Historical Significance Read More »

Part II- An Empirical Analysis of ‘Scandalous’ and ‘Obscene’ Trade Marks in India

/ By / Trademark

Continuing the discussion based on empirical data around the absolute ground of refusing to register the mark for being obscene or scandalous, in Part II of their post Prof. M P Ram Mohan, Aditya Gupta, and Vijay V Venkitesh highlight the inconsistencies in the administration of Section 9(2)(c) objections by the Trade Marks Registry using empirical evidence. Prof. M P Ram Mohan is a Professor in the Strategy Area at the Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad. Aditya Gupta is a

Part II- An Empirical Analysis of ‘Scandalous’ and ‘Obscene’ Trade Marks in India Read More »

Part I- An Empirical Analysis of ‘Scandalous’ and ‘Obscene’ Trade Marks in India

/ By / Trademark

It’s with great pleasure that we bring to our readers this 2 part guest post by Prof. M P Ram Mohan, Aditya Gupta, and Vijay V Venkitesh, that dives into the question of what marks are considered scandalous and obscene in India. Long term readers will know that the absence of data-driven studies in the Indian IP landscape is something that has often been lamented on the blog (here). In that light, it is wonderful to see this study that

Part I- An Empirical Analysis of ‘Scandalous’ and ‘Obscene’ Trade Marks in India Read More »

Scroll to Top