Westward Look: Navigating the Divide between the Roles of Scientific Advisers and Expert Evidence in IP Litigation
SpicyIP | De-Coding Indian Intellectual Property Law
by Malobika Sen
23h ago
Image from here Rewind to 1492 for a moment – yes, really! Back then, understanding a Latin word ‘licet’ required the wise advice of an expert (see the paywalled reference here). Thus, the tradition of seeking expert counsel was born! We’re here to explore the juxtaposition of legal eagles and scientific advisers and the experts, waltzing through legal labyrinths faster than you can say ‘Sectumsempra‘! So, we dive into the dispute over the role of scientific advisers versus expert evidence in IP litigation. In a recent case, the English Patent Court dealt with the distinction between scientifi ..read more
Visit website
Goa Circular, Permission for Music at Weddings, Police Sensitization: Anything New? Yes.
SpicyIP | De-Coding Indian Intellectual Property Law
by Lokesh Vyas
2d ago
Image from Ducan Cumming, Flicker here Bonjour. I got you something from Goa – a circular! Yes, a circular saying that there is no need to take copyright permission for the performance of musical works at religious ceremonies/weddings/social festivals! Unsurprisingly, the same has been challenged as well, by Phonographic Performance Limited and Sonotek Cassettes Company. This brief post discusses the key elements of the current circular and underscores the previous discussion on the issue.  Goan Circular’s Sensitization of Police … While I couldn’t find the official text on the website of ..read more
Visit website
Non-literal Infringement: Clarity or Confusion?
SpicyIP | De-Coding Indian Intellectual Property Law
by SpicyIP
2d ago
Discussing the Delhi High Court’s recent interpretation of the doctrine of equivalents in SNPC Machines Private Limited & Ors. v. Mr Vishal Choudhary, we are pleased to bring to you this post by SpicyIP intern Vishno Sudheendra. Vishno is a second year law student at the NLSIU, Bangalore. His previous post can be accessed here. Image by freepikNon-literal Infringement: Clarity or Confusion? By Vishno Sudheendra The Delhi HC on 5th March 2024 pronounced an order, in SNPC Machines Private Limited & Ors. v. Mr Vishal Choudhary, which discusses a case of non-literal infringement ..read more
Visit website
An End to IP Attorneys Association’s Struggle with the Trade Mark Registry’s Portal?
SpicyIP | De-Coding Indian Intellectual Property Law
by SpicyIP
2d ago
In light of the recent orders by the Delhi High Court to resolve the problems caused by the Trademark Registry websites’ outage, we are pleased to bring to you this post by SpicyIP Intern Aarav Gupta, discussing the interim measures put in place by the Court. Aarav is a third-year law student at National Law University, Delhi. He is passionate about geopolitics, foreign policy, international trade, and intellectual property and spends his time reading and watching sports. His previous post can be accessed here. Image from hereAn End to IP Attorneys Association’s Struggle with th ..read more
Visit website
SpicyIP Weekly Review (March 18- March 24)
SpicyIP | De-Coding Indian Intellectual Property Law
by SpicyIP
2d ago
Here is our recap of last week’s top IP developments including summaries of posts on the new Patent (Amendment) Rules, and some thoughts on safeguards which can be used by intermediaries to prevent trademark infringement. Anything we are missing out on? Drop a comment below to let us know. Highlights of the Week A Patent System’s Job is to Incentivize More Innovation, Not Merely More Patents: Looking at the New Patent (Amendment) Rules- Part I Image: Sketchplanations In this two part post on the recent amendments to the Patent Rules, Swaraj and Praharsh assess the i ..read more
Visit website
Some Concerns about the Amendment Process to Key Patent Levers: A “Captured” Patent Office?
SpicyIP | De-Coding Indian Intellectual Property Law
by SpicyIP
1w ago
In light of the recent Patent (Amendment) Rules, 2024, we are pleased to bring this post by Prashant Reddy T., which was written in the context of the October ’23 draft amendments. Prashant raises questions as to the influence of business lobbying groups, and concerns regarding the then proposed changes to the Rules. Please note: in the finally published Rules (last week), the proposed change to pre-grant oppositions has been modified in the finally published version. Earlier, the controller could decide on ‘maintainability’ of whether the pre-grant could even be heard. The new changes do allo ..read more
Visit website
A Patent System’s Job is to Incentivize More Innovation, Not Merely More Patents: Looking at the New Patent (Amendment) Rules- Part II
SpicyIP | De-Coding Indian Intellectual Property Law
by Swaraj Paul Barooah
1w ago
[This post is co-authored with Praharsh.] In part I of the post we discussed the implication of the new patent amendment Rules on the obligation to file working statements and information on corresponding foreign applications to the Indian patent applications. In this part we shall discuss the implications of the Rules on Pre-grant Opposition mechanism.  Pre-grant Oppositions On the issue of pre-grant oppositions, it is to be noted and appreciated that the published rules have taken into consideration some of the critique that had been given to the earlier published draft rules. That is ..read more
Visit website
A Patent System’s Job is to Incentivize More Innovation, Not Merely More Patents: Looking at the New Patent (Amendment) Rules- Part I
SpicyIP | De-Coding Indian Intellectual Property Law
by Swaraj Paul Barooah
1w ago
[This post is co-authored with Praharsh.] Image from here Last week, the DPIIT published amendments to the Patent Rules, 2003, bringing changes to amongst other things, some important patent policy levers like working statement requirements, disclosure about corresponding foreign applications, pre-grant oppositions, etc. While there has been much vocal praise over the Rules in general, there has been surprisingly very little nuanced or critical discussion of what these changes mean to the Indian Patent Eco-system as a whole (which includes more than just patentees!)  Though some of the am ..read more
Visit website
Delhi HC in Zed Lifestyle Pvt Ltd. V. Hardik Mukeshbhai Pansheriya and Ors – a case of TM infringement and Intermediary Liability
SpicyIP | De-Coding Indian Intellectual Property Law
by Mathews P. George
1w ago
Overview of the Case The plaintiff filed an infringement suit against the defendants from using any mark which is identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s word and device mark “BEARDO”. The Court granted ex parte ad interim injunction dated 4 May 2021. The Court directed Amazon (the defendant No. 3) to remove the products of Defendants 1 and 2 from the “BEARDO STORE” webpage. The defendants 1 and 2 did not appear and the Court granted a permanent injunction by judgment dated 14 February 2024. The Court awarded costs against the defendants 1 and 2. The Court noted that the defendant ..read more
Visit website
SpicyIP Weekly Review (March 11- March 17)
SpicyIP | De-Coding Indian Intellectual Property Law
by SpicyIP
1w ago
[This SpicyIP Weekly Review is authored by Kevin Preji.  Kevin is a second-year law student at NLSIU Bangalore. His passion lies in understanding the intersection of economics and public health with intellectual property rights. His previous posts can be accessed here.] After a busy week at the blog, here is our recap of last week’s top IP developments including summaries of posts on the Patent Office’s disposal of 1500+ patent applications in one day, Delhi High Court’s decision in Interdigital v Oppo, Supreme Court’s order in the Google Adwords case, and the 2024 Patent (Amendment ..read more
Visit website

Follow SpicyIP | De-Coding Indian Intellectual Property Law on FeedSpot

Continue with Google
Continue with Apple
OR