Wondering what IP developments took place last week? Look no further as we present to you the SpicyIP Weekly Review, highlighting the discussions that took place on the blog along with with other IP news. This weekly review is authored by SpicyIP Intern Yashna Walia. Yashna is a fifth-year law student at UILS, Panjab University, Chandigarh. Her area of interest lies in IP and corporate law.
Highlights of The Week
6 Days to SpicyIP Doctoral Fellowship Applications Deadline
Attention IP Ph.D. Candidates! Does your study focus on public interest & IP, transparency & accountability issues, or socially beneficial legal & policy levers? Then check the SpicyIP call for Doctoral Fellowship!
Only 6 days left! Deadline- June 23.
A Law Student’s Account of Attending the Virtual Open Houses of the CGPDTM: Part I
To further interactions with applicants and stakeholders, in May 2023 the Indian IP Office announced the organization of Open House Sessions on weekdays. In this 2 part post, Anshuman discusses his experiences from attending three of these sessions along with his observations and takeaways. Part 1 here includes the sessions on Patents, and Designs, Copyright and GIs.
A Law Student’s Account of Attending the Virtual Open Houses of the CGPDTM: Part II
Carrying on from the earlier sessions, Part 2 here includes the sessions on Trademarks, and then Anshuman’s overall observations and takeaways.
What is Not a Method of Treatment under Section 3(i) of the Patent Act?
In February 2023, the Delhi High Court had set aside an order from the Controller, clarifying that the use of expressions like “for the treatment of” in the subject claim will not be barred under Section 3(i) of the Patent Act. In this engaging guest post, Amit Tailor discusses the order and assesses whether the finding is correct in light of Section 59.
Following on from Niyati’s post, Rahul Bajaj discusses the implications of the Delhi High Court’s order in RDB and Co HUF v. Harper Collins Publishers (Satyajit Ray -“Nayak” screenplay order) and highlights how the order challenges the established norm of “work for hire” in the film industry.
Other Posts
In a long running trademark dispute between Resilient (proprietors of Bharatpe and Postpe) and Phonepe, the Delhi High Court passed an order clarifying that intra court appeals against orders concerning rectification petition can be heard by a division bench of the same Court. Analysing the same, Shikhar elaborates on the issue of filing rectification petitions and appeals in trademark disputes.
Call for Submissions: VIIIth National CIPR Essay Competition [July 20]
We informed our readers that the Centre for Intellectual Property Rights (CIPR), National University of Advanced Legal Studies, Kochi (NUALS) is inviting contributions for its VIIIth National CIPR Essay Competition on the theme, “Intellectual Property as an Instrument for Inclusiveness and Empowerment: Promise and Possibility”.
Case Summaries
Calcutta High Court makes important observations regarding novelty, inventive step and the need for a second examination with respect to patents.
The court was hearing an appeal against the controller’s order that had rejected the subject application for lack of inventive step and novelty by relying on the same document. Setting aside the impugned order, the court clarified that the prior art document must deal with the subject invention in its entirety and that the test of novelty and obviousness are different and cannot stem from the same document. The court further clarified that mosaicing of prior arts is permissible but only when there is a common thread linking the claims with prior art obvious to a person skilled in the art. Lastly, on the issuance of the second examination report, the court emphasized that when the claims are amended, the patent office must issue a fresh second examination report.
The valuable right of litigants to amend their written statements ought not to be taken away by the Court except in cases of deliberate omission or failure.
Case: Purshotam Lal Goel And Ors v. Arvind Singh And Ors on 11 April, 2023 (Punjab and Haryana High Court)
This case was concerned with a revision petition to overturn a civil judge’s decision denying petitioner’s request to change its written statement. The petitioner-defendants contended that since the issue includes trademark infringement, they unintentionally forgot to express a jurisdictional objection in their original written declaration. The court observed that, except in circumstances of willful omission, procedural procedures should not prevent the administration of substantial justice or restrict parties’ ability to alter written statements. Considering that the trial is still in its early stages, the court gave the petitioner-defendants another chance to submit an updated written statement in exchange for paying the plaintiff’s expenses. The contested order would be reinstated if the costs were not paid.
Bombay High Court finds ‘Ultra-max’ prima-facie deceptively similar to ‘Super-Max’.
Case: Super-Max Ipr Holdings Ag v. Rkrm International Products Pvt on 6 June, 2023 (Bombay High Court)
The dispute was regarding the defendant’s use of the “Ultra-Max” mark and deceptively similar trade dress. One of the arguments raised by the plaintiff was that by using the word “Ultra” the defendant is attempting to connote that its impugned product is a superior version of the plaintiff’s “Super Max” mark. Looking at the arguments and perusing the records, the Court granted the plaintiff an ex-parte interim injunction.
Other Developments
- Centre takes down over 150 ‘anti-India’ websites, YouTube based news channels in 2 years.
- Bombay High Court Refuses To Stay Release Of ‘I Love You’ Movie In Copyright Suit
- Kari Ishad mango from Ankola gets GI tag.
- Madras High Court dismisses copyright infringement suit against director Shankar for allegedly copying “Ethiran”.
International IP Developments
- The lack of access to vaccines in African nations is another testimony to the unequal global distribution of vaccines against COVID-19.
- YouTube and Grammy-winning composer Maria Schneider resolve their dispute a day before the commencement of the copyright trial.
- The Agency for Cultural Affairs and the Cabinet Office in Japan have released an official statement stating their plans to regulate the commercial use of AI.
- A US Patent Office tribunal ruled for Intel Corp in $2.2 billion VLSI case.
- A group of 17 music publishers sued Twitter in the federal court of Tennessee for copyright violations by allowing users to post music without a license.