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 other IP news.
Highlights of the Week
Changing substantive safeguards through procedural amendments. That’s perhaps the best way to summarize the recently proposed Draft Patent Amendment Rules. In this co-authored post Swaraj and Praharsh argue how the draft rules are against the spirit of some of the substantive flexibilities within the Patents Act and ignore the precedents underlying the importance of these provisions. Comments on the draft rules are invited by the ministry and are due by September 22.
The Delhi High Court recently questioned the Controller’s office regarding mechanisms for the governance of patent and trademark agents. Lokesh dives into this issue and argues that there already exists such a mechanism under Patent and Trademark law albeit mostly unused.
The recently released Declaration includes commitments on protecting Cultural Heritage and introducing Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI) in LMCs. Read this SpicyIP tidbit from Gaurangi to know more!
Continuing the SpicyIP Flashbacks series, Lokesh pored over the posts published in “Augusts” (from 2005 to the present) with some interesting anecdotes on transparency & bias, the MHRD/DPIIT IP Chairs, Counterfeit Goods, Whistleblower Act and India’s continued problems with drug regulation!
The TM Public Search and E-Register features on the IP India website will be unavailable from 10 AM to 4:30 PM starting 14 September.
The Trademarks Agent Exam is likely to take place on January 6, 2024, and the Patent Agent Exam is likely to take place on January 7, 2024.
We’re pleased to bring to you a sponsored post by UNH Franklin Pierce School of Law about its Associate Dean for Administration and Enrolment’s visit to India.
Delhi High Court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff wherein the defendant agreed to modify the packaging, colour and the writing font for its ‘Imperial Vat No. 1’ whiskey.
Delhi High Court rejected Cadila and Hetero’s application to dismiss the suit regarding Trastuzumab and Bevacizumab. The plaintiff has contended that permission for pre-clinical or clinical trial protocol and manufacturing authorization granted to the above companies for biosimilar versions of Trastuzumab and Bevacizumab should be invoked for the attempts sell of their drugs as biosimilars without conducting necessary tests. The court held that the plaintiff has a cause of action and refused to dismiss the suit.
Upholding the impugned interim order by the Bombay High Court, the Supreme Court reiterated that for establishing goodwill of the product a party must prove not only the figure of sales but also the expenses incurred in the promotion of the product and that acquiescence is a valid defence against copyright infringement.
Delhi High Court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff against 24 defendants and passed an interim injunction against 5 defendants, restraining them from using the impugned “Tak” marks which were held to be deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s “Aaj Tak” family of marks.
Delhi High Court allowed the petitioner to file a rejoinder subject to payment of INR 1 lakh as costs. The petitioner sought an adjournment to file a rejoinder, but the court observed that the petitioner has neither filed a rejoinder even after 12 years since the date of the respondent’s reply nor has approached the respondent for settlement. However, the court allowed one last opportunity to the petitioner owing to the recent developments in the fixation of tariffs/ rates.