tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-176644722024-03-18T08:34:09.306+05:30SPICY IPAs we migrated to a new platform, subscription to SpicyIP blog has been temporarily suspended. We will intimate you about the new subscription policy very soon. We also request you to hold off on all your comments until further notice. Shamnad Basheerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07152989743112178836noreply@blogger.comBlogger2903125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17664472.post-71220739499856173252013-09-17T22:27:00.000+05:302013-09-18T15:15:07.819+05:30Guest Post: Flowers of the Trademark War <div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
SpicyIP is glad to bring our readers a guest post on trademarks and keyword advertising. Harish Goel and Ashish Goel take us through a recent decision from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales. Although belated (largely due to inadvertent delays on my side - apologies to Harish and Ashish), the decision is useful at examining the interface of trademarks and new online business strategies. Ashish Goel graduated from NUJS in 2012 and Harish Goel is reading business at XLRI-Jamshedpur. Views are personal and not of employers.</div>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
<o:AllowPNG/>
</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:TrackMoves>false</w:TrackMoves>
<w:TrackFormatting/>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:DrawingGridHorizontalSpacing>18 pt</w:DrawingGridHorizontalSpacing>
<w:DrawingGridVerticalSpacing>18 pt</w:DrawingGridVerticalSpacing>
<w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery>0</w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery>
<w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery>0</w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
<w:DontAutofitConstrainedTables/>
<w:DontVertAlignInTxbx/>
</w:Compatibility>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="276">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]-->
<!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0in;
mso-para-margin-right:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0in;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-ansi-language:EN-GB;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<!--StartFragment-->
<!--EndFragment--><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<b></b><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><b>Flowers of the Trademark War</b></b></div>
<b>
</b><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Following September 2011’s <a href="http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf;jsessionid=9ea7d0f130d5528f16b021ae49b487c6cdb01557f96a.e34KaxiLc3eQc40LaxqMbN4OahmQe0?text=&docid=109942&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=2263269">preliminary hearing</a> before the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”), the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, on May 21, handed down the much anticipated judgment in the celebrated dispute between <a href="http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2013/1291.html">Interflora and Marks & Spencer</a>. This blog has previously discussed the CJEU opinion in the context of an Indian case <a href="http://spicyipindia.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/supreme-court-grants-bharatmatrimony.html">here</a>. The litigation – which ran roughly for five years since the filing of the claim in 2008 – ended (save as to appeal) with an interesting insight by Judge Arnold into the unauthorized use of rivals’ registered trademarks in online keyword advertising. Besides, this case is an interesting read for its in-depth analysis of strategies that businesses employ to market their products and services on the internet. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Here is a quick recap of the facts of the case. Interflora (claimant) is a flower-delivery network in the UK and owns registered trademarks consisting of the word INTERFLORA. Marks & Spencer (defendant) is a renowned retailer and, like Interflora, operates a website to take orders for delivery of flowers. The judgment refers to a newsletter which suggests that INTERFLORA has been, for quite some time, a “top performing” keyword with maximum traffic in search engines and is searched for “30 times more frequently” than Marks & Spencer in the flower-delivery business. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Marks & Spencer began bidding on INTERFLORA, INTERFLORA FLOWERS and it’s other variations on Google Adwords (a service provided by Google; not a party to this case) so that its flower-delivery service gets featured on Google search engine results and, that too, at a more preferable position than its competitors, including Interflora. See <a href="http://ipwars.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Screen-Shot-2013-07-11-at-1.42.02-PM.png">here</a> for instance if you are not completely familiar with how Google Adwords works. The effect of this bidding came down heavily on Interflora’s search engine optimization (SEO) results. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The bid on the keyword INTERFLORA by Marks & Spencer for online advertisement on Google led Interflora to bring a claim against Marks & Spencer for an infringement of its UK and Community Trade Mark INTERFLORA. Clearly, Marks & Spencer was using the trademark INTERFLORA to advertise its own flower-delivery services on Google which directed Google users (consumers) searching for the keyword INTERFLORA to corresponding links to Marks & Spencer’s website and thereby creating confusion as to the provider of the flower-delivery services. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The advertisement which wrongly led Google users to believe that Marks & Spencer’s services were actually part of Interflora’s, and as Judge Arnold correctly held, defeated the origin function of trademark and offended s.5(1)(a) of the Trade Mark Directive as well as a.9(1)(a) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation. We shall seem a little to digress, but, the Indian Supreme Court too, while sitting on a special leave petition concerning Consim Info Pvt Ltd, <a href="http://spicyipindia.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/supreme-court-grants-bharatmatrimony.html">arrived at a similar finding on a similar factual situation</a>. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Judge Arnold, while revisiting one of the most important functions of trademarks, namely, indicating the origin of goods or services, rightly noted that, the use of registered trademarks is bad in law if it does not “enable reasonably well-informed and reasonably attentive internet users” to ascertain the true origin of the goods or services. For a handy analysis of the different functions of trademarks, see the CJEU ruling (above). Judge Arnold also expressed clear dissatisfaction with Marks & Spencer’s QC on the point of confusion in the minds of the majority by making a more confident yet blunt observation: “...nowadays the majority of consumers appreciate this (<i>referring to brand adverts on Google search engines</i>). But I consider that a significant proportion do not.” </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
While concurring with the views of the CJEU, Judge Arnold placed due reliance on the strong commercial network within which Interflora operates: the company has business tie-ups with several large retailers and other market agents, who trade under their own names and trademarks. This fact was of great significance in establishing infringement because, to quote Judge Arnold, “this makes it all the more plausible that there should be a connection between M & S’s (<i>Marks & Spencer</i>) flower delivery service and the Interflora network.” </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This was further corroborated by the Hitwise Custom Report that contained statistics relating to the visitors to Marks & Spencer’s website and what their responses were. The emphasis on Interflora’s commercial network is, of course, entirely appropriate in principle. But Judge Arnold failed to suggest standard practice for advertisers while competitive brand-bidding on Google Adwords.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
If we read the full opinion of the CJEU and that of Judge Arnold, we will naturally notice that the purchase and subsequent use of rivals’ trademarks in keyword advertising (on online search engines) is not objectionable <i>per se</i> and, in fact, encourages competitive behaviour. However, the onus is on the advertiser to ensure that steps have been taken to remove all doubts from the minds of consumers and that the “advertisement is transparent as to the origin of the goods or services advertised in it.” </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This will always entail a dreary discussion on reported facts and evidence. Nonetheless, it is interesting to note, even on a cautionary note, that Judge Arnold does not set out universal principles relating to keyword advertising and this ruling may have little relevance to cases where the proprietor of the trademark follows a business model completely different from that of Interflora. We shall have to wait for future decisions to fill the void.</div>
</div>
Swaraj Paul Barooahhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11334591226213864204noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17664472.post-62712753283721746232013-09-17T22:24:00.004+05:302013-09-17T22:24:31.527+05:30Call for Papers: Indian Journal of Law and Technology, student-run journal of NLSIU, Bangalore<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.letmeknow.in/images/newentries/IJLT_%20Logo1100.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.letmeknow.in/images/newentries/IJLT_%20Logo1100.png" /></a></div>
<br /><b>The Indian Journal of Law and Technology is pleased to invite submissions for its 10th Volume due to be published in 2014</b><br /><br /><b>The Journal</b><br /><br />The Indian Journal of Law and Technology (IJLT) is a student-run open-access law journal published annually by the National Law School of India University, Bangalore, India (NLSIU). <br /><br />We take pride in the fact that IJLT is the first and only law journal in India devoted exclusively to the law and technology interface. Previous issues have featured articles by distinguished authors such as the Hon. Mr. Justice Kirby, William Patry, Yochai Benkler, Donald S. Chisum, His Lordship Justice Mr. Muralidhar, Benjamin Edelman, Gavin Sutter, Raymond T. Nimmer, John Frow, Christoph Antons, Lawrence Liang and Shamnad Basheer. The journal is presently indexed on the Westlaw, HeinOnline, the Legal Information Institute of India and Manupatra databases.<br /><br /><b>Submission Guidelines</b><br /><br />Issues/Scope: We welcome submissions dealing with any broad area of law and technology. We have previously carried submissions and invite submissions in the areas of: <div>
<br /><ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>hard and soft intellectual property rights </li>
<li>data protection </li>
<li>cloud computing, </li>
<li>pharmaceuticals and access to medicines, </li>
<li>intermediary liability, </li>
<li>privacy rights, </li>
<li>free-speech and openness, </li>
<li>telecommunications policy and regulation, </li>
<li>media and entertainment law in the digital age, </li>
<li>technology, innovation and competition </li>
</ul>
<br />This list is merely illustrative and we are happy to discuss other areas of interest as well. We generally encourage submissions with a developing country perspective or a comparative approach that benefits the developing world.<br /><br /><b>Word limit and footnoting style: </b><br /><br />A submission may fall within any of the following categories: <br />Articles (5,000-15,000 words) <br />Short Articles (5,000 words); and <br />Essays (3,000 words). <br /><br />The above limits are exclusive of footnotes. We are also open to discussing potential submissions that are substantially longer or shorter. Please get in touch with us for further information and to discuss any such proposals you may have. However, please note that we do not accept unsolicited book reviews.<br /><br />Any footnoting style may be adopted as long as it is internally consistent. <br /><br /><b>Plagiarism</b><br /><br />We only accept previously unpublished submissions. All submissions will be subject to a plagiarism check.<br /><br /><b>Deadlines:</b><br /><br />Although we accept submissions on a rolling basis, the first deadline for submissions will be December 15th, 2013. We will announce further deadlines on a necessity basis.<br /><b><br />Format of Submissions:</b><br />Please send in your submissions in MS Word (*.doc or *.docx) or Open Office (*.odt) to <a href="mailto:editorialboard@ijlt.in">editorialboard@ijlt.in</a> with a copy marked to <a href="mailto:ijltedit@gmail.com">ijltedit@gmail.com</a> along with the following information:<br /><br /><ul style="text-align: left;">
<li> Name</li>
<li><br /></li>
<li>· Institution</li>
<li><br /></li>
<li>· Position / Year of Study</li>
<li><br /></li>
<li>· Author contact information</li>
<li><br /></li>
<li>· An abstract of not more than 200 words</li>
</ul>
<br />Please feel free to browse our website (<a href="http://www.ijlt.in/">www.ijlt.in</a>) or to contact us at <a href="mailto:editorialboard@ijlt.in">editorialboard@ijlt.in</a> for more information. We look forward to receiving your submissions.<br /><br />Best Regards,<br /><br />The Editorial Board<br />Indian Journal of Law and Technology.</div>
</div>
L. Gopikahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11665798336273844385noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17664472.post-77248599348699225592013-09-16T14:58:00.000+05:302013-09-16T15:01:54.005+05:30Framing debates on IP - Part III <div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This is third and final part on "Framing debates on IP & Health". <a href="http://spicyipindia.blogspot.in/2013/09/framing-debates-on-ip-health-part-i.html" target="_blank">Part I</a> and<a href="http://spicyipindia.blogspot.in/2013/09/framing-debates-on-ip-health-part-ii.html" target="_blank"> Part II</a> can be accessed by clicking on the links above. I want to use this series to argue that the manner in which IP debates are framed in the health context, play a large role in claim-staking, even if the claims used are ones that <i>ought</i> to have <i>no role</i> in IP policy. Further, that this manner of framing is more useful to the traditional 'access' side of the debate than it is to the 'innovator' side - and that despite being more useful to one side, <b><i>this can help in balancing the debate.</i></b> There is nothing new per se about these arguments but with the recent rise in discussion over compulsory licenses, human rights, international agreements and IP standards, I thought an articulation of these arguments would be useful. [Disclaimer: Long post ahead]</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Part I argues that "human rights" based claims do not add any value to the analytical framework of patents and public health. Part II then goes on to argue that Corporations benefitting from IP based rents influence IP policy more than other affected stakeholders. </div>
<h4 style="text-align: justify;">
[ Claim 3: Framing IP debates in concepts external to the IP framework is required to advance the aims internal to the IP framework ] </h4>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEglIb5eeQhG98NOxqx2r0_v0BtuYHdww4_FDvhGjRA0KpZRx-IA7d4r9VF9LUFHpqi5lqjZUEQQC5w7TUdEAYTut0YCzsuNvI-FO4FPDLCsTUxSFFeJXeRpjUQg56Gu5EEmIbEu/s1600/broken-glasses.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="203" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEglIb5eeQhG98NOxqx2r0_v0BtuYHdww4_FDvhGjRA0KpZRx-IA7d4r9VF9LUFHpqi5lqjZUEQQC5w7TUdEAYTut0YCzsuNvI-FO4FPDLCsTUxSFFeJXeRpjUQg56Gu5EEmIbEu/s320/broken-glasses.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Frames matter</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I argue in <a href="http://spicyipindia.blogspot.in/2013/09/framing-debates-on-ip-health-part-i.html" target="_blank">Part I</a> that the theoretical justification for patent rights demands that social welfare losses are minimized as far as possible while maximizing social welfare gains - that this encourages new drug discovery while minimizing the harms caused by pricing people out of medicines. Thus discussing human rights or related 'rights' doesn't add anything useful or new to the analytical framework examining the tradeoffs that the patent system brings with it. Further, despite all the rhetoric, that HR based claims are decidedly <b>not </b>in conflict with patent rights, since <b>ideal patent rights aim towards maximizing social welfare. </b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
However, as shown in <a href="http://spicyipindia.blogspot.in/2013/09/framing-debates-on-ip-health-part-ii.html" target="_blank">Part II</a>, there is a gap between ideal theory and practical application. IP Policy is predisposed to being influenced more severely by Corporations which stand to benefit from strong IP policy, than it is to being influenced by other stakeholders regardless of whose welfare interests are more aligned with the maximization of social welfare. In other words, while the justification for IP<i> as a concept</i> is that it has a social welfare maximizing function, <b>IP<i> rights</i> are not, have not and presumably can not be defined so as to <i>necessitate</i> maximization of social welfare.</b> </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Amongst other things, the perfect transformation of the concept of IP into a legal provision(s) would require a thorough analysis of the purchasing ability of the relevant market (patients) and the costs required to incentivize new drugs. However, the transaction costs involved in determining these costs make such determination impractical. Therefore 'next best' solutions / guesses are made towards determining how to define the right in question. For e.g., Does anyone know why 20 years was decided to be the best term duration for all patents regardless of field of technology? (Not a rhetorical question - I would actually like to hear whether this was a randomly decided number or whether there was actually <i>some</i> rationale to it). Without knowing the rationale for this 20 year period, does it make any sense to discuss patent term extensions? What if exclusion rights can be granted for a total of 25 years without any substantial harm on consumers along with what is clearly a bigger incentive for new drugs? What if 14 years is the threshold after which exclusion rights cause more social welfare losses than gains? Similarly, how broad should a patent be? What are the effects on overall social welfare gains if we allow minor incremental innovation patents - and if we dont? However, with questions like this requiring much evidence and study, good estimates need to be made. Or at least aspired towards. And here is the issue:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<ul>
<li>Patent rights cannot be defined so as to necessitate maximization of social welfare, despite this being their function. </li>
<li>Patent rights can also be <i>used</i> to receive lucrative rents by certain parties. </li>
<li>And these parties end up having more of a say than others in determining how patent rights can be defined. </li>
</ul>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
To be clear, this means that the voices of those who do not benefit from lucrative rents from IP are not contributing equally to this policy guessing game. i.e., there are claims on the 'access' side which are not getting their due.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
This is where the framing of IP debates becomes important. While costs for R&D, rates of innovation, amount of patients being priced out due to exclusion rights, etc <i>can </i>technically be studied to some degree at least, it is very difficult to get a hold of this information and wield it with any real power or legitimacy. With one stakeholder having a louder voice in an arena where 'next best' estimates become policy, it becomes <i>necessary</i> to provide other stakeholders with similar platforms to voice themselves - and this is where 'rights' based claims can play a major role. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Human rights, while technically irrelevant to the analytical framework of patents and public health, has already been established as a legitimate (independent) claim / set of claims, cause and impetus for action across the world. It therefore has a strong potential to serve as a tool which the 'access' side of the debate can use to put their voice on a similar platform to the one currently occupied by the 'innovator' side. That is to say, <b>it can be used as a very good proxy for achieving what an ideal patent system <i>ought</i> to be providing but isn't.</b> Importantly, a new vehicle for voicing 'access' claims doesn't reduce the power that the innovator claims currently enjoy over IP policy. Rather, by shifting over to a more favourable conceptual terrain, such claims are able to level the playing field for the patent terrain, to a certain extent at least. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The early 2000s onwards have seen plenty of 'human rights' based claims being used on domestic stages as well as international stages, centered around the argument that human rights are being sacrificed for the sake of patents. As I've explained already, this is simply not true. Human rights are not involved in the tradeoff that patents are involved in. However, it is usually true that human rights are being affected (causation - correlation difference) by <i>bad / biased</i> patent policy - not by the existence of patents. </div>
<div>
This is a seemingly minor difference but it lends a lot more credibility to human rights claims if their claimants recognize the difference here. It is much easier to brush away 'right to health' claims when you can simply say that the activist doesn't understand that patents are necessary and is only thinking of short term benefits rather than long term / overall good. If, on the other hand, such claims are buttressed by evidence (or at least arguments) of <i>bad</i> patent policy, then it becomes clear that human rights<i> and overall social welfare</i> is being negatively affected by <i>bad </i>patent policy. An equally important reason to maintain this difference is that jurisprudence of patent policy gets warped if patents per se are viewed as being in conflict with human rights. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Therefore we have:</div>
<div>
a) Human rights claims which are analytically incorrect claims to make against bad patent policy </div>
<div>
but strategically and conceptually much stronger points on their own.</div>
<div>
b) Balanced patent policy claims which are analytically correct </div>
<div>
but much harder and costlier to engage convincingly with. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
It becomes clear that these two types of arguments need to be used simultaneously to be most effective. It should also be noted that I have been referring to human rights claims so far but different frames of reference can also be used to bring IP debates within different conceptual terrains. For example, as pointed out in <a href="http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/losing-ground-to-big-pharma-bit-by-bit/article5097623.ece" target="_blank">this article</a>, defining 'investments' to include patents in a bilateral investment treaty (BIT) technically allows foreign patent holders to bring a dispute before privately appointed investment arbitrators if the host country grants a compulsory license on that patented product as it could be seen as expropriation! The conceptual terrain that a dispute is brought within clearly plays an important role in how the dispute is settled. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Coincidentally, just last week, the Global Health Justice Partnership at Yale University put out an excellent paper on the methods through which the Human Rights approach could be useful in the IP and access to medicines conversation. As this post has gone on long enough already, I'll just briefly mention the 4 methods they put forward and leave a <a href="http://media.wix.com/ugd/148599_c76ed6f7341fa426bc22f5ccf543ea04.pdf" target="_blank">link to the paper here</a> for those interested in reading more. </div>
<div>
<ul>
<li>Domestic courts have been seen to be more willing to directly enforce human rights arguments in the national level. Thus raising these arguments in national courts are viewed as the most promising approach with the most likelihood of of providing 'real access'. </li>
<li>The international human rights system (through provisions affecting with access to medicine as mentioned in various international treaties) provide a good platform for helping to develop and globalize favorable legal norms. Such norms would particularly be valuable in educating and reinforcing the resolve of local institutions that seek to address barriers to access to medicines.</li>
<li>The 'moral power' of human rights can be used to target corporate conduct - corporates which have historically been seen to not have obligations or directly fall under human rights norms. This could be used to concretize norms on pharmaceuticals moral and legal obligations. </li>
<li>A process-oriented advantage that a human rights approach might provide is the fostering of solidarity and formation of alliances (such as south-south alliances) to help generate leverage against common causes such as regressive FTAs. </li>
</ul>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">[Relevant readings:</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">- A Human Rights Approach to Intellectual Property and Access to Medicines - Global Health Justice Partnership. Available <a href="http://media.wix.com/ugd/148599_c76ed6f7341fa426bc22f5ccf543ea04.pdf" target="_blank">here</a>. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">- Access to Knowledge Mobilization and the New Politics of IP - Amy Kapczynski. Available <a href="http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4296&context=fss_papers" target="_blank">here</a>. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">- Theories of IP - Terry Fisher. Available <a href="http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/tfisher/iptheory.pdf" target="_blank">here</a>] </span></div>
</div>
Swaraj Paul Barooahhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11334591226213864204noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17664472.post-39345553714665540352013-09-16T12:27:00.000+05:302013-09-16T12:27:37.967+05:30The Dasatinib compulsory license conundrum <div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">The anticancer meds “nibs” (including Imatinib, Sunitinib, and Dasatinib) have always been mired in controversy. Recently Dasatinib made news when the </span><a href="http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2013-09-12/news/42011558_1_dasatinib-compulsory-licence-sprycel" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">economic times</a><span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"> reported that “T</span><i style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">he Indian Patent Office has rejected Mumbai-based BDR Pharmaceutical's application for compulsory licence on cancer drug Dasatinib, according to an affidavit filed by Bristol Myers Squibb, the patent holder for the drug.</i><span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">” This post aims to explore whether the CL application has indeed been rejected.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://pimg.tradeindia.com/01553280/b/1/Dasatinib-70mg-Tablets.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img alt="" border="0" height="320" src="http://pimg.tradeindia.com/01553280/b/1/Dasatinib-70mg-Tablets.jpg" title="" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Image from <a href="http://pimg.tradeindia.com/01553280/b/1/Dasatinib-70mg-Tablets.jpg" target="_blank">here</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<b><div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>CL application by BDR u/s 84 – The patent office decision</b></div>
</b><div style="text-align: justify;">
Earlier around March this year, BDR had made an application for compulsory license of Dasatinib. Readers may recall that Shamnad had extensively covered this development in his post <a href="http://spicyipindia.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-bdr-compulsory-licensing.html">here</a>. Prashant had captured subsequent developments in his post <a href="http://spicyipindia.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-bdr-compulsory-licensing.html">here.</a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<b><div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Quick review of the timeline of events:</b></div>
</b><ul>
<li style="text-align: justify;">On May 04, 2013, BDR received a notice from the patent office intimating that a prima facie case for CL u/s 84 has not been made. </li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">Then on May 13, BDR requested hearing in accordance with Rue 97(1). </li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">A notice for hearing was issued by patent office on May 23. On May 23 BDR also filed a petition under 137 for condonation of delay in complying with prima facie case requirements.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">Subsequently on June 24, BDR submitted “written submissions” </li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">On July 10, correspondences indicating related to Voluntary license of Dasatinib was submitted to the patent office.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">On July 15, BDR filed another petition to condone delay in complying with procedural formalities and requested that the evidence regarding voluntary license be taken on record. They also requested a hearing regarding this.</li>
</ul>
</span><span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Rule 97 of the patent act states “<i>When a prima facie case is not made out.- </i></div>
<i><div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>(1) If, upon consideration of the evidence, the Controller is satisfied that a prima facie case has not been made out for the making of an order under any of the sections referred to in rule 96, he shall notify the applicant accordingly, and unless the applicant requests to be heard in the matter, within one month from the date of such notification, the Controller shall refuse the application.”</i></div>
</i></span><i style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>(2) If the applicant requests for a hearing within the time allowed under subrule (1), the Controller shall, after giving the applicant an opportunity of being heard, determine whether the application may be proceeded with or whether it shall be refused.</i>”</div>
</i><span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
At this stage, the hearing on whether a prima facie case has been made is still pending at the patent office. The patent office will conclusively determine whether the CL application is accepted or refused based on the hearing. Obviously the affidavit which suggests that the CL application has been rejected is erroneous. As the <a href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/Bristol-Myers-misleading-HC-in-patent-case/articleshow/22568901.cms">TOI reports</a>, a final decision regarding the CL u/s 84 is expected on Sept 16.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<b><div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>What about CL u/s 92?</b></div>
</b><div style="text-align: justify;">
Meanwhile the Govt is planning to issue a compulsory license (under Section 92) to Natco and BDR as reported by Times of India over <a href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/Bristol-Myers-misleading-HC-in-patent-case/articleshow/22568901.cms">here</a>. Dasatinib was one of three drugs selected by Govt for Compulsory license under Section 92 route (we had blogged about it over <a href="http://spicyipindia.blogspot.com/2013/01/dipp-to-issue-cls-for-herceptin.html">here</a> and <a href="http://spicyipindia.blogspot.com/2013/01/guest-post-examining-recently-announced.html">here</a>). </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Does the controller have discretionary power in case of CL u/s 92?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Section 92 (1) (i) the patents act provides that “<i>the <b>Controller shall on application made at any time after the notification by any person interested</b> grant to the applicant a licence under the patent on such terms and conditions as he thinks fit</i>”</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So unlike a CL u/s 84, in case of CL u/s 92 it is necessary for the Controller to grant a CL after the Central Govt notification and upon application by an interested person. I don’t think the Controller has power to exercise his discretion, although the terms and condition of the license may be decided by him.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It would be interesting to see which route is finally adopted for Compulsory license of Dasatinib. We will keep you posted!</div>
</span>Madhulika Vishwanathanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08933308846808925545noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17664472.post-19764017985933055772013-09-15T23:55:00.003+05:302013-09-15T23:55:46.993+05:30UK High Court decision involving patentable subject matter - computer programs<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://fc08.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2010/292/c/1/c___code_wallpaper_by_sethreneneon-d312p6q.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://fc08.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2010/292/c/1/c___code_wallpaper_by_sethreneneon-d312p6q.jpg" width="212" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Century Gothic","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">The U.K. High Court (Chancery
Division, Patents Court) in a recent <a href="http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2013/2673.html" target="_blank">decision</a> has rejected a claim that
software that enables data to be transferred from one computer on which the
data is stored, to another machine connected remotely is patentable. This decision is important as the UK patent
law has language similar to the Indian patent law as relates to patentability
of “computer software”, and because the decision clarifies the procedure to be
used while determining a technical effect.
The discussion is divided into two parts. This post discusses the UK decision and a subsequent post would discuss the application of this decision in the Indian context. Long post (part 1/2) follows.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Century Gothic","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b><span style="font-family: "Century Gothic","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">Background<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Century Gothic","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">Lantana Ltd. had applied to the U.K.
Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) for a patent related to an
"electronic data retrieval system" involving the transfer of data
between two different computers. At a hearing
involving the patentabilty of Lantana’s application, a UKIPO officer rejected
Lantana's application as the claimed subject matter of the invention was not
patentable. The rejection was made on
the ground that the claimed subject matter related to "<u>a computer
program as such</u>". Lantana
appealed to the UK High Court on the ground that the UKIPO officer had erred in
considering the invention as not patentable.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Century Gothic","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">Claim 1 from Lantana’s (UK
application) is reproduced below:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Century Gothic","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">Claim 1 (key parts highlighted):<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Century Gothic","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;">An
electronic data retrieval system comprising a local station, a remote station,
a packet switched network to provide a transmission path between the local
station and the remote station, and a machine-readable data storage device
storing retrievable data files including machine-readable data representing at
least one of a visual product and an audio product,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Century Gothic","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;">wherein
said local station includes:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 72pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Century Gothic","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;">a data store storing a plurality of <b>machine-readable data retrieval criteria
identifying data files among said retrievable data files stored at said
machine-readable data storage device to be retrieved</b>;<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Century Gothic","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;">a packet
switched network interface connected to said packet switched network;<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 72pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Century Gothic","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;">a user interface co-operable with
said data store and interactable with a user, to enable selection by the user
of one or more machine-readable data retrieval criteria; and<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 72pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Century Gothic","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;">an electronic processor configured
to produce, in response to the selection by the user of the one or more
machine-readable data retrieval criteria, <b>a
first e-mail message including the selected one or more machine-readable data
retrieval criteria together with a machine-readable instruction for retrieving
data files, </b>among said retrievable data files stored at said
machine-readable data storage device, using the selected machine-readable data
retrieval criteria, and to send the first email message to the remote station
via said packet switched network interface and said packet switched network;<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Century Gothic","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;">wherein said
remote station includes:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 72pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Century Gothic","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;">a packet
switched network interface connected to said packet switched network to receive
the first e-mail message from the packet switched network;<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 108pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Century Gothic","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;">a filter adapted to parse the first
e-mail message to determine whether the first e-mail message includes any
machine-readable instruction and any data retrieval criteria; and<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 108pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Century Gothic","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;">an <b>electronic processor to execute the first machine-readable instruction</b>,
and upon execution of the machine-readable instruction and in accordance with
the <b>selected machine-readable data
retrieval criterion</b>, <b>retrieve the
one or more required data files among said retrievable data files stored at
said machine-readable data storage device from the machine-readable data
storage device</b>, produce one or more second e-mail messages, the one or more
second e-mail messages including the retrieved one or more data files as one or
more attachments, and send to said local station, via the packet switched
network interface of the remote station, and the packet switched network, the
one or more e-mail messages and one or more attachments.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Century Gothic","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">This claim may be summarized as
follows: A user retrieves data from machine B, connected via a packet switched
network, from a machine A - using an
email message that contains machine B readable instructions to retrieve the
data. The email is sent from machine A
and machine B emails the results / data to machine B.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b><span style="font-family: "Century Gothic","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">Applicable
Law<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Century Gothic","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">Under European patent law, and UK patent
law (as applied) an invention involving a computer program is patentable if it
has a "technical contribution".
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Century Gothic","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">Under Section 1 (2) of the (UK) Patents
Act 1977, certain exclusions to patentability are provided. Section 1(2) of the UK patent act implements
Article 52 of the European Patent Convention.
Under the UK patent law, to qualify for a patent, the invention must be (1)
new, (2) have an inventive step (or not obvious), and (3) be useful to the industry.
However, like section 3 of the Indian patent
act, under the UK patent law under section 1(2), an invention cannot be
patented, if it is " a discovery, scientific theory, mathematical method,
..schemes, rules, methods for performing mental acts, …<u>programs for computers</u>.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Century Gothic","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Century Gothic","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">Patentability of computer programs,
had before Lantana’s case, been heard in the UK Court of Appeals in <a href="http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2013/451.html" target="_blank">HTC v Apple</a>
case. The HTC v Apple case reviewed the
existing case law in the UK including <u><a href="http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2006/1371.html" target="_blank">Aerotel Ltd</a> v Telco Holdings Ltd</u>; <u><a href="http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2008/1066.html" target="_blank">Symbian</a>
v Comptroller-General of Patents</u> and the guidelines issued by the European
Patent Office. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Century Gothic","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">According to the case as discussed,
under UK patent law, to determine whether there is technical effect, the four
stage approach (as provided under <a href="http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2006/1371.html" target="_blank">Aerotel</a>) to determine technical effect is :<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Century Gothic","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">i)
properly construe the claim;<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Century Gothic","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">ii)
identify the actual contribution;<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Century Gothic","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">iii)
ask whether it falls solely within the excluded subject matter;<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Century Gothic","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">iv)
check whether the actual or alleged contribution is actually technical in
nature.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Century Gothic","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">The judge also considered signposts (provided in <a href="http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2009/343.html" target="_blank">AT&T Knowledge Ventures</a>)that may indicate whether there is any technical effect:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Century Gothic","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">i)
whether the claimed technical effect has a technical effect on a process which
is carried on outside the computer;<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Century Gothic","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">ii)
whether the claimed technical effect operates at the level of the architecture
of the computer, that is to say whether the effect is produced irrespective of
the data being processed or the applications being run;<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Century Gothic","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">iii)
whether the claimed technical effect results in the computer being made to
operate in a new way /<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Century Gothic","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">iv)
whether the program makes the computer a better computer in the sense of
running more efficiently and effectively as a computer;<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Century Gothic","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">v)
whether the perceived problem is overcome by the invention as opposed to merely
being circumvented.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b><span style="font-family: "Century Gothic","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">Issue<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Century Gothic","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">The UK IPO officer rejected
Lantana’s claim as it claimed <u>programs for computers</u> and that there was
no <u>technical effect of the Lantana’s computer program. </u>Lantan appealed arguing that the UKIPO
officer had misapplied the law.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b><span style="font-family: "Century Gothic","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">Arguments<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Century Gothic","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">Lantana argued that the
invention claimed had <u>technical effect</u>.
Lantana argued that the EPO decision in IBM CORP <b>T6/83</b> held that a method of communication between programs and
files held at different processors within a known network was patentable. However, the judge did not accept this
argument stating that what was patentable in 1988 <b>does not mean that any method of communicating between programs and
files on different computers over a network necessarily involves a technical
contribution today</b>.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Century Gothic","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">The judge also considered the
factors involved in determining technical effect and found that they did not
assist Lantana. The judge held … “[However] the fact the claim is novel and
inventive is not the determinant of whether it satisfies Art 52 EPC
(requirements for patentability). Being
novel and inventive is not what takes a contribution outside the excluded area
nor is it what makes an effect or contribution "technical".<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b><span style="font-family: "Century Gothic","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">Analysis<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Century Gothic","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">Lantana
relied on the following four effects:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Century Gothic","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">(i)
telecommunications messages are generated by computers forming part of a
telecommunications network, and transmitted from one computer to another over
the network;<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Century Gothic","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">(ii)
one computer remotely controls the processing performed by another via a
telecommunications network;<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Century Gothic","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">(iii)
the result of this remote control is the transmission of files and information
from the remote computer over a telecommunications network to the local
computer;<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Century Gothic","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">(iv)
this remote control and transmission is achieved in a manner which does not
require a continuous connection between the two computers.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Century Gothic","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">The
judge considered all four and found that the first effect did not help Lantana
as the invention involved … “communication between two computers over the
internet, and everything is going on inside the computer. Lantana claimed that the second effect
involved one computer remotely controls another. The judge did not accept this argument and
rather held that it was one computer is sending an email message to another. Similarly, the third effect – remote control
over a telecommunications network – was rejected by the judge as it was nothing
new. Similarly, for the third effect –
that it common (at the time of Lantana’s invention) that files or information
are transferred from one computer to another over a telecommunications network. With respect to the fourth effect, the UKIPO
officer held that the use of email was merely circumventing the problem and not
solving it, and the judge accepted it. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Century Gothic","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">The judge considered the five
signposts and held that the Lantana’s application had no technical effect. The first sign post did not help Lantana as
the operation was inside the computer.
The second did not help Lantana as the program did not operate at the
architecture level. Rather, the data is
retrieved remotely by piggy-backing on the operation of an e-mail application. The
judge distinguished the case of Symbian where a computer program was patentable
because it allowed a computer to operate on other programs faster. The third did not either because there was no
new way of operation. The fourth
signpost also did not help because neither of the two computers or the network
being intrinsically was more reliable as a result of Lantana’s program. The final signpost did not help as Lantana tried
to circumvent the problem.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Century Gothic","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Century Gothic, sans-serif;">The key take away from this case is that for a claim to be patentable in the UK, it must be novel, inventive, useful and have technical effect.</span></div>
</div>
Rajiv Kr. Choudhryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14943298799006833842noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17664472.post-83425841774830429042013-09-13T22:39:00.001+05:302013-09-13T22:39:35.726+05:30SpicyIP Tidbit: 'Grand Masti' restrained<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
It has come to our attention, courtesy Ms. Abhilasha Niroola, that the makers of the newly released Bollywood film 'Grand Masti' have been <a href="http://zeenews.india.com/entertainment/movies/grand-masti-makers-restrained-from-using-icici-bank-name_142421.htm%5D">restrained</a> by the Delhi High Court from using the name and banner of 'ICICI Bank' in its movie, vide an <i>ex parte </i>order. The order was sought by ICICI banks on the ground that 'ICICI Bank' was a registered trademark, the trailer of the movie showed the name and banner of the bank in the context of a bank robbery in a manner which portrayed the bank and its staff in a poor light and this was done without taking the prior permission of the bank. The Court, along with the <i>ex parte </i>order also issued notice to the director and producer of the movie.<br />
<br />
This is not the first time Bollywood has been accused of violating intellectual property rights. Two prominent controversies in the past have been the Zandu balm <a href="http://spicyipindia.blogspot.in/2010/09/no-zandu-balm-for-dabangg.html">controversy</a> and the Hamara Bajaj <a href="http://spicyipindia.blogspot.in/2013/04/hamara-bajaj-infringement-of-trademark.html">controversy</a>. The arguments in the Zandu balm case was solely on the grounds of copyright infringement while in Hamara Bajaj, both copyright and trademark infringement was claimed. The case for trademark infringement in the Hamara Bajaj case was on two levels:<i> firstly, </i>that the film makers were capitalizing on the investments made by trademark owners such as Bajaj and <i>secondly, </i>that the brand value of Bajaj would possibly be adversely affected if the film does not do well at the box office.<br />
<br />
The second argument is applicable in the instant case as well. The fact that video clips from the movie show ICICI Bank and its staff in a poor light could possibly be detrimental to the brand value of ICICI. However, the question of whether trademark protection can/ should be claimed to the extent of absolute protection from even using the mark in a descriptive manner, beyond its conventional objective of preventing consumer confusion remains.</div>
L. Gopikahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11665798336273844385noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17664472.post-85678706355452465872013-09-13T21:39:00.000+05:302013-09-13T21:39:24.854+05:30Update on Enercon's Patent Litigation<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.cecilw.com/photo/albums/Outdoors/9793_windmills.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="240" src="http://www.cecilw.com/photo/albums/Outdoors/9793_windmills.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Image from <a href="http://www.cecilw.com/photo/albums/Outdoors/9793_windmills.jpg">here</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Recently, the remaining 7 revocation petitions filed by Enercon India Ltd. (EIL) against Aloys Wobben’s patents were heard by the new bench of the IPAB. Prashant has tracked this dispute <a href="http://spicyipindia.blogspot.in/2010/10/madras-high-court-dismisses-dr-wobbens.html">her</a>e,<a href="http://spicyipindia.blogspot.in/2012/01/dr-wobben-loses-appeal-revocation.html"> here</a>, <a href="http://spicyipindia.blogspot.in/2011/01/ipab-knocks-down-12-patents-of-dr-alloy.html">here</a>, <a href="http://spicyipindia.blogspot.in/2011/02/lending-indian-perspective-to-enercon.html">here</a>, <a href="http://spicyipindia.blogspot.in/2011/02/enercon-gmbh-admits-to-invalid-patents.html">here</a>, and <a href="http://spicyipindia.blogspot.in/2012/01/dr-wobben-loses-appeal-revocation.html">here</a>. Enercon India has been represented by Mr. Parthasarthy, Senior Partner at Lakshmi Kumaran & Sreedharan. The Respondent is represented by Mr. Pravin Anand, Senior Partner at Anand and Anand.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
As previously noted, the IPAB heard 19 revocation petitions filed by Enercon India Ltd. against Dr. Aloys Wobben’s patents. A bench of the IPAB, consisting of Mr. S. Chandrasekharan sitting as Technical Member and Ms. S. Usha sitting as Judicial Member, revoked 12 patents. These 12 orders have been challenged by Dr. Wobben by writ petitions before the Madras High Court. Sources have informed us that these writ petitions are still pending before the Madras High Court. On 26th August, 2013, the hearing on the preliminary point i.e. power of IPAB to look into the validity of the board resolution has been concluded and it seems that the court will bifurcate the issues into preliminary issues and merits and decide only the preliminary points now. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The remaining 7 revocation petitions were to be heard after the appointment of a new technical member. Recently, a new bench consisting of Justice Prabha Sridevan (Judicial Member) and Mr. DPS Parmer (Technical Member) heard the matter and revoked 6 patents of Aloys Wobben, in their entirety. With regard 7th patent, the bench allowed the patentee to amend the application subject to the approval of the controller of patents. Patents were revoked as the IPAB found them to be anticipated and obvious. The IPAB dismissed the application for amendment of other patents by the Respondent because of their conduct which included a belated request for amendment. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The details of these 7 revocations are: </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
1. <a href="http://www.ipab.tn.nic.in/174-2013.htm">Patent No.200249 </a>granted to Dr. Wobben for the invention titled “A wind power installation and process for the operation of the same” revoked in ORA/39/2009/PT/CH Order No. 174/2013 dated 8th August 2013. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
2. <a href="http://www.ipab.tn.nic.in/160-2013.htm">Patent No. 202935</a> granted to Dr. Wobben for the invention titled “Wind power installation with ring generator” revoked in ORA/10/2009/PT/CH Order No. 160 of 2013 dated 27th July, 2013. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
3. <a href="http://www.ipab.tn.nic.in/157-2013.htm">Patent No: 201538</a> granted to Dr. Wobben for the invention titled “A method for operating a wind turbine with an electrical generator and a wind turbine with an electrical generator” revoked in ORA/41/2009/PT/CH Order No. 157/2013 dated 19th July, 2013. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
4. <a href="http://www.ipab.tn.nic.in/123-2013.htm">Patent No: 203552</a> granted to Dr. Wobben for an the invention titled “Method for monitoring a Sensor” revoked in ORA/8/2009/PT/CH Order No. 123/2013 dated 12th June, 2013. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
5. <a href="http://www.ipab.tn.nic.in/109-2013.htm">Patent No.200608</a> granted to Dr. Wobben for the invention titled “A Wind Power Installation” revoked in ORA/7/2009/PT/CH Order No. 109/2013 dated 31st May, 2013. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
6. <a href="http://www.ipab.tn.nic.in/054-2013.htm">Patent No.196341</a> granted to Dr. Wobben for the invention titled “A Device for transmitting Electrical Energy From a Generator” revoked in ORA/3/2009/PT/CH Order No. 054/2013 dated 22nd March, 2013. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
7. <a href="http://www.ipab.tn.nic.in/018-2013.htm">Patent No.198648</a> granted to Dr. Wobben for the invention titled “An inverter for producing an alternating or three phase current from a DC voltage” ORA/6/2009/PT/CH Order No. 018/2013 dated 23rd January, 2013 (originally granted patent revoked but allowed to amend subject to approval by controller). </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Additionally, we have been informed that EIL has filed 28 other revocation applications before the IPAB, which are pending. And EIL has also filed 2 SLPs against the <a href="http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/127745996/">Bombay High Court order</a> (on whether the Intellectual Property License Agreement between the parties is a concluded contract or not) and the hearing is already completed in the matter. The judgment is reserved. The issue whether simultaneous proceedings can lie in the High Court and IPAB has also been part-heard in the Supreme Court.</div>
</div>
Aparajita Lathhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01604575114222780960noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17664472.post-19398928210095758002013-09-13T13:40:00.001+05:302013-09-16T15:04:28.098+05:30Framing debates on IP & Health - Part II<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This is part 2 of a 3 part series on "Framing debates on IP & Health". As mentioned in <a href="http://spicyipindia.blogspot.in/2013/09/framing-debates-on-ip-health-part-i.html" target="_blank">part I</a>, I want to use this series to argue that the manner in which IP debates are framed in the health context, play a large role in claim-staking, even if the claims used are ones that ought to have<i> no role</i> in IP policy. Further, that this manner of framing is more useful to the traditional 'access' side of the debate than it is to the 'innovator' side - and that despite being more useful to one side, <i><b>this can help in balancing the debate</b>.</i> I will do this by making two distinct claims (<a href="http://spicyipindia.blogspot.in/2013/09/framing-debates-on-ip-health-part-i.html" target="_blank">Part 1</a> and then this post) and then weave them together (third post) to explain how they can help balance this debate. There is nothing new per se about these arguments but with the recent rise in discussion over compulsory licenses, human rights, international agreements and IP standards, I thought an articulation of these arguments would be useful. Please note, these claims are distinct but are meant to be read together.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
[Part 1 has argued that "human rights" based claims do not add any value to the analytical framework of patents and public health.]</div>
<h4 style="text-align: justify;">
[ Claim 2: Public Choice theory indicates that Corporations benefiting from IP based rents will have more influence on IP policy than others ]</h4>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEivWXWDXXCGn_jVcZ6Obyzy30V0w9xFu49xWRv80dilqrPf9wnBxUuXDzvum_HV8_e1PbrB4I9aR8JIljPU9Ln3ZyIV5NDNScCOHMhxcChpvu2MQafaFROHxjTeVoZaec8htmhm/s1600/corporations.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEivWXWDXXCGn_jVcZ6Obyzy30V0w9xFu49xWRv80dilqrPf9wnBxUuXDzvum_HV8_e1PbrB4I9aR8JIljPU9Ln3ZyIV5NDNScCOHMhxcChpvu2MQafaFROHxjTeVoZaec8htmhm/s320/corporations.jpg" width="227" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Without getting into normative questions of what kind of innovation policy is best suited for a country's progress, it is hardly debateable to say that IP's role in a country's innovation policy ought to take into account several internal as well as external considerations. External considerations such as the country's technical capabilities, the economic condition of its populace, etc; and internal considerations such as the depth and breath of, as well as flexibilities and exceptions to an exclusion-rights based regime that any country would need to take into account in order to appropriately further its innovation policy. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Needless to say, the 'take it or leave it' nature of the WTO Agreements meant that most, if not all, of these considerations were not really in focus when most nations agreed to the TRIPS Agreement - as they all wanted the trade benefits of joining the WTO. With the backbone of the TRIPS Agreement being provided by a consortium of industry executives (headed by Pfizer's CEO), the terms of the debate started off at such a high point, that negotiations after that point had little chance to bring terms to a real 'middle' position between what several of the developing countries wanted (50 of which had no food or medicine patents prior to TRIPS) and what the fewer numbered developed countries wanted. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The interesting aspect here is the manner in which large corporate houses managed to convince their own state governments that their interests matched the states - and that these are the positions that states pushed forward as their own. This pattern has continued for the most part into today's world as well, through multilateral agreements such as the <a href="http://spicyipindia.blogspot.in/2012/07/acta-rejected-fight-for-internet.html">ACTA</a> or <a href="http://spicyipindia.blogspot.in/2012/09/trans-pacific-partnership-act-look-at.html">TPP</a>, Free Trade Agreement negotiations such as the<a href="http://spicyipindia.blogspot.in/2011/01/eu-india-closer-to-fta-hampered-public.html"> EU-India FTA</a> and even <a href="http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/losing-ground-to-big-pharma-bit-by-bit/article5097623.ece">Bilateral Investment Treaties which deem IP to be 'investments'.</a> </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The point of this is not to say that large corporate houses necessarily have interests which conflict with the interests of the general public - I am not making that claim here - it is simply to point out that they have been extremely successful in getting their 'claims' standardized as global IP norms, despite being in the minority. For eg, in terms of sheer numbers, there are far more 'least developed' countries, developing countries, civil society NGOs, activists, academics, etc who are (and have been) opposed to more stringent IP norms. The question then is 'how is a minority able to reject the majority so successfully?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice" target="_blank">Public Choice Theory</a> explains how this comes to be. Kapczynski puts it succinctly in her paper <a href="http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4296&context=fss_papers">A2K Mobilization and the New Politics of IP</a>: </div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
"IP rights, the argument goes, create opportunities for potentially lucrative rents. Businesses that could benefit from such rents recognize this fact and will generally be willing to spend up to the amount of their potential rents in order to secure these rights. Those most hurt by stronger IP are industries based upon copying, which do not enjoy monopoly rents, and average consumers, each of whom may be hurt in small ways and/or far in the future. In the “market” for law, then, IP industries purportedly enjoy a significant advantage."</blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This essentially tells us that businesses benefiting from rent through IP rights, though a minority, are incentivized into concentrating their resources towards a coordinated and concentrated purpose. At the same time, a greater majority (including competing businesses who are not dependent on rent through IP) may not be able nor want to effectively coordinate their actions in an organized manner, (if at all), due to a variety of reasons - including that individual harms from the 'bad' policy in question are usually too small to incentivize individuals into acting as a collective and expending the necessary transaction costs involved in such collective and organized actions. Now of course with the internet and digital communication, there are several instances wherein these transaction costs have been minimized greatly. Nonetheless, the point still stands that the concentrated minority is better able to effect policy change than a diluted majority.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Thus, IP centric businesses are able to play a larger role than competing stakeholder interests in influencing IP policy.<br />
<br />
[Part I is available <a href="http://spicyipindia.blogspot.in/2013/09/framing-debates-on-ip-health-part-i.html" target="_blank">here</a>. Part III is available <a href="http://spicyipindia.blogspot.in/2013/09/framing-debates-on-ip-part-iii.html" target="_blank">here</a>.] </div>
</div>
Swaraj Paul Barooahhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11334591226213864204noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17664472.post-85116864911058543872013-09-13T12:45:00.003+05:302013-09-16T15:03:26.531+05:30Framing debates on IP & Health - Part I<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This is the first of a 3 part post. In this series, I want to argue that the manner in which IP debates are framed in the health context, play a large role in claim-staking, even if the claims used are ones that ought to have <i>no role</i> in IP policy. Further, that this manner of framing is more useful to the traditional 'access' side of the debate than it is to the 'innovator' side - and that despite being more useful to one side, <i><b>this can help in balancing</b></i> the debate. I will do this by making two distinct claims (first two posts) and then weave them together (third post) to explain how they can help balance this debate. There is nothing new per se about these arguments but with the recent rise in discussion over compulsory licenses, human rights, international agreements and IP standards, I thought an articulation of these arguments would be useful. Please note, these claims are distinct but are meant to be read together. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><br /></b>
<br />
<h4>
<b>[ Claim 1: The most accepted justification for IPRs - the Utilitarian based 'incentive' theory - indicate that ideally "Human Rights" based arguments should have no justified place in IP Policy ] </b></h4>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiHnozhJq0zT4kimY3phuwZvqBRq_hstVUvcN9BR4xrySCnPLdLmvx3Cu0plWK2nQUaHz1JuLogU69XEyTubIaC3YAU_9EvJOfRhOtutRVNqcbMqkAv1Kz-BPtabFwr-T2Mq3fR/s1600/efficiency.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="196" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiHnozhJq0zT4kimY3phuwZvqBRq_hstVUvcN9BR4xrySCnPLdLmvx3Cu0plWK2nQUaHz1JuLogU69XEyTubIaC3YAU_9EvJOfRhOtutRVNqcbMqkAv1Kz-BPtabFwr-T2Mq3fR/s320/efficiency.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div>
<b><br /></b></div>
Among the various theories which posit a justification for IPRs, the 'incentive' theory, stemming from utilitarianism (greatest good for the greatest number) has been internalised in IP theory as the primary justification for IP. To properly understand the incentive theory, we first have to understand that as a '<a href="http://www.sparc.arl.org/resources/articles/knowledge" target="_blank">public good</a>', information is most efficiently used when there are no barriers to it being shared, consumed and accessed. When restraints or limitations are placed on information, it leads to the presence of 'static inefficiencies' which in turn lead to what are called 'deadweight losses.'<br />
<br />
[<i>Explanation</i>: Due to information's fundamental non-rivalrous (<i>my consumption doesn't affect your consumption</i>) and non-excludable (<i>Either everyone can be excluded from using it, or no one at all. ie, if I am able to access it, so are you</i>) nature, externally imposed restrictions/limitations (such as IPRs) on information's consumption or access mean that it cannot be used as much as it could without these restrictions - therefore: information is most efficiently used when there are no barriers to its consumption or access]<br />
<b><br /></b>
However, the 'public good' nature of information also means that there is little incentive to engage in activity which creates new information - especially when resources are consumed in such creation - as there is no way to even recuperate costs when the idea can be copied freely after it is created. Thus a right to exclude others from disseminating information that you have created is seen as justified so long as it incentivizes the creation of new information sooner than would've occurred otherwise.<br />
<br />
To state this in terms of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_economics" target="_blank">social welfare</a> (which refers to the overall welfare of society]:<br />
Pricing out of some consumers through exclusion rights leads to a certain loss of social welfare as some who would've otherwise been able to purchase the drug are now no longer able to purchase the drug. At the same time, these exclusion rights act as an incentive for the production of new drugs and this leads to a gain in social welfare in both immediate terms as well as in terms of future welfare. Achieving the largest 'social welfare' gains thus involves making this tradeoff as efficiently as possible. This means minimizing static inefficiencies as far as possible without harming incentives to create more drugs.<br />
<br />
Thus<i> it is a utilitarian value to provide drugs to as many people as possible without harming incentives to create new drugs.</i> The ideal way to do this would be to have perfect price discrimination - i.e., everyone who needs the drug, is able purchase the drug at their ability to pay. This of course doesn't happen in the real world as it is impossible to know everyone's willingness/ability to pay. And there are also fears of arbitrage. However, if there is a market of which only 2% are able to purchase the drug, and this 2% contributes only a negligible portion to further incentives, <i>utilitarianism, i.e., the justification for IP would require a compulsory license for this drug in this market.</i><br />
<br />
The utilitarian - incentive - efficiency approach already attempts at maximizing social welfare by minimizing welfare losses and maximising welfare gains. Any shifts in tradeoffs (ie, 'strengthening' or 'weakening' pharma patent regimes) need to be justified on this metric. Weakening patent rights ought to only be allowed as long as new drugs are still incentivized. Patent rights should be made stronger only as long as they are providing benefits that sufficiently outweigh the harms being caused by patients being priced out of buying their medicines. <br />
<br />
Thus, assuming 'social welfare' is what we value most, <i><b>'human rights' claims bring nothing new to the table.</b> </i>It simply does not matter if a group's 'right to health' (a vague phrase on its own) is being violated - if the 'protection' of this right to health means that newer drugs for everyone else are taking much longer to come into existence and thus causing a greater harm. Just as it makes no sense to strengthen patent rights in a region where too few people can afford high-priced drugs anyway, as there is negligible addition to incentives for new drugs from that region. Making the tradeoff as efficient as possible already accounts for minimizing social welfare losses as far as possible. Unless one is willing to make the claim that rights to health are absolute and trump everything else including welfare of society, then it makes no sense to say that these rights are in 'conflict' with patent rights - as an ideal efficient utilitarian patent system is one that already takes into account the maximization of social welfare. It is true of course, that human rights claim often overlap with demands to minimise social welfare losses but <i>on their own human rights claims do not add anything useful </i>to determining what the patent tradeoffs should be. <i>And in fact, due to their vague unprecise nature, are not helpful in cost-benefit analysis anyway - and the cost - benefit analysis is all that should matter. </i><br />
<br />
[In the health context, one measure that can be used to calculate losses and gains is the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disability-adjusted_life_year" target="_blank">Disease Adjusted Life Year (DALY) index</a>. This measure quantifies disease burden in economic terms. While it cannot be a perfect measure, it has been continually improving over the years and is being used successfully in <a href="http://www.who.int/gho/mortality_burden_disease/en/index.html" target="_blank">large scale studies of global disease burden</a>.]<br />
<br />
Part II of this series is available <a href="http://spicyipindia.blogspot.in/2013/09/framing-debates-on-ip-health-part-ii.html" target="_blank">here</a>. Part III is <a href="http://spicyipindia.blogspot.in/2013/09/framing-debates-on-ip-part-iii.html" target="_blank">here</a>. </div>
<div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
Swaraj Paul Barooahhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11334591226213864204noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17664472.post-54238821069049995462013-09-13T12:19:00.001+05:302013-09-13T12:23:33.453+05:30Guest Post: Intermediary liability in defamation cases - Parle, Mouthshut & Visakha cases to clarify the law<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-US">Chaitanya Ramachandran, who has blogged for us previously over <a href="http://spicyipindia.blogspot.com/2013/04/guest-post-t-series-constitutional.html">here</a>
and <a href="http://spicyipindia.blogspot.com/2013/04/guest-post-look-at-new-notice-and.html">here</a>,
has sent us this excellent guest post analyzing the extent of intermediary liability
in the context of defamation lawsuits. The specific backdrop to this post is <i>first</i> the recent litigation by Parle
against Facebook, Twitter & Google, <i>second
</i>the problems being faced by Mouthshut.com and <i>third </i>the pending appeal before the Supreme Court against the
decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court where the Court refused to quash criminal
summons issued to Google in a defamation case filed by an asbestos firm in A.P.
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<b><span lang="EN-US">Intermediary Liability and
Defamation – Finding the Right Balance between Free Speech and Reputational
Interests<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><span lang="EN-US">By Chaitanya Ramachandran<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiSZorBdiBkEbrIwD7W_Er5TESnWuiIehxpTPLe2CJauUCXFzORdGH4YLmEdeS4hHE0h9P5VOuQ8NUfa0LSw_JEkfSng7EEjRX6MpVk3-qNAgZvk-uuHAjkAZQ_rI7i4REF089g/s1600/Mouthshut.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><br /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-US">The issue of intermediary liability for defamatory content has come
to prominence following two recent </span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgsH4MFPXNoLiGOQVtcySkhYGqaNZ6YBOndR_vC1O_94OLy1e7gtwbq4W55czAe0_YoRMc-wBQn9VFSbbaAUqkd4fAFnC3yR2DfsLSw-YSGMrCP3E9prY5J2ghj5u7nlfm0lCaE/s1600/frooti.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgsH4MFPXNoLiGOQVtcySkhYGqaNZ6YBOndR_vC1O_94OLy1e7gtwbq4W55czAe0_YoRMc-wBQn9VFSbbaAUqkd4fAFnC3yR2DfsLSw-YSGMrCP3E9prY5J2ghj5u7nlfm0lCaE/s1600/frooti.jpg" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
developments. The first is a case recently instituted
in the Bombay High Court by Parle Agro against Google, Facebook and Twitter (see
<a href="http://www.livemint.com/Politics/JPIhtwcX4Eyivi5MrctsRM/Parle-case-against-social-media-sites-to-be-heard-tomorrow.html">here</a>
for the full story), in which Parle has alleged that these Internet companies
should be liable as intermediaries for “promoting” defamatory content, which in
this case was a viral post alleging that Parle’s popular mango drink Frooti is
contaminated. The second is the revelation by Mouthshut.com (a popular review
website) of the large number of takedown requests and legal notices it has
received to date from companies that are unhappy with reviews of their products
(details available <a href="http://www.medianama.com/2013/08/223-mouthshut-coms-tally-over-790-takedown-notices-240-legal-notices-11-court-cases/">here</a>).
These developments must be viewed in the context of increasing hostility
towards social media websites from various interest groups in India; corporates
are only the latest to join the ranks of political, religious, and other groups
that routinely demand that social media websites take down “offensive” content.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<b><span lang="EN-US">The Problem With Notice
and Takedown under the IT Rules<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-US">This worrying trend has been fueled in India by the <a href="http://deity.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/GSR314E_10511(1).pdf">Information
Technology (Intermediaries guidelines) Rules, 2011</a>, which correspond to
s.79 of the IT Act, the main statutory provision governing intermediary
liability. The rules specify the standard of “due diligence” expected of
intermediaries, and, <i>inter alia</i>,
require user agreements to prohibit the uploading of defamatory content. While
this is not a particularly burdensome requirement in itself, its primary means
of enforcement – namely the notice and takedown regime under rule 3(4) – is
deeply flawed. Intermediaries who have received takedown notices must “act
within thirty six hours and where applicable, work with [the] user or owner of
such information to disable such information…”.
This provision gives any “affected person” <i>carte blanche</i> to issue a takedown notice to an intermediary, who in
turn has virtually no choice but to comply for fear of losing safe harbour
protection (the need for intermediaries to act swiftly has been stressed by the
AP High Court in <a href="http://164.100.12.10/hcorders/orders/2009/crlp/crlp_7207_2009.html">this
judgment</a>). Therefore, this is an
effectively unilateral notice and takedown regime that leaves the power of
“affected persons” to issue takedown notices (including frivolous or
unwarranted ones) virtually unchecked. By contrast, the new notice and takedown
regime for copyright infringement (which we previously blogged about <a href="http://spicyipindia.blogspot.in/2013/04/guest-post-look-at-new-notice-and.html">here</a>)
requires copyright holders to undertake to file suit within 21 days of the
take down request, failing which the intermediary may legally reinstate the
content that was taken down. By burdening
notice issuers with an obligation to file suit, this system ensures that all
claims will ultimately be evaluated by a court of law, and also, to an extent,
discourages aggrieved parties from issuing frivolous notices. The regime under
the IT Rules does not impose an equivalent obligation on notice issuers.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj0FWfZLcijJxCoA78FSQKTtQwBr713pP9Pd7OZ1zpxLtmeNgT9dn69Kt9u7kSUcu6vOslCg8LJsNPBDbcC0Bqvhc1f8fWfYbukkXmukt0GIxYTl-Vk__Kuj3Xk8P_IxGiLRH15/s1600/Mouthshut.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj0FWfZLcijJxCoA78FSQKTtQwBr713pP9Pd7OZ1zpxLtmeNgT9dn69Kt9u7kSUcu6vOslCg8LJsNPBDbcC0Bqvhc1f8fWfYbukkXmukt0GIxYTl-Vk__Kuj3Xk8P_IxGiLRH15/s1600/Mouthshut.jpeg" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-US">Unsurprisingly, Mouthshut.com has filed a petition in the Supreme
Court <a href="http://www.mouthshut.com/freedom-of-expression">challenging</a>
the IT Rules. Significantly, the bench <a href="http://www.mouthshut.com/pdf/petition_update.pdf">observed</a> during an
interim hearing that curbs on freedom of speech should be restricted to those
permitted by Article 19(2) of the Constitution. Given that the notice and
takedown regime under the IT Rules potentially permits affected persons to
exceed the scope of the established Constitutional restrictions on free speech
in a completely private process, a very strong case exists for the existing
rules to be struck down.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<b><span lang="EN-US">Intermediary Liability and
Defamation<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-US">Although the existing notice and takedown regime for defamatory
statements is flawed, this is not to say that all claims against intermediaries
for defamatory content are without substance. With respect the Bombay High
Court case, there is no doubt that a false statement relating to the purity of
Parle’s products has the potential to cause vast losses to Parle, especially as
summer is a crucial sales period for soft drinks like Frooti. The difficult question is, where should the
line be drawn between Parle’s reputational and commercial interests and
Facebook’s interest in avoiding the massive costs and impracticability of
policing its website for defamatory content? <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-US">This is not a new problem; the law of defamation has always had to
grapple both with authors who make defamatory statements and publishers who,
knowingly or unknowingly, disseminate them. However, the analogy between
Internet intermediaries and print media publishers is not perfect. A single
Internet intermediary can potentially reach a much larger number of readers
than a single print publisher; at the same time, the number of posts or
webpages hosted by intermediaries like Facebook and Google must surely be
orders of magnitude larger than the number of articles published by a print
publisher. This is probably why disgruntled groups regularly target
intermediaries. Individual authors are responsible for creating viral posts
such as the one targeting Parle; but the only practical way of controlling the
damage done by such posts is to target the intermediary, who has some power to
control the dissemination of the material.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-US">Intermediaries may be targeted in two ways. The <b>first</b> is the notice and takedown situation described above, in
which the intermediary is not itself found liable for defamatory content as
long as it complies with a takedown notice under the applicable legal
framework. The advantage of a well-designed notice and takedown system is that
it does not require intermediaries to police their services, albeit at the cost
of having to comply with takedown notices. The <b>second</b> way in which intermediaries may be targeted is fault-based;
a situation in which intermediaries are deemed to have knowingly published
defamatory material, and are sued in their capacity as publishers. A notice and
takedown situation may evolve into a fault-based situation if the intermediary
refuses to comply with a legitimate takedown request, although this view is
contestable. For example, earlier this year, the English Court of Appeal <a href="http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2013/68.html">decided</a> that
Google would be liable as a publisher of defamatory content where it failed to
comply with a takedown notice within a “reasonable time”.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-US">However, in the typical case of a user authoring a defamatory post
that subsequently goes viral, the petitioner’s remedy should ordinarily be
restricted to a timely takedown. Of course, the problem is that the existing
framework is unworkable, and needs to be replaced with a balanced regime that
circumscribes the power of notice issuers. Parle may be genuinely aggrieved, as
may be some of the parties that have issued notices to Mouthshut.com
(especially those that are victims of fake reviews or sabotage by their
competitors), but the solution cannot be to sue intermediaries for “promoting”
defamatory content where their role has not gone beyond hosting such content
without actual knowledge of its defamatory nature. This would only continue the
trend of chilling free speech online, and would also adversely affect Internet
companies’ incentives to innovate by providing newer and better tools for
people to communicate.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<b><span lang="EN-US">Conclusion<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-US">The law as it exists today in India does not adequately protect the
interests of Internet intermediaries in cases where their users post defamatory
content. It is essential for the law to lead the way by laying down robust
norms protecting the interests of intermediaries, because there is a worrying
amount of hostility towards social media in India today. The best way of striking
a balance between protecting the reputational interests of parties that find
themselves being defamed and protecting free speech online may be to redesign
the notice and takedown regime under the IT Act. A well-designed system would
permit genuinely aggrieved parties to require a takedown of content pending
final determination by a court of law, while simultaneously discouraging
frivolous notices by, for example, explicitly restricting the grounds to those
currently recognized under Article 19(2).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
Prashant Reddyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00745673293260292146noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17664472.post-48252720726246418652013-09-12T13:53:00.000+05:302013-09-12T23:39:53.295+05:30Breaking News: Kerala HC ends suo moto proceedings against the grant of Attukal deity trademark<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:TrackMoves/>
<w:TrackFormatting/>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:DoNotPromoteQF/>
<w:LidThemeOther>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther>
<w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian>
<w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
<w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/>
<w:DontVertAlignCellWithSp/>
<w:DontBreakConstrainedForcedTables/>
<w:DontVertAlignInTxbx/>
<w:Word11KerningPairs/>
<w:CachedColBalance/>
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
<m:mathPr>
<m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/>
<m:brkBin m:val="before"/>
<m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/>
<m:smallFrac m:val="off"/>
<m:dispDef/>
<m:lMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:rMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/>
<m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/>
<m:intLim m:val="subSup"/>
<m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/>
</m:mathPr></w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><br />
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" DefUnhideWhenUsed="true"
DefSemiHidden="true" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99"
LatentStyleCount="267">
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Normal"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="35" QFormat="true" Name="caption"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="10" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" Name="Default Paragraph Font"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="11" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="22" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Strong"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="20" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="59" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Table Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Placeholder Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Revision"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="34" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="List Paragraph"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="29" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="30" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="19" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="21" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="31" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="32" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="33" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="37" Name="Bibliography"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" QFormat="true" Name="TOC Heading"/>
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0in;
mso-para-margin-right:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0in;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="line-height: 115%;">We <a href="http://spicyipindia.blogspot.in/2009/03/religion-and-ip-tales-of-tirupati.html">reported</a>
that the Attukal Bhagawathy Temple Trust (“<b>Trust</b>”) in Kerala had secured
trademark </span></span></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiuIw00d2MwNy-DykEP3wg2c1ycx0Rg6tJlahgUzZ_HbSP-JRx3rQ8G8OMK5CLIVzXHZUdEQp2KxbLO80h5rh94dNttnDVPggyb4P4dKoXfg7OL_quJzJHRrnsHt1yOGDuK9Ids/s1600/devi.gif" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiuIw00d2MwNy-DykEP3wg2c1ycx0Rg6tJlahgUzZ_HbSP-JRx3rQ8G8OMK5CLIVzXHZUdEQp2KxbLO80h5rh94dNttnDVPggyb4P4dKoXfg7OL_quJzJHRrnsHt1yOGDuK9Ids/s1600/devi.gif" /></a></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;">protection for the picture of its deity (Trademark No. 1420800) and
the title <i>‘Sabarimala of Women’</i> (Trademark No. 1420799) under Class 42 (for
temple Services, social services, welfare services and cultural activities).
The Division Bench of the Kerala High Court initiated <i>suo moto</i> case
against the aforesaid registrations in early 2009 based on a petition faxed by
Mr. Praveen Raj. The High Court later appointed Mr. Santhosh Mathew, Partner,
M/s. Ninan and Mathew Advocates, as the <i>amicus curiae</i>.The High Court rendered
its judgment on the aforesaid matter today. [For my earlier post analysing the legality
of grant of trademark, see <a href="http://spicyipindia.blogspot.in/2013/02/legality-of-trademark-protection-for.html">here</a>].</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" DefUnhideWhenUsed="true"
DefSemiHidden="true" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99"
LatentStyleCount="267">
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Normal"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="35" QFormat="true" Name="caption"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="10" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" Name="Default Paragraph Font"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="11" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="22" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Strong"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="20" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="59" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Table Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Placeholder Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Revision"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="34" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="List Paragraph"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="29" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="30" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="19" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="21" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="31" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="32" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="33" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="37" Name="Bibliography"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" QFormat="true" Name="TOC Heading"/>
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0in;
mso-para-margin-right:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0in;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="line-height: 115%;">The Court ended the <i>suo
moto</i> proceedings and declined to grant relief on merits. It was clarified that
the the grant shall not adversely affect the devotees’ right to worship. The
Trust, by virtue of the registration, can restrain others from providing
services in the name of the Deity for monetary benefits. However, charitable
services in the name of the Deity cannot be restrained.</span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" DefUnhideWhenUsed="true"
DefSemiHidden="true" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99"
LatentStyleCount="267">
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Normal"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="35" QFormat="true" Name="caption"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="10" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" Name="Default Paragraph Font"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="11" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="22" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Strong"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="20" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="59" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Table Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Placeholder Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Revision"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="34" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="List Paragraph"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="29" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="30" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="19" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="21" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="31" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="32" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="33" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="37" Name="Bibliography"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" QFormat="true" Name="TOC Heading"/>
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0in;
mso-para-margin-right:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0in;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}
</style>
<![endif]--><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"></span></span><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="line-height: 115%;">[As the judgment was
delivered only a couple of hours back, I do not have a copy of the judgment. I
shall later carry a detailed post on the judgment. Presently, I am just
carrying a post on the operative part of the judgment (as I could gather from my sources in Kerala HC).] </span></span></span><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"></span></span>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
</div>
Mathews P. Georgehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00434463380901674520noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17664472.post-36525536633598230902013-09-09T21:53:00.000+05:302013-09-10T17:00:41.964+05:30Copyright Amendments: A Fair Balance?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://www.icochotresources.com/files/hotresources/u2/The_Art_of_Balance.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="227" src="http://www.icochotresources.com/files/hotresources/u2/The_Art_of_Balance.jpg" width="320" /></a><span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">In a belated post (and a severely belated one at that), we bring you this special report on a conference held last year in Kolkata titled <a href="http://spicyipindia.blogspot.in/2012/11/spicyip-announcement-copyright.html">‘Copyright Amendments, 2012: A Fair Balance?’</a></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">The two-day event was organized by the MHRD IP Chair at National University of Juridical Sciences (NUJS) with the help of the following partners: </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;">i) MHRD IP Chair at Cochin University of Science and Technology (CUSAT) </span></div>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
ii) IPTLS (a student run IP and tech law society) and </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
iii) NUJS Law Review </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This conference was one of the first to rigorously brainstorm the contentious 2012 copyright amendments. A detailed report on the conference can be found on the <a href="http://spicyip.com/resources/copyright/conference/Conference%20Report.pdf">SpicyIP resource page</a>. The report is a collective effort of a number of dedicated student volunteers who took elaborate notes throughout the conference. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
For those interested in a more audiovisual feel, we’ve uploaded most of the sessions on this <a href="http://goo.gl/pOCKHa">Youtube link</a>. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
For those with little time to read the entire conference report, here is a short version (well, not really, but as with most other things in life, I use the term in a relative sense). </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Summary of Copyright Conference</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Welcome Address: </b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Prof Shamnad Basheer, the MHRD IP Chair at WB NUJS opened the conference along with the student MC’s, Arun Mal and Amba Kak. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Prof. (Dr.) Ishwara Bhat, the Vice Chancellor of WB NUJS and the Registrar, Dr. Surajit Mukhopadhyay extended a warm welcome to all present. Dr. Mukhopadhyay, a professor of social sciences, shared his insightful views on copyright norms and access to knowledge. Deploying his deep knowledge of ancient scriptures, Prof. Bhat reminded the audience of the importance of knowledge sharing/dissemination. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Introductory Session: </b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The session began with two special presentations from individuals who’d contributed significantly to the crafting of the amendments, Prof. N.S. Gopalakrishnan and Mr G.R. Raghavender. Prof. Gopalakrishnan [<a href="http://youtu.be/0ivQU_3LHaw">Part I</a> & <a href="http://youtu.be/5OlqX8qKmXY">Part II</a>] began the proceedings with a wonderful sweep of the social, economic and political narratives that informed the 2012 Amendments. He noted that the changes were brought in to balance three broad principles, namely; promotion of creativity, facilitation of access and the social dimensions of copyright. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
As many of you know by now, Prof NSG was thanked profusely for his services to the nation by <a href="http://spicyipindia.blogspot.in/2013/08/leading-ip-academics-fired-protest.html">a golden handshake</a> meted out by his home institution (CUSAT). For those interested, our protest petition against his untimely handshake garnered 300 signatures and is open for signatures for another 3-4 days or so. So please do sign up if you wish to lend your name to this cause. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Following Prof NSG, Mr. Raghavender, the Registrar of Copyrights <a href="http://youtu.be/qLXSiyZ2mqY">piloted us through</a> a wonderful and insightful examination of the history behind the amendments. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Session I: Copyright & Entertainment </b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The first session focused on the impact of the amendments on the entertainment industry. Voicing the interests of radio broadcasters, Prashant Pandey, CEO of Radio Mirchi <a href="http://youtu.be/rOtaRX4t5Ms">welcomed the statutory licensing provisions</a>. Tracing the evolution of private radio industry in India in a compelling narrative, he persuasively argued that the monopolistic behaviour of copyright societies and owners rendered many radio stations financially unviable. Prashant rightly noted that the newly introduced statutory licensing provisions would greatly benefit copyright owners as well as consumers. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Arun Mohan, a practicing advocate at Madras High Court, was <a href="http://youtu.be/ne6Ncx8269s">highly critical of the amendments</a> dealing with mandatory royalty sharing. Noting that the drafting of the amendments left much to be desired, Arun also reflected on the fact that the amendments could have done with better homework of comparative positions in the US etc. He also rightly noted that a key solution is also to strengthen unions and collective bargaining power. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Anjum Rajabali, who heads the Copyright Committee at the Film Writers’ Association, responded by noting that it was indeed the weak bargaining power of artists and lack of good business practices in the industry that prompted the statutory intervention. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This was followed by a round table discussion on the on the future of entertainment in India. [<a href="http://youtu.be/ns-otTux4d8">Part I</a>, <a href="http://youtu.be/UxXHaMEPPog">Part II</a> & <a href="http://youtu.be/Z0tv-OUuM60">Part III</a>] The moderator, Dr. Madhukar Sinha, Professor at Centre for WTO Studies, in his opening remark noted the star-power is no longer the driving force for Indian films and asked the panelists on measures taken to improve access to entertainment. The panelists of this round table discussion were Phulak Bagchi (Vice-President, Legal & Regulatory Affairs, Star India), Anjum Rajabali (Film Writers’ Association) and Rajesh Dhupad (Jt. Secretary, South India Music Companies Association). It was a vibrant session with lots of interesting thoughts from the various panelists. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Section II: Copyright & Technology </b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The second session dealt with technological protection measures (TPMs) and intermediary liability exemption in Section 52 and its impact on the IT sector. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Pranesh Prakash, Policy Director at the Centre for Internet and Society, <a href="http://youtu.be/io6jxUn2DcY">questioned the need for introducing the provisions</a> on TPMs as India was not a signatory to the WIPO agreements, namely; WCT and WPPT. Nonetheless, Pranesh hailed the provisions as being more evolved than most other pari materia provisions around the world. In the round table discussion that followed later, Prof Dr. V.C. Vivekanandan, MHRD IP Chair at NALSAR suggested that the provisions might have been inserted to placate the US. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Praneshs’ presentation was followed by an <a href="http://youtu.be/Nms0tjI949I">insightful and well researched presentation on safe harbour provisions</a> by Rajendra Kumar, Partner at K&S Partners. Kumar traced the evolution of intermediary liability jurisprudence around the world, most notably the US and EU. He noted that the Indian provisions were akin to conduit safe harbour provisions in the EU directive. He opined that Section 52(1)(c) lacked clarity in terms of not clearly spelling out as to which intermediaries were entitled to the exemption. Pranesh suggested that the provision was applicable to search engines and perhaps storage services depending on the interpretation of the word ‘incidental’ in the provision. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Prof. Basheer, moderating the <a href="http://youtu.be/-wIrmFkt_uM">round table discussion</a>, asked the panelists if a broad construction of the word ‘access’ in Sec. 52(1)(c) would effectively render redundant the exception provided in sub-clause (b). Prof. Gopalakrishnan suggested that the difference between both clauses rests on the ‘technical processes’ involved in the transient or incidental storage. If the incidental or transient storage is for longer duration, there is a need for checks and balances and Cl. (c) addresses these concerns. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Session III: Copyright Limitations & Exceptions </b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Pranesh Prakash spoke on the <a href="http://youtu.be/8NU19B5JxfM">legality of parallel imports</a> and observed that there is no statutory basis providing for an exclusive right to import copyrighted works. He went on to defend his hypothesis based on text of Section 2(m) and 51(b)(iv). Pranesh further criticized the decision of Justice Manmohan Singh of the Delhi High Court in <i>John Wiley v. Prabhat Chandra Kumar Jain</i> for recognizing a right to export works under the Copyright Act instead of contract law. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Following this presentation, the copyright registrar, Mr Raghavender drew attention to a study conducted in New Zealand which demonstrated positive spillovers of parallel imports. Further, he informed the audience of an on-going study by National Commission of Applied Economic Research to determine whether or not parallel imports ought to be legalized in India. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Abhishek Malhotra, Partner at TMT Law Partners <a href="http://youtu.be/LM2bwpRRCmM">delivered a riveting presentation on the statutory licensing scheme</a>, noting that the amendments were prompted by demands for unreasonable royalties from music labels. Abhishek also highlighted the possibility of constitutional challenge to Section 31D. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://youtu.be/KNDrmzHOAvE">In a provocative presentation</a>, Amlan explored the educational exception in the backdrop of the Delhi University photocopying row. He argued in favour of a broad interpretation as would promote access. The presentation elicited sharp reactions from the audience. One of the audience suggested that DU students have the financial means to afford a license and should therefore take a license without relying on the exception. Sheetal Chopra, representing FICCI, highlighted the loss of royalties from photocopies. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In response, Prof. Basheer cautioned that this case was about educational course packs and that the statute provided a broad enough framework to exclude educational photocopying. Further, it was evident that a majority of academic scholars preferred enhanced readership over the paltry economic benefits through royalties. Lastly, he cautioned that while some DU students might be able to afford licenses offered today, such students are not representative of all Indian students, a large percentage of whom struggle to even pay their tuition. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Ujwala Uppaluri, a fourth year student at NUJS, explored the <a href="http://youtu.be/YtVVGZr-SGI">impact of the amendments on public libraries in India</a>. Ujwala welcomed the exception for storage of electronic copies by non-commercial public libraries and rightly stressed the need for digital preservation of works. Mr. Raghavender woed the fact that there was no express provision for inter-library loans, especially in the context of digital copies. Prof. Gopalakrishan observed that virtual libraries require significantly different rules and that it requires a fresh look as in when virtual libraries become a reality. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The session ended with a passionate presentation by Prof. Sam Taraporevala, Director at Xavier’s Resource Center for the Visually Challenged, <a href="http://youtu.be/ARevmyUcC4k">narrating the ‘unique Indian story’</a> in campaigning for and obtaining a special copyright exceptions for the benefit of people with disabilities. The amendments were a result of prolonged efforts from several individuals and civil society organizations. Prof. Taraporevala further noted that there is need to ensure accessible books in real time and proposed for setting up of National Library for Accessible Content in consonance with UNCRPD. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Session IV: Copyright Enforcement, Adjudication & Governance </b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Pravin Anand, one of India’s leading IP lawyers began this session by delivering a scintillating presentation on: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7K9A_wwngo&feature=youtu.be">‘Copyright Enforcement: Will the amendments make a Difference?’</a>. He applauded the Delhi High Court for measures aimed at making court processes quicker and more efficient and noted in particular that the collection of evidence by local commissioners had eased the pressure on regular judges who were already clogged with backlogs. He also highlighted the fact that the Delhi High Court had often taken the lead in IP jurisprudence by <i>interalia </i>being the first to Anton Pillar orders, Mareva injunctions etc. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Sheetal Chopra, Joint Director at FICCI <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8Tq6tUwSe8">passionately advocated for more stringent antipiracy measures</a>. She noted the significant losses made by the entertainment industry as a result of piracy and highlighted the role of camcorders in promoting piracy. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
She recorded her displeasure at the amendments to Section 52(1)(a) which allowed for reproduction for ‘personal or private use’, arguing that this effectively legitimized the use of cam-cording devices. Ms. Chopra further expressed her dissatisfaction with lack of penal action against those manufacturing devices with the sole objective of circumvention. In response, Mr. Prakash and Mr. Sinha suggested that affordable pricing is the most effective solution to piracy. (Note: we are given to believe that the government is now initiating measures to criminalise the possession of camcorders in cinema halls. This comes at the behest of concerted advocacy by several Bollywood producers, FICCI, <a href="http://spicyipindia.blogspot.in/2011/05/usibc-lobbies-extensively-with-indian.html">USIBC</a>, MPAA etc. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The constitutional validity of the composition of the Copyright Board was challenged in the Madras High Court recently. Ananth Padmanabhan, counsel for the challenger (SIMCA) <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHic1XZciz4">argued quite persuasively</a> that the appointment and qualification of Board members did not conform to constitutional principles laid down by the Supreme Court recently in relation to the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). Mr. Padmanabhan rightly noted that the amendments were a missed opportunity to cure infirmities in the Board. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Achille Forler, Managing Director of Deep Emotions and a regular commentator at SpicyIP, was confident that the statutory licensing scheme would <a href="http://youtu.be/cGE1pqMm4kE">transform the industry</a>. Mr. Forler opined that the mandatory licensing of music through copyright societies would be advantageous for users and also that societies would be in a better position to distribute royalties for lyricists and composers. However, Mr. Forler emphasized that IPRS in its present state required significant reforms to function effectively. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The <a href="http://youtu.be/xUI_tSxwA_U">session ended</a> with Dr. Anirban Mazumdar, Assistant Professor at NUJS, rightly highlighting the key administrative, adjudicatory and logistical complexities ahead of us. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Acknowledgments: </b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But for the passion, commitment and support of a number of people, this conference would never have materialized. I thank each of them below: </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
i) As with most other IP events at NUJS, the most significant contributor was Sai Vinod, who worked tirelessly to make this happen. He also goaded several of his classmates and friends to work around the clock and pull off this stellar event. Our sincere gratitude to all of them: Vasudha Sharma, Nitika Gupta, Akshay Sharma, Amba Kak, Arun Mal, Pranav Narain, Aman Taneja, Abin Francis, Jaimini Vyas, Sahil Arora, Raveena Paul, Isha Narain, Siddharta Srivastava, Pranjal Singh, Sreyan Chatterjee, Shyam Gopal, Aparajita Lath, Abhinav Shrivastava, Asha Racheal Joy, Ashna Ashesh, Nidhi Rao, Nivedita Saksena, S. Varsha and Indrajeet Sircar. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
ii) The NUJS law review and in particular Smaran Shetty and Nimisha Srinivas for proposing a special issue devoted to the copyright amendments. Their prompting essentially served as the impetus for the conference. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
iii) The Ministry of HRD and in particular the Secretary, Shri Ashok Jha, the Joint Secretary, Ms Veena Ish and the Copyright Registrar, Mr Raghavender, the Registrar of Copyrights for their continuous support to all our IP activities. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
iv) Prof Ishwar Bhat for his enthusiastic encouragement of IP activities at NUJS. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
v) Prof NSG who readily agreed to combine his conference budget with ours in order to pull off this 2 day event with aplomb. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
vi) K&S Partners, a leading IP law firm and specifically Latha Nair and Rajendra Kumar, who immediately agreed to fund our conference in view of the shortfall at the last minute. I cannot thank them enough. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
vii) Sumeet Malik for his generous donation of latest versions of the Copyright Act to all present at the conference and for agreeing to publish a special issue of the NUJS law review (published and printed by EBC) as well as a book analyzing the amendments. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
viii) Arnab Roy for his wonderful magic in setting up a creativity theme based village (with Baul singers, Santhali dancers, weavers, potters and what not) to entertain the conference delegates and speakers). Thanks also to Manab Da for all his organizational work around the IP chair and the conference.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
There were many others who contributed to the show,but unfortunately space constraints stand in the way of naming them: we are immensely grateful to each one of them for their time and commitment to the cause. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>NUJS Law Review Special Issue: </b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
We were fortunate enough to convince a number of our conference speakers to convert their presentations to papers. This special issue has just come back from the printers, thanks to a terrific team of student editors and the efforts of Sumeet Malik and his team at EBC. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Given that the NUJS law review is an open access publication, all these articles will be available for convenient consumption on your computers soon. Stay tuned.</div>
</span></div>
Shamnad Basheerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07152989743112178836noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17664472.post-7075807751954302202013-09-09T12:24:00.003+05:302013-09-09T12:24:53.347+05:30Eucador Trademark Registry decision on Gandhi Trademark opposition<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Two years ago, we had blogged about the opposition filed by Shri. Lalit Bhasin in his personal capacity before the Eucador Trademark Registry about the registration of the name and image of the Father of the Nation, Mahatma Gandhi as the "ARROZ GANDHI" (Gandhi Rice) trademark. The registration was sought as an international Class 30 mark with respect to "‘<i><a href="http://indiaeducationdiary.in/Shownews.asp?newsid=25319">aged or old rice, also medium and long grain rice</a>’ that may or may not come from India</i>"<span style="background-color: white; color: #3d3d3d; font-family: arial; font-size: 13px;">.</span> The grounds of Shri. Bhasin's opposition as well as an analysis of the situation under Eucador law can be found <a href="http://spicyipindia.blogspot.in/2011/09/as-promised-in-earlier-post-we-bring.html">here</a> and <a href="http://spicyipindia.blogspot.in/2011/09/part-ii-gandhi-trademark-opposition.html">here</a>.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
The Eucador Trademark Registry through its order on June 6,
2013 has accepted the opposition filed by Shri. Bhasin and rejected the
registration of the ARROZ GANDHI mark. The Trademark Registry held that Shri.
Bhasin had a legitimate interest in opposing the registration as he had the
capacity, power and rights that every Indian citizen for defendng his/her
national symbols and the characters that form part of the culture and identity
of their country. In this case, the name and image of Mahatma Gandhi, the
Father of the Nation, is one of the most highly revered and the highest national symbol of India. The
Trademark Registry also stated that it was also an icon of spirituality in
India. Therefore, Shri. Bhasin had a legitimate interest as well as the
capacity, power and rights to oppose the application for the registration of
the "ARROZ GANDHI" mark.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Additionally, the
Trademark Registry considered the fact that the ARROZ GANDHI mark contained the
Gandhi drawing with all its graphic elements. This, when comparing the
similarities and not the differences, stated the Trademark Registry, infringes the
copyright of the Gandhi drawing. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Therefore, the rights of personality and publicity of a
national figure in a foreign country and consequently, the prohibition on
deriving financial benefit from such a person's name and likeness has been
recognized by Eucador and therein lies the significance of this judgment.<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
L. Gopikahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11665798336273844385noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17664472.post-86390712293469291412013-09-08T21:13:00.001+05:302013-09-08T21:13:59.818+05:30Computer Confusion Confounded<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://javrylnna.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/confuse.jpg?w=248&h=300" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://javrylnna.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/confuse.jpg?w=248&h=300" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Computer software patentability continues to confound. So says this caustic certiorari petition filed at the US Supreme Court, passed on by the wonderful <a href="http://www.foley.com/harold-c-wegner/">Hal Wegner</a> who, in his inimitable style, transmits latest US patent developments to many of us through his email group. </div>
</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">For those interested, a copy of this petition that takes issue with a rather splintered CAFC decision in <a href="http://www.patentprogress.org/cases/cls-v-alice-corp-d-d-c/">CLS vs Alice Corp</a> is available on </span><a href="http://www.managingip.com/pdfs/Alice_v_CLS_Bank.txt" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">Managing Intellectual Property</a><span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">, a leading global IP magazine.</span></div>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So how do we get out of this jurisprudential morass of a mess? In the context of India at least, I've proposed a rather simple reading of the statutory exclusion in this <a href="http://www.livemint.com/Opinion/LQYh5iUHJzpQ5oBRmSxUXP/A-method-to-the-madness.html">editorial</a> in the Mint. I extract the key portions of the piece below:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
"The Indian Patents Act makes it amply clear that computer programs per se are not patentable. Period! </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The term “per se” only means that if the invention involves something more than mere “computer software”, it is patentable. If the addition is merely cosmetic, such as an incorporation of hardware or other apparatus in a manner well known to a person skilled in the art, then it ought not to be granted a patent, since the inventive contribution resides solely in the computer program. We may require more fine-tuning on this, but let’s leave that to the courts rather than relying on the patent manual for conclusively interpreting this section.</div>
</span><div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><div style="text-align: justify;">
Much like India, the UK also excludes software per se from the scope of patentability. And yet, owing to pressures from industry and in a bid to somehow harmonize with the European position, this exclusion has been all but eviscerated through clever legal sophistry. Consider a recent UK Court of Appeals case (Symbian Ltd v. Comptroller General of Patents), which states that if a software program makes some kind of a “technical contribution”, it ought to be patentable. One is hard-pressed to think of any software program that might fail this “technical contribution” test, particularly when a patent application covering such programs, is crafted by a clever patent attorney. </div>
</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">Indian judges ought to eschew such legal casuistry in favour of a simple straightforward reading of section 3(k), which excludes computer programs per se from patentability."</span></div>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This view appears to sync with the IPAB's decision in the <a href="http://spicyipindia.blogspot.in/2012/01/yahoo-v-controller-and-rediff-business.html">Rediff case</a>. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
If software requires protection at all, the patent system is far from optimal. It provides 20 years of protection, a time frame completely at odds with the shelf life of most software. And then there's the issue of prior art searching, patent stacking, hold ups, defensive patenting etc. Its high time policy makers began considering a more optimal sui generis style protection for this contentious subject matter that continues to confound at an exponential rate.</div>
</span><br /><span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; text-align: justify;">ps: For those interested in the latest Indian developments on this front, Aparajitha reflected on </span><a href="http://spicyipindia.blogspot.in/2013/08/feedback-on-draft-guidelines-for.html" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; text-align: justify;">stakeholder feedback</a><span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; text-align: justify;"> to the IPO's latest set of draft guidelines on patentability of software inventions. And </span><span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; text-align: justify;">CH Unni of the Mint did a terrific take on this issue </span><a href="http://www.livemint.com/Industry/rWpIXY700ZNsVuYfut9ljM/Dictionary-words-in-software-patent-guidelines-puzzle-indust.html" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; text-align: justify;">here</a><span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; text-align: justify;">.</span></div>
</div>
</div>
Shamnad Basheerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07152989743112178836noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17664472.post-72919240913892572202013-09-07T15:24:00.000+05:302013-09-07T15:24:20.372+05:30Microsoft - Nokia deal: A paradigm shift in the standard essential patent licensing business model<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<a href="http://janefriedman.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Image1.gif" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: justify;"><img border="0" height="200" src="http://janefriedman.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Image1.gif" width="148" /></a><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This post discusses the recent divestment of Nokia's businesses to Microsoft and argues that this deal may change the way entities deal with standard essential patent (SEP) licensing on Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) terms - and hence is a paradigm shift in the mobile phone industry. Because of the obligation to a Standard Setting Organization (SSO), and because Microsoft has taken the <a href="http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/08/google-makes-defensive-suspension.html" target="_blank">position</a> (Microsoft v. Motorola) that the SEP licensing be based on chipset value rather than end-product value, Nokia may be stuck with licensing SEP portfolio on a chipset basis. Current practice is to license the portfolio on an end-product (a handset, or a complete device).</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Early Tuesday morning (03/09, India time), twitter was ablaze with the news that Microsoft would acquire the handset and services business of Nokia for about $7 Billion. Notable is the fact that Nokia only divested it's businesses and transferred it's employees to Microsoft, but retained its patent portfolio. Nokia in it's press <a href="http://press.nokia.com/2013/09/03/nokia-to-sell-devices-services-business-to-microsoft-in-eur-5-44-billion-all-cash-transaction/" target="_blank">release</a> announced: As part of the transaction, Nokia will grant Microsoft a 10 year <u>non-exclusive license to its patents</u> as of the time of the closing..In addition, Nokia will grant Microsoft an option to extend this mutual patent agreement to perpetuity. Of the total purchase price EUR 1.65 billion relates to the mutual patent agreement and future option. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The retention of the patent portfolio raises significant issues: Microsoft is a mere non-exclusive licensee, and Nokia is free to license to others. By divesting the hardware and transferring people, Nokia cannot be sued for products, yet can launch patent licensing and related actions including litigation. In the SEP licensing field - this model is much closer to that of InterDigital, and Ericsson: both used to make handsets / devices, but shifted to a pure licensing model.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Since the deal was announced, one area that has received little attention is the future course of action <i>vis-a-vis </i>the licensing of the SEPs and what what end of the supply chain a patent holder should license the SEPs. In Microsoft v. Motorola case (underway at the Western District of Washington, Seattle), Microsoft made an argument that Motorola breached its [F]RAND obligations by failing to offer a [F]RAND license to Microsoft’s 802.11 chipset supplier, Marvell. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In another instance of the same argument (chipset manufacturer), Intel in it's <i>amicus</i> <i>brief </i>supporting Apple involving a dispute between Apple and Motorola, argued that a FRAND commitment requires a SEP holder to license all comers, including component makers (or chipset makers). </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This obligation-offering a license to all prospective licensees, including chipset manufacturers stems from the IPR policy of the standard setting organization. Under the terms on which a SEP holder (such as Nokia) signs the obligation to declare SEPs to an SSO such as ETSI, the SEP holder must grant a reasonable license to all comers—both sellers of completed products to consumers, such as handset manufacturers, and manufacturers of the components that go into those products. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Clause § 6.1 (ETSI IPR Policy), requires owners of essential IPR to undertake to grant licenses “<b>to at least</b>” “MANUFACTURE”; “sell, lease, or otherwise dispose of EQUIPMENT so MANUFACTURED”; “use” “EQUIPMENT”; “<b>and</b>” “use METHODS.” </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Hence, it can be argued that a chipset manufacturer is entitled to a FRAND license from the SEP holder. Microsoft arguing that the license should be made applicable to Marvell, the chipset manufacturer, and Intel (Intel supplies chipsets to integrated device manufacturers / mobile handset manufacturers) arguing that component manufacturers be licensed by a SEP holder further underscore the point.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Accordingly, even though Nokia has retained ownership of the patent portfolio, and Microsoft is a non-exclusive licensee of the Nokia's portfolio, Nokia may have to be content with the valuation of an SEP license on a chipset basis. Additionally, as Nokia is one of the largest (if not the largest) holders of SEPs, others may have to follow suit in SEP portfolio licensing.</div>
</div>
Rajiv Kr. Choudhryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14943298799006833842noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17664472.post-49216471287041489882013-09-07T13:25:00.000+05:302013-09-07T13:25:57.817+05:30IP Research Assistant position at IIT, Madras<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Feroz Ali Khader, MHRD IP Chair at the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Madras, is looking for research assistants to work on various issues related to patent law. Those interested can send their application to <b>fak[at]iitm.ac.in</b>, along with the following: </div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
(a) Latest CV</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
(b) Writing sample (preferably a published piece) </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><a href="https://sites.google.com/site/patentlawseminar/about-me?pli=1">Short Bio of Feroz Ali Khader</a></b></div>
<blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Feroz Ali Khader is the Ministry of Human Resources Development (MHRD) <a href="http://copyright.gov.in/frmlistiprchair.aspx">Chair on Intellectual Property Rights (IPR)</a> at the <a href="http://www.iitm.ac.in/">Indian Institute of Technology</a> (IIT) Madras. He was the founder of Ali Associates, a law and technology firm which specialized in contentious patent proceedings.</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Feroz is the author of two books on Patent Law. His first book, <a href="http://lexisnexis.in/the-law-patents-with-special-focus-pharmaceuticals-india.htm">The Law of Patents-With a Special Focus on Pharmaceuticals in India</a> (LexisNexis Butterworths, Hardback, 2007; Paperback 2009) is a legal treatise on the law of patents. His second book, <a href="http://lexisnexis.in/the-touchstone-effect-the-impact-pre-grant-opposition-patents.htm">The Touchstone Effect: The Impact of Pre-grant Opposition on Patents</a> (LexisNexis Butterworths, 2009) is business book which helps knowledge-based companies to develop a strategy on opposition of patents.</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Feroz was matriculated as an SJD candidate at the <a href="http://law.duke.edu/">Duke Law School</a>. Feroz is an alumnus of <a href="http://www.trin.cam.ac.uk/">Trinity College</a>, University of Cambridge, <a href="http://www.nls.ac.in/">National Law School of India University</a> and Government Law College, <a href="http://www.universityofcalicut.info/">University of Calicut</a>. </div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
He is a visiting faculty at <a href="http://www.nls.ac.in/">National Law School of India University</a>, Bangalore.</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
Sai Vinodhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09721070935333926864noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17664472.post-43174212446001296882013-09-06T11:10:00.000+05:302013-09-06T11:10:10.616+05:30Patent Hypocrisy and the Paradox of Indian IP<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://images.sodahead.com/polls/002399821/576667594_hypocrite_1_answer_1_xlarge.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="256" src="http://images.sodahead.com/polls/002399821/576667594_hypocrite_1_answer_1_xlarge.jpeg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">In an earlier email message to the SpicyIP subscribers, I'd linked to an article on </span><a href="http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2013-08-05/news/41093536_1_samsung-electronics-mobile-patents-apple-samsung" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">Apple vs Samsung</a><span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"> and noted as below:</span></div>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
"For those following the Apple vs Samsung patent wars, this latest move by the US government to veto an ITC decision favouring Samsung once again reflects the well known truth that "national" interest trumps all else. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But then unfortunately, national interest is to be read narrowly as only "US" national interest. For when other countries such as India rely on "national interest" considerations to protect the health and well being of their citizens', they are labelled pirates, outliers and what not.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
If there is one consistent take home lesson from the IP and trade wars, it is that of "hypocrisy"!"</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I expanded on this sentiment in a recent edit in the <a href="http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/patent-lies-and-convenient-truths/article5090171.ece">Hindu</a>, which I reproduce below. I begin by noting that the <a href="http://www.livelaw.in/much-ado-about-nothing/">Novartis patent</a> would have been axed in any other jurisdiction had it been as vigorously contested. I then reflect on the paradox of India IP, where there is as much over protection as there is under-protection. Lastly, I take issue with mainstream media coverage of IP issues, where the patent axes are lauded over and the patent wins ignored. For those interested, here is the full text of the <a href="http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/patent-lies-and-convenient-truths/article5090171.ece">Hindu editorial</a>.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Patent Lies and Convenient Truths</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Even as the campaign by U.S. drug majors to paint India as a haven for intellectual property pirates intensifies, the government has swung into action to stem the false propaganda. In a potent piece in The Hill’sCongress blog, India’s Ambassador to the U.S. Nirupama Rao argued that India is not on a kamikaze mission to kill all patents. Rather, it has only invalidated those undeserving of protection under India’s stringent statutory standards. And it did so through transparent judicial processes and not through executive fiat as did the U.S. recently, when it overturned a patent ruling from a specialised trade court, the International Trade Commission (ITC), to favour home-grown Apple at the cost of foreign Samsung.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It is difficult to take issue with Ms Rao’s piece, not least because she makes fair and reasonable points; but then again, the qualifier is “reasonable.” In pertinent part, she notes: “The Indian Supreme Court, in a landmark judgment in April, turned down a request by the pharmaceutical company Novartis to retain the patent on a cancer drug because it judged the drug to be an extension of existing medications, not a groundbreaking advancement. In other words, the court reinforced the premium that should rightly be placed on truly valid patents, strengthening, not weakening, their sanctity.”</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Problem in perception</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I have previously argued that Novartis’ Glivec patent would have got the axe in any other jurisdiction, had it been contested as vigorously. In fact, a U.S. court invalidated a Pfizer patent covering a blood pressure medication (Norvasc) on grounds very similar to the Novartis decision, i.e. mere physical advantages cited for the salt form such as increased stability and solubility were not good enough to merit patent protection.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The problem perhaps is one of perception. Our mainstream media continues to paint a rather harrowing picture of India’s patent ethos, lauding over patent axes and ignoring patent wins. Illustratively, when two of Glaxo’s patents covering a breast cancer drug (Tykerb) were challenged before India’s specialised IP tribunal, IPAB (Intellectual Property Appellate Board), the main patent covering the basic compound was upheld and the secondary patent covering the salt invalidated. While our media hailed the death of the secondary salt patent, they all but ignored the more important primary patent that had been upheld. This creates a rather one-sided perception.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Overprotection</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
No doubt, India’s IP tribunal has liquidated more patents than its counterparts in other parts of the world, but a dispassionate look at the overall patent numbers will indicate that the situation is not as grim as it is made out to be. Between 2005 and 2011, more than 4,000 patents for pharmaceutical inventions were issued by the Patent Office. Of these, more than 85 per cent were awarded to multinational drug companies. A study done by me in 2009 showed that of all the pharmaceutical patent applications filed, only 0.3 per cent had been challenged. While this percentage may have increased in the last couple of years, I would wager that it has not crossed two per cent!</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In fact, if one were to dig deep, one realises that India is as guilty of overprotection as it is of under-protection. I was at a government meeting recently when a representative from a well known copyright collecting society proudly proclaimed that music copyright enforcement had never been better. Courts were issuing extraordinary orders to prevent copyright infringement including orders to block entire websites; orders never known to have been issued anywhere else in the world. What a telling paradox! The so-called developed world looks upon us as an IP deficit nation, little realising that we’re equally guilty of “IP excess.” The sheer number of ex parte restraining orders doled out in patent cases is also testament to this paradox; orders unheard of in any other country and passed without so much as hearing the defendant.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
These ex parte orders are severely problematic and one hopes that the Supreme Court puts an end to it. For one, in patent infringement cases, the validity of the patent is almost always challenged. This being so, courts simply cannot afford to issue injunctions without hearing the other side. More egregiously, once issued, it is often difficult and time consuming to reverse such injunctions, and defendants are forced to settle at gunpoint.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
As Shashi Tharoor rightly noted in a recent address at IIM Kolkata, everything said about India can be equally true and false. And that is the paradox of this plural nation: there is as much over-protection in intellectual property as there is under-protection!</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Speaking of India’s contentious compulsory licensing order in Natco v. Bayer, where after a severely contested quasi-judicial proceeding, the Patent Office issued a licence for a life-saving cancer drug on the grounds of its exorbitant price, Ambassador Rao goes on to note: “Compulsory licensing has been an integral part of the patent regime of many countries for years. Fifteen countries, both developed and developing countries alike, have issued more than 35 compulsory licences.”</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Protectionism</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
What she forgot to mention is that the United States routinely issues such licences, albeit through their courts which refuse to grant patent injunctions on grounds of public interest. In fact, more than a decade ago, the U.S. Secretary of Health threatened to issue a licence against German major Bayer when faced with the Anthrax crisis, forcing it to drop its drug prices. When the U.S. admonishes India on this count asking it to refrain from destroying global innovation imperatives, it strikes one as a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black!</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
All of which leaves one wondering: why do we continue to reason with a government that has become so adept at playing the Janusian game; resorting to protectionist and public interest measures on its own soil, but lambasting others in the name of free trade and haloed IP rights, when they do so. If there is one consistent theme in the global intellectual property and trade wars, it is that of “hypocrisy”!</div>
</span></div>
Shamnad Basheerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07152989743112178836noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17664472.post-71462714353001753282013-09-05T10:31:00.000+05:302013-09-05T10:31:02.545+05:30SpicyIP Tidbit: Zanjeer- Salim/Javed Settle with Producers<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
After having suffered defeat before the Single Bench of the Bombay High Court on 2nd September (<a href="http://spicyipindia.blogspot.in/2013/09/bombay-hc-remake-zanjeer-to-be-released.html">here</a>), scriptwriters Salim Khan and Javed Akhtar appealed to a Division Bench. <a href="http://www.dnaindia.com/entertainment/1884382/report-salim-javed-settle-with-producers-over-copyright-of-zanjeer">As reported</a>, the Division Bench advised the parties to amicably settle their dispute. Agreeing to this, the <a href="http://www.mumbaimirror.com/entertainment/bollywood/Victory-for-Salim-Javed/articleshow/22306712.cms">scriptwriters</a> withdrew their suit and arrived at a financial settlement with the producers. The settlement was arrived at in the judges’ chamber so that the settlement amount was not divulged to the public at large.
This has paved way for the release of the remake Zanjeer on 6th September.</div>
Aparajita Lathhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01604575114222780960noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17664472.post-20577329260933172932013-09-05T01:31:00.001+05:302013-09-05T01:31:44.890+05:30Delhi HC rejects the "Hot News" Doctrine: A Summary<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The applicability of the Hot News doctrine was rejected recently in a landmark ruling delivered by Justice Bhat of the Delhi HC. This post is a summary of the decision. Shamnad discussed the crux of this decision <a href="http://spicyipindia.blogspot.in/2013/09/cold-news-for-cricket-score-monopolies.html">here</a>. The judgment is extremely well written and researched, employing a multitude of cases from several foreign jurisdictions. Read the decision in full <a href="https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http%3A%2F%2Flobis.nic.in%2Fdhc%2FSRB%2Fjudgement%2F02-09-2013%2FSRB30082013FAOOS1532013.pdf">here</a>. Long post follows.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Background</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In 2012, by an Agreement, BCCI granted exclusive broadcasting rights to Star TV to disseminate the information/content emanating from the cricket matches; other copyrights emanating from recording of the live match too were assigned which included the right to record, reproduce, broadcast , etc. Sometime later, Cricbuzz, Idea Cellular and ONMOBILE started SMS services providing contemporaneous ball-by ball coverage of live cricket matches. Star TV India(plaintiff/Respondents) filed three suits against Piyush Agarwal (Cricbuzz), Idea Cellular and ONMOBILE(Appellants/Defendants). The “mobile distribution” rights were the bone of contention in the proceedings. The BCCI was arrayed as the common defendant in all the three cases. BCCI, however, supported Star, claiming paramount rights over all information emanating from cricketing events as the organizer and promoter of that sport in India. Star alleged that the defendants had violated those rights and consequently filed a suit for permanent injunction and damages. The Single Judge of the Delhi HC rejected the defendants’ contentions and the ad-interim injunction sought was granted:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>A. A limited interim injunction restraining the defendants from disseminating contemporaneous match information in the form of ball-by-ball or minute-by-minute score updates/match alerts for a premium, without obtaining a license from the plaintiff</i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i><br /></i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>B. There shall be no restriction upon the defendants to report “noteworthy information” or “news” from cricket matches , as and when they arise, because “stale news is no news”.</i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i><br /></i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>C. There shall be no requirement for the license if the defendants do it gratuitously or after a time lag of 15 minutes.</i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
A Division Bench of the Delhi HC overturned the decision in the present judgment.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Contentions</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<u>The Appellants' contentions broadly were:</u></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
1. The appellants submitted that no statute created a proprietary right in scores. Facts cannot be ‘owned’ under statute or common law. Further, the appellants highlighted unique nature of the right claimed by the respondents- a quasi property right, not enumerated under any statute. The Court cannot deem cricket scores as property of a person owing to the ambiguous nature of such a right. The appellants cited the opinion of Justice Brandeis in <i>International News Service vs. Associated Press </i>(INS case) which raised concerns about the dangers of creating ill-defined rights. Other case-laws were cited to submit that giving ‘relief’ on the basis of ‘created rights’ would amount to ‘judicial legislation.’ Owing to the non-existence of the respondents' claimed rights, the Appellants argued that Star's claims were barred by Section 16 of the Copyright Act which precluded it from claiming copyright or other <i>similar</i> un-enumerated, rights. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
2. Only certain aspects or features of an event may be capable of ownership. The sporting event as a whole is incapable of ownership. The mere expending of money or effort would not render the underlying facts relating to sporting events property, capable of protection. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
3. There was an inherent contradiction in the rights claimed by the respondents. Property rights are <i>in rem</i>, yet those rights were self professedly are not asserted against the world at large, which therefore was contrary to the <i>in rem</i> principle underlying property rights. It was admitted by the respondents that there was no exclusive property right against persons who carry on the same activities gratuitously.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
4. They relied on a Delhi HC decision(<i> New Delhi Television Limited v. ICC Development </i><i>Limited and Anr</i>.) and submitted that the limited protection by way of injunction of a finite duration granted to preserve the sanctity of “hot news” on the basis of the “unfair competition” and “unjust enrichment” doctrine was warranted by the facts and circumstances of the case.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<u>The Respondents' contentions broadly were:</u></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
1. The respondents submitted the definition of the right asserted as: <i>"It is a unique property right, which stems out of a negative obligation of the appellants, who secure match related information contemporaneously, not to use it commercially for a short duration.</i>" Whereas the right of the members of the public – who witness the event, having paid for the tickets or millions of television viewers who subscribe and watch paid channels, which cover the event, to share it on a non-commercial basis cannot be denied, yet there was an obligation on a third party not to commercially exploit SMS updates. The respondents maintained that the right asserted was neither an intellectual property right, nor a copyright. Counsel submitted that the rights claimed and sought to be enforced are not absolute, in that not all factual information is the subject matter of protection, but only a limited property right – the right to generate revenue by monetizing Match Information through the new platform / medium of Mobile services.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
2. Match information had commercial value and was time sensitive, thus constituted Hot News. The Court's authority to injunct its misappropriation was recognized by in <i>Marksman Marketing Services Private Limited v. Bharti Televentures Limited [Mad HC].</i></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
3. An organizer is entitled to appropriate newsworthy content from its events. The BCCI claimed that that it owned property rights in the match information, subject only to public interest considerations like gratuitous dissemination by public, Mandatory Sharing of Feed, etc.It was also argued that denial of property rights in respect of match information is inconsistent with grant of the entire structure of rights in sports event, including broadcasting rights, audio rights, internet rights, stadium rights, etc. Further, if ownership is was partially or fully conceded even for one of the rights, then all incidents and insignia of ownership must follow in respect of the entire bundle of rights vesting in the BCCI.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
4. The counsel contended that he rights claimed flowed out of broadcasting rights, not copyright. Further, Section 16 stood excluded in respect of broadcasting rights. Relying on the ESPN case, it was submitted that if Parliament had did not intend Section 16 to apply in respect of broadcasting rights since it was not mentioned in Section 39A.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Decision</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The reasoning of the judgment was based on the following four questions:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<u>1. Was the Respondents’ claim precluded by Section 16 of the Copyright Act</u></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The Court decided this issue by a twofold approach and held: The respondent’s claims were precluded by Section 16 of the Copyrights Act; they were also precluded because of the provisions of Chapter VIII of the said Act. If Parliament had intended such rights to exist, they would have been enacted, with suitable mechanisms for their enforcement and effectuation.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The respondents’s argument of Section 16 excluding the rights claimed was based on a reading of Section 39A of the Act which stated applicability of certain sections to broadcasting rights. Section 39 A is titled: Other provisions applying to broadcast reproduction right and performer’s right. Since section 16 is not included, the respondents contended that the claimed rights neither constituted copyright nor ‘other similar rights.'</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>Firstly</i>, the Court held that by Section 16, “copyright or any similar right” (in a work) apart from what is created by the Act is precluded. The expression “work” limits the exclusion. However, equally, while the text of the Copyright Act does not prescribe what the rights referred to in the words “other similar rights” – other than copyright – are, this must necessarily allude to broadcasting rights. This is exemplified from the applicability of Section 63( which creates offences) to broadcasting rights, in spite of not being included in Section 39 A.</div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>Secondly,</i> the Court observed that Chapter VIII (Rights of broadcasting organisation and performers) was introduced due to a felt need to give limited protections to broadcast rights akin to copyright. If the Parliament had intended to give protection to facts, “time sensitive information” or events (such as match information), there would have been conscious protection of those rights by express provision. Therefore, the exhaustive nature of the regime in Chapter VIII precluded, by its very nature, any claim for protection over and above what was expressly granted by its provisions. Such rights providing protection of facts underlying the broadcast had long been held to be barred as they were “similar” to copyright protection (<i>Donaldson v Beckett 1 ER 837 (1774)</i> and UK statutes) .</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In other words, though there is no express reference to Section 16 in Section 39A, its underlying premise, i.e. preclusion of rights other than those spelt out in Chapter VIII, by common law, would apply.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<u>2. The “Hot News” doctrine and its application in India</u></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The Court discussed the Hot News doctrine as propounded in the INS case, and traversed through several cases to arrive at the doctrine’s present ‘ghostly’ avatar : The present avatar ( as in <i>The Flyonthewall.com Inc v Barclays Capital Inc</i>) has been narrowed to injunct time sensitive news where both parties are “direct competitors” and not merely where the plaintiff's primary service or product is not hot news dissemination, but match organisation or broadcasting of those events. This critical aspect of 'Hot News' was absent in the present case, as neither Star, nor BCCI engaged themselves primarily in match news dissemination through SMS.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Thus, the respondents failed to to show to the court, how it had proprietary rights over the facts and information it sought to protect – even for a limited duration. For the reasons discussed above, it was held that the plaintiff could not claim any exclusive property or other such rights to injunct the publication of match information, or hot-news, as claimed by it, irrespective of whether the object of such third party was to publish such information for commercial gain or without any such motive.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<u><br /></u></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<u>3. Respondents’ claim for injunction based on unfair competition</u></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<u><br /></u></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The Court held that upholding the 'hot news' doctrine or the unfair competition doctrine in the present case would imply grant of protection to match information, which in turn would be in conflict with the Copyright Act. It observed that the present claims in essence requested to injunct unauthorized copying of facts. It highlighted the issue by stating: </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>“To say, now, that the doctrine of unfair competition prohibits the misappropriation of match information would either mean that misappropriation under common law can supplant the Copyright Act (which cannot be the case, as discussed above), or that copying and misappropriation refer to two distinct acts, which would be a distinction without a difference.”</i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i><br /></i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It was held that unless a qualitatively different element is purported to be included in the doctrine of “unfair competition” as compared to a copyright claim, the pre-emption under Section 16 would apply to such claims. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<u>4. Respondent’s claim for injunction based on unjust enrichment</u></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The Court held that the claim for interim injunction would not survive for three reasons:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>Firstly</i>, the claim of unjust enrichment here was similarly pre-empted as the doctrine of “unfair competition”. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>Secondly</i>, the Court must see whether the respondent alleged any misconduct incorporating elements other than those subsumed within the claim of copyright infringement. In the present case, the respondents reported no such facts. Also,even if the claim of unjust enrichment is to be seen on merits, (assuming that it is not pre-empted by Section 16), such a claim cannot – by definition (with limited exceptions) –injunct or prohibit the appellants from disseminating match information, but rather, only be the basis for a restitutionary award.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>Thirdly</i>, in this case, the appellant's dissemination resulted purely from resources invested by them , and in no way resulted from Star's conduct or any expense incurred by it. Thus, as the benefit gained by the appellants could not be said to be at the expense of Star, the claim for unjust enrichment was not tenable. Given this, the Court did not even consider the question of whether there existed an unjust factor in the retention of such benefit by the appellants. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The claims were considered to be pre-empted by Section 16, amounting to (in essence) copyright claims though dressed up under alternate heads of common law.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Furthermore, the Appellants had argued that their right to freedom of speech and expression and their right to freedom of trade under Article 19 (1) (a) and (g) could not be interfered with in the absence of any law. Expressing its wariness about using common law doctrines to encroach functions of the legislature, the Court held:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>"Recognizing the doctrine of unfair competition would inevitably restrict the appellants' ability to disseminate information, undoubtedly a crucial component of Article 19(1)(a). This is not to say that the doctrine of 'unfair competition‟ is to be rejected in Indian law on account of an Article 19(1)(a) violation, nor to say that the appellant's freedom of speech cannot be curtailed by the doctrine under any circumstance, but only to make the limited, but crucial, point that Courts must be cautious in creating doctrines and rights that have such clear implications for constitutional rights, better leaving such matters to the lawmaking domain of the legislative branch, that may result in a coherent legislation that creates a framework within which any curtailment of Constitutional rights is to take place."</i></div>
</div>
Anubha Sinhahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12224977198641433528noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17664472.post-40257824801021425622013-09-04T13:03:00.000+05:302013-09-04T13:03:06.713+05:30Bombay HC: Remake Zanjeer to be released<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://cdn.fridayrelease.com/news/images0/legal-dilemma-for-zanjeer-2013.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://cdn.fridayrelease.com/news/images0/legal-dilemma-for-zanjeer-2013.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Image from <a href="http://cdn.fridayrelease.com/news/images0/legal-dilemma-for-zanjeer-2013.jpg">here</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The remake ‘Zanjeer’ is set to be released on 6th September, as the Bombay High Court refused to grant an injunction against its release (<a href="http://bombayhighcourt.nic.in/generatenew.php?path=./data/judgements/2013/&fname=OSNMS76813.pdf&smflag=N">here</a>). We have tracked the development of this case <a href="http://spicyipindia.blogspot.in/2013/03/zanjeer-remake-row-before-bombay-hc.html">here</a>, <a href="http://spicyipindia.blogspot.in/search?q=zanjeer">here</a>, <a href="http://spicyipindia.blogspot.in/2013/03/bombay-hc-restrains-release-of-any.html">here</a>, <a href="http://spicyipindia.blogspot.in/2013/05/spicyip-tidbit-update-on-zanjeer-and.html">here</a> and <a href="http://spicyipindia.blogspot.in/2013/04/zanjeer-battle-continues-scriptwriters.html">here</a>. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
To briefly recap, the Plaintiffs Salim Khan and Javed Akhtar had alleged copyright infringement of the script they had written for the original ‘Zanjeer’ produced by Prakash Mehra in 1973. They prayed for a permanent order of injunction restraining Sumeet Mehra and others (heirs of Prakash Mehra, the Defendants in this case) from in any manner exhibiting, releasing, displaying, communicating to the public anywhere in the world the remake film “Zanjeer” in Hindi and Telugu languages or any other language. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The Plaintiffs contended that they were the authors of the script of the original Zanjeer. According to them, this literary work was never commissioned by Prakash Mehra and it was in existence even before Prakash Mehra had approached the Plaintiffs for the same. Moreover, Prakash Mehra was granted a one time permission to make the said film in 1973. Therefore, Prakash Mehra’s rights were restricted only to the cinematographic film “Zanjeer” made in the year 1973 and did not extend to the underlying “literary work” since there was no authorization from the Plaintiffs to this effect. All the rights including the right to remake a cinematographic film based on the literary work, in any language in the absence of any assignment under Sections 18 and 19 of the Copyright Act continues to remain with the Plaintiffs and no remake film can be made based on the said literary work by the Defendants, without the written consent of the Plaintiffs. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
However, the Court came to the conclusion that Prakash Mehra had commissioned the work from the Plaintiffs for a consideration of Rs. 55, 000 each and was therefore the first owner of the underlying works of the film which included the literary work. The turning point of the case was the following sequence of events: (i) Plaintiff No.1 narrated the “ story idea” of “Zanjeer” to Dharmendra; (ii) Dharmendra paid valuable consideration for that story, although it will be a matter of evidence whether the payment was to purchase the story (as stated by Plaintiff No.1 in his interview to ETC network) or as token blessing money as alleged in the rejoinder of Plaintiff No. 1; (iii) Dharmendra narrated the story to Prakash Mehra and asked him to take a script from the Plaintiffs based on the said story; and (iv) Dharmendra then commissioned the Plaintiffs to write a script on behalf of Prakash Mehra based on the said story. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Several interviews of Prakash Mehra and Salim Khan were examined and the court found clear statements that showed that the script had been bought by Dharmendra and later by Prakash Mehra from Salim Khan and it was not a case of mere licensing. The assessment order of the relevant year along with the profit and loss account and the breakup of the costs of the movie were also produced where it was shown that Rs. 55,000 was paid to each author as a consideration for ‘script and screenplay’. The court disregarded a letter written by Dharmendra that the Plaintiffs produced to prove that the script was not bought because the letter was produced at a very belated stage. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The Plaintiffs had also contended that they had licensed the “remake rights” of the literary work in respect of all South Indian languages, in favour of Mr. S.V.S. Manian. The Plaintiffs produced an affidavit of the wife of Shri S.V.S. Manian dated 31st December, 2012, confirming that her husband had bought the story rights in the Hindi film “Zanjeer” from the Plaintiffs for a period of 25 years for the making of the Tamil film “Sirithu Vazha Vendum”. But no written license was produced. The court disregarded the affidavit and left its authenticity to be checked at the stage of cross examination. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
On the basis of these facts and based on the decision in the IPRS case, the court came to a <i>prima facie</i> conclusion that it is the producer i.e. Prakash Mehra who became the first owner of the copyright in the underlying work (the script) and therefore had a right to remake the same (this right now vests with his heirs (the Defendants). Moreover, the court found that the Plaintiffs had unduly delayed in bringing the case to court. They were closely associated with the Film Industry and therefore could not take the plea that they were not aware that the Defendants were in the process of remaking Zanjeer, which was widely publicized. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Also, since the Plaintiffs had quantified their claims in monetary terms at Rs. 6 crores, the court found that they were not entitled to a mandatory injunction. This was because even if the Court would have come to the conclusion that the Plaintiffs are the owners of the copyright since the Plaintiffs’ claim falls within the provisions of Section 38 (3) (c) and not under Section 38 (3) (b) of the Specific Relief Act,1963, their claims would be satisfied by payment of monetary compensation and not by an injunction.
</div>
</div>
Aparajita Lathhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01604575114222780960noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17664472.post-33050255508885147912013-09-04T07:51:00.000+05:302013-09-05T01:45:50.576+05:30IPAB revocation of Allergan’s Combigan patent: Viewing it through the lens of American patent doctrines<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;">Recently Anubha had <a href="http://spicyipindia.blogspot.com/2013/08/part-ii-ipab-revokes-allergans-patent.html">blogged</a> about the IPAB decision revoking Allergan’s patent for Combigan. Combigan refers to a combination eye-drop product used for treating glaucoma comprising combination of Brimonidine tartarate and Timolol maleate. Media <a href="https://www.google.com/#q=allergan+and+india+and+revoke&tbm=nws">reports</a> termed this decision as the <i>latest in a series of intellectual property setbacks suffered by Western drugmakers</i>. These skewed reports also portray this revocation decision as one of many tactics by India to remove an inconvenient patent out of the way to introduce affordable generic versions. What these reports failed to highlight was that several claims of patents covering Combigan were invalidated as being obvious even in major jurisdictions like US and EU. Also it wasn’t as though the Indian patent was invalidated by applying one of those sections (eg. Section 3) which is unique to Indian patent law. An analysis of US CAFC decisions and IPAB decision for Combigan is presented below. Longish post, but hope to make it worth your while.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.verticalpharmacy.net/upload/combigan.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="200" src="http://www.verticalpharmacy.net/upload/combigan.jpg" width="183" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Image from <a href="http://www.verticalpharmacy.net/upload/combigan.jpg" target="_blank">here</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><b><u>Combigan US patents: Background</u></b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><b><u><br /></u></b></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;">
</span>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;">The patents in question are <a href="http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/ob/docs/patexclnew.cfm?Appl_No=021398&Product_No=001&table1=OB_Rx">4 OB listed patents</a> related to Combigan viz: the ’463 patent, the ’258 patent, the ’976 patent and the’149 patent. The claims of '463, ‘258, and '976 patents with the exception of claim 4 of ‘149 patent were generally treated as a single group.</span></div>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;">
</span>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Claim 1 of ‘463 patent was considered representative and it states: <i>1. A composition comprising about 0.2% timolol by weight and about 0.5% brimonidine by weight as the sole active agents, in a single composition.</i><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">Sandoz sought to market a generic version of Combigan thus triggering litigation under Hatch Waxman framework. The district court rejected allegations that claim 1 of ‘463 patent was invalid as obvious over prior art. On appeal, the Fed circuit reversed the district court's finding that the claims of the '463 patent were non-obvious.The CAFC decision can be found</span><a href="http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/11-1619.Opinion.4-25-2013.1.PDF"> here</a></div>
</span><b style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; text-align: justify;"><u><br /></u></b>
<b style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; text-align: justify;"><u>Prior art: what was known at the time of invention?</u></b><div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><b><u><br /></u></b></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;">
</span>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;">Both timolol and brimonidine were commercially available drugs in their claimed concentrations used for ophthalmic conditions at the time of the invention. At the time of the invention, it was known that the serial administration of brimonidine and timolol reduced intraocular pressure greater than either timolol or brimonidine alone. Moreover, DeSantis (US 5502052), the primary prior art reference, expressly provided a motivation to formulate fixed combinations of alpha2-agonists and beta blockers, including timolol, in order to increase patient compliance.</span></div>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><u>District court findings:Summary</u></b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<ul>
<li>The court found that there would be no motivation to create the combination product because the FDA did not view patient compliance as a factor for approval.</li>
<li>Second, the court found that the formulation arts are unpredictable.</li>
<li>There were some teachings in the prior art that taught away from the claimed invention.</li>
<li>Finally, the court observed that there were secondary considerations that support the finding of non-obviousness including long-felt need and unexpected results.</li>
</ul>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><u>Federal circuit: Do secondary considerations outweigh motivation to combine?</u></b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><u><br /></u></b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The CAFC addressed each of the findings of district court as follows:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<ul>
<li>Fed circuit opined that there is no requirement in the patent law that the person skilled in the art should be motivated to combine based on the rationale that forms basis for FDA approval. Motivation to combine may be found in many different places and forms; it cannot be limited to those reasons the FDA sees fit to consider in approving drug applications.</li>
<li>While agreeing that formulation sciences inherently contain a certain degree of unpredictability, the opinion stated that “obviousness cannot be avoided simply by a showing of some degree of unpredictability in the art so long as there was a reasonable probability of success.”</li>
<li>It also agreed that the prior art as a whole taught away from the invention.</li>
<li>Previous attempts to treat patients twice per day with brimonidine resulted in a <b>loss of efficacy</b> eight to nine hours post administration. This loss of efficacy is referred to as the “afternoon trough.<b>”</b> The court found that a twice per day dosage regimen of Combigan® unexpectedly did not suffer from the afternoon trough issue. The Fed circuit concurred with district courts findings that that this result was unexpected. However the CAFC maintained that there was a motivation to achieve better patient compliance. Whether or not that combination also solved problems associated with the afternoon trough, we find the motivation to make the combination was real.</li>
</ul>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Thus the CAFC opined that unexpected results and prior art teaching away were NOT sufficient to outweigh the other evidence of obviousness with respect to these formulation claims.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><u>Claim 4 of ‘149 patent: A different conclusion?</u></b><br />
<b><br /></b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
As mentioned above, claim 4 of ‘149 patent was analyzed separately by Federal Circuit. Claim 4 of the ’149 patent is directed to reducing the daily number of doses of brimonidine without loss of efficacy by administering fixed combination and reads as follows:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>4. A method of reducing the number of daily topical ophthalmic doses of brimonidine administered topically to an eye of a person in need thereof for the treatment of glaucoma or ocular hypertension from 3 to 2 times a day without loss of efficacy, wherein the concentration of brimonidine is 0.2% by weight, said method comprising administering said 0.2% brimonidine by weight and 0.5% timolol by weight in a single composition</i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
While the federal circuit held that the formulation of 0.2%wt brimonidine and 0.5%wt timolol was obvious, it came to a different conclusion with respect to claim 4 of the '149 patent. The CAFC reasoned that although the prior art shows concomitant administration of brimonidine and timolol, it does not establish that switching from 3 times a day to 2 times a day does not result in loss of efficacy. <b>Hence it concluded that claim 4 was NOT obvious in light of prior art.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><u>Avoiding loss of efficacy an inherent result of the formulation?: Judge Dyk’s dissent</u></b><br />
<b><u><br /></u></b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Dissenting from the majority’s opinion holding that claim 4 of the ’149 patent is not invalid as obvious Judge Dyk observed that avoiding loss of efficacy is an inherent result of the claimed method. Since the formulation was held obvious, inherent result /property of the formulation is also obvious. Judge Dyk reasoned a newly-discovered result or property of an existing (or obvious) method of use is not patentable.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The majority differed and observed that the prior art evidence does not conclusively establish that dose reduction “from 3 to 2 times a day without loss of efficacy” limitation is an inherent property or a necessary result of the administration.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><u>IPAB decision:</u></b><br />
<b><u><br /></u></b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The IPAB concluded “<i>We too are of the opinion like the Federal Court that there was a reasonable expectation of success in view of the DeSantis. Therefore for the above reason, we find that the invention is obvious</i>."<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
With regard to non-compliance of <a href="http://indiankanoon.org/doc/879773/">Section 8</a>, the IPAB noted that the applicant had failed to inform the Controller regarding refusal of corresponding EU patent and various stages of prosecution in the US counterpart patents (non-final rejections etc.). Curiously, Allergan tried to argue that <b>Therasense like inequitable conduct standards </b>should be set for Section 8. In Therasense, Inc. vs. Becton, Dickinson and Co (Fed. Cir. 2011) an en banc decision, the Federal Circuit held that inequitable conduct must be shown with clear and convincing evidence and that there was intent to withhold or misrepresent information and that the information was material. However, the IPAB reasoned that our law does not make any qualification regarding the failure to disclose nor does it say that the failure to furnish the S.8 details must be deliberate and willful. The IPAB opined that even if it was to assume Therasense like standards for the present case but for that the fact that the EP office action and/or US office action were kept away from the Controller, the patent may not have been granted. The IPAB decision itself can be found <a href="http://www.ipab.tn.nic.in/173-2013.htm">here</a> and Anubha’s post on the same can be accessed<a href="http://spicyipindia.blogspot.com/2013/08/part-ii-ipab-revokes-allergans-patent.html"> here</a>.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><u>What was different in the Indian decision?</u></b><br />
<b><u><br /></u></b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In India, Combigan was protected by only one patent viz IN219504. Since method of treatment claims are precluded from patentability in India, claim 4 of ‘149 wasn’t patented. Since the claims of IN219504 were invalidated by IPAB, it paved way for generic entry (read Ajanta pharma).</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
On the other hand in US, as discussed earlier Combigan was protected by several patents (patent thicket). Even though Sandoz succeeded in establishing that claims of ‘463 patent were invalid as obvious, the Fed circuit ruled that claim 4 of 149 as not obvious. Thus market entry for generics (Sandoz) in US is barred until expiry of ‘149 patent i.e. April 19, 2022. </div>
</span></div>
Madhulika Vishwanathanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08933308846808925545noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17664472.post-76932428081039671282013-09-02T19:42:00.003+05:302013-09-02T19:46:18.988+05:30Cold News for Cricket Score Monopolies: India Rejects the "Hot News" Doctrine<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">In an extremely well crafted </span><a href="http://lobis.nic.in/dhc/SRB/judgement/02-09-2013/SRB30082013FAOOS1532013.pdf" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">decision</a><span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">, Justice Bhat of the Delhi High Court reversed a lower court decision and rejected the application of the "hot news" doctrine to India. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">I'd recounted the facts in an <a href="http://spicyipindia.blogspot.in/2013/03/hot-breaking-news-star-win-for-unfair.html">earlier blog post</a>:</span></div>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
"Star India (the plaintiff) was given an exclusive right to broadcast matches organized by the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI). In particular, it was given a 72 hour monopoly over all media rights, including the right to all information emanating from the event such as real time scores etc. In return, Star paid BCCI a magnificent sum of money to BCCI. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The defendants (essentially telecom service providers) captured the scores on a real time basis and updated their subscribers through text messages (SMSes). Star TV sued, based on the "hot news" doctrine and the tort of unfair competition/unjust enrichment claiming that their exclusive rights under the agreement with BCCI were rendered redundant and that the defendants should not be allowed to "misappropriate" this quasi property right in real time "information" pertaining to the matches." </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
We'll bring you a detailed assessment of Justice Bhat's jurisprudentially sound <a href="http://lobis.nic.in/dhc/SRB/judgement/02-09-2013/SRB30082013FAOOS1532013.pdf">decision </a>soon. But let me extract the crux of his decision here:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
"Creating property (or quasi-property) rights in information – which is what the plaintiffs (Star and BCCI) request the Court to do in this case – stands to upset the statutory balance carefully created by the legislature through the Copyright Act. In a domain where Parliament has stepped in to create a statutory regime, an exercise of creating „supplementary‟ rights in common law would well result in obstructing the legislative scheme, as would be the case here. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The argument of BCCI that it is under a duty (by relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting)to monetize broadcasting and other rights, and is doing exactly that, by permitting Star to monetize hot-news by licensing mobile rights is misconceived, to put it mildly. One can “monetize” or license only that over which one has property rights. Neither Star nor BCCI can be permitted to say that mentioning “mobile” rights and auctioning them, would ipso facto legitimize the parcelling away of right to disseminate information, without first establishing that the right or exclusive domain over such rights existed in the first instance." </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
As evident from the above, Justice Bhat is wary of importing a foreign doctrine and upsetting the fine balance between private monopolies and the public domain sought to be drawn out by Parliament in several IP statutes. I'd hinted at this whilst highlighting the implications of the single judge decision (which stood in stark contract to Justice Bhat's decision in that it resonated at many places with conceptual fogginess), <a href="http://spicyipindia.blogspot.in/2013/03/hot-breaking-news-star-win-for-unfair.html">noting as below</a>:</div>
</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">"1. Creative lawyers will no doubt squeeze in many more alleged "wrongs" into this new IP box. This is potentially problematic, given that any new creation invariably takes away from what might have been the "public domain" and principles of free competition. The key question for discussion is: do we need a separate tort of unfair competition at all? Could one argue that existing IP regimes balance out competing interests appropriately and carve out what can be cleaved off as "private" property? To the extent that a new right needs to be created, is it not a "policy" call that ought to be taken by legislators after balancing out all competing concerns? Will not such an open ended common law tort open the floodgates for the adoption of "data exclusivity" norms in the pharmaceutical context, a distinct form of IP right that the Indian government has, time and again, refrained from legislating on. </span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Justice Mehta himself quotes with approval the cautionary note struck by Justice Holmes who dissented from the majority view in IMS and thought that this was an issue better left to legislators:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
“...the creation or recognition by courts, of a new private right, may work serious injury to the general public, unless the boundaries of the right are definitely established and wisely guarded. In order to reconcile the new private right with the public interest, it may be necessary to prescribe limitation and rules for its enjoyment; and also to provide administrative machinery for enforcing the rules. It is largely for this reason that, in the effort to meet the many new demands for justice, incident to a rapid changing civilization, resort to legislation has latterly been had with increasing frequency.” </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
2. I am given to believe that industry associations have begun lobbying for a separate statute on unfair competition law. In which case, the above point I raise becomes even more important: should we expressly legislate principles of unfair competition or leave it open ended for the courts to keep populating as newer categories of alleged IP harms emerge?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
3. With this ruling (as with many others in the IP space), it is clear that intellectual property is more about “investment” and less about “intellect”. But then, most of us already knew this, didn't we? My PhD thesis calls for an explicit <a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2203440">investment protection regime</a> in the context of pharmaceutical investments. I argue that we must call a spade a spade and stop pretending that we're predicating protection on some form of "intellect"." </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I would urge you to read Justice Bhat's decision <a href="http://lobis.nic.in/dhc/SRB/judgement/02-09-2013/SRB30082013FAOOS1532013.pdf">in full</a>, as it demonstrates yet again his exceptional judicial craftsmanship, conceptual clarity and comparative sweep.</div>
</span></div>
</div>
Shamnad Basheerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07152989743112178836noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17664472.post-56986294199771726652013-08-31T11:29:00.000+05:302013-08-31T11:29:12.281+05:30SpicyIP Tidbit: ALCS August Distribution<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In the UK, the <a href="http://www.alcs.co.uk/Home">Authors' Licensing and Collecting Society</a> is an organization run and owned by writers that collects money due to its members from the use of their works, distributes the money collected, organizes campaigns and raises awareness about issues that affect writers. It has a membership of over 85,000 writers and has so far paid out £300 million to writers. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Distribution of collections takes place twice a year. Recently, as <a href="http://ipfinance.blogspot.in/2013/08/alcs-august-distributiona-glimpse-at.html">IP Finance reports</a>, the ALCS announced its ‘<a href="http://www.alcs.co.uk/ALCS-News/August-2013/Distribution">August Distribution</a>’ where the Society is distributing £7.5 million to more than 21,000 Members. This works out to £370 per member. Though this is far from the earnings of the <a href="http://www.parade.com/64073/viannguyen/highest-paid-authorsfifty-shades-e-l-james-beats-stephen-king-j-k-rowling/">world’s commercially successful </a>writers, the ability to track and collect money for use of copyrighted works is an added benefit for writers who may not have the capacity to monitor such transactions. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The Society takes a commission of 9.5% plus an additional 0.25% which goes towards the ALCS 'Support and Sponsorship' Fund. The 9.5% commission is used for the day to day operations of the organization. The August Distribution also has details of type of work, where the work has been used and how the work has been used. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The recent unionizing of singers, authors and composers in India blogged about <a href="http://spicyipindia.blogspot.in/2013/06/artists-unionize-and-register-copyright.html">here</a> and <a href="http://spicyipindia.blogspot.in/2013/08/spicyip-tidbit-singers-from-south-in.html">here,</a> could ensure not only better bargaining capacity but also efficient collection and distribution of royalties, as well as better representation and awareness building.
</div>
</div>
Aparajita Lathhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01604575114222780960noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17664472.post-37989442819721118132013-08-30T11:33:00.000+05:302013-09-10T17:02:46.520+05:30PIP Essay Competition Results Announced: Meet the Winners<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">Last year, we'd announced a new IP writing competition for law students called <a href="http://spicyipindia.blogspot.in/2012/09/pip-essay-competition-deadline.html">PIP (Pondering Intellectual Property)</a>. This competition was jointly organised by SpicyIP, the MHRD IP Chair at the National University of Juridical Sciences (NUJS) and the Intellectual Property and Technology Law Society (IPTLS). </span></div>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
We'd asked law students from around the world to vent their creative musings on the following theme: </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
"Should the process of creating an invention or work determine its protectability as an intellectual property? " </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
We received a good number of entries and had a tough time picking the winners. Keeping in mind the rather hectic schedule of our judges, we shortlisted 5 of the top entries and sent it across for their assessment. Without much ado, here are the winners....let the drum rolls begin!</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Winners:</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
1.<b> First place</b> goes to <b>Pervin Rusi Taleyarkhan</b> (3rd year US JD student, Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law) for a thought provoking essay titled: “Intellectual Property – Protecting the Intellect or the Property?” </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
2. <b>Second place</b> goes to <b>Priya Giyarpuram Prasad</b>, (3rd year US JD student, University of Houston Law Center) & <b>Polly Beth Sims</b> (3rd year JD student, SMU Dedman School of Law) for their wonderful essay titled: "Who is Entitled to the Antelope First: a Lioness or a Vulture? – U.S. IP Law’s Implict Recognition of Labor Answers the Lioness." </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
3. <b>Third place</b> goes to <b>Karan Talwar</b> & <b>Karthik Khanna</b> (5th year law students, National University of Juridical Sciences (WB NUJS, Kolkata) for their creative take on the theme.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
We've kept up our side of the bargain and transferred the cash awards that we promised them. They've kept their side of the bargain by permitting us to carry their entries open access style on the SpicyIP website. Here are the links to their wonderful essays and I would encourage you to read them:</div>
<br />1. <a href="http://spicyip.com/docs/PIPC/2012/PIP_2012_I_Taleyarkhan.pdf">Essay </a>by Pervin Rusi Taleyarkhan<br /><br />2. <a href="http://spicyip.com/docs/PIPC/2012/PIP_2012_II_Prasad_&_Sims.pdf">Essay</a> by Priya Giyarpuram Prasad & Polly Beth Sims<br /><br />3. <a href="http://spicyip.com/docs/PIPC/2012/PIP_2012_III_Talwar_&_Khanna.pdf">Essay</a> by Karan Talwar & Karthik Khanna<br /><br /> </span><br />
<div>
<b><span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;">Our Cross Border Judges: </span></b></div>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I want to really thank our wonderful panel of judges for taking time out from their busy schedules and doing a stellar job of assessing these entries. As I'd noted in an earlier post: </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
"We've been very fortunate to line up an incredible array of judges representing a multitude of jurisdictions including the UK, US, New Zealand, Canada and Scotland. In case you're wondering how the multi-jurisdictional numbers add up, you have to dig a bit into the backgrounds of this stellar panel. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://www.osgoode.yorku.ca/faculty/full-time/david-vaver">Professor David Vaver</a>, perhaps the most cited IP scholar in Canada is originally from New Zealand. He moved to Canada, then to the UK (where he served as the Director of the Oxford IP Research Center for a good number of years and helped it gain international recognition through several innovative initiatives) and back again to Canada where the folks at Osgoode refuse to let him retire--after all, with him around, its Osgoode as it gets. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://www.law.cam.ac.uk/people/academic/l-a-f-bently/1109">Professor Lionel Bently</a>, one of Europe's leading IP scholars and author of several books and articles including a classic treatise on <a href="http://books.google.com/books/about/Intellectual_property_law.html?id=n9b8LgAACAAJ">intellectual property law</a> (which is now the standard IP text book in many jurisdictions, including India) is of English vintage but spent a considerable amount of time in Australia. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://www.spc.ox.ac.uk/Staff/69/Staff.html?StaffId=266">Professor Graeme Dinwoodie</a> is of Scottish heritage and spent a large part of his career teaching in the United States, where, among other things he ran a very reputed IP programe out of Chicago Kent law school, wrote a stream of high impact scholarly pieces on various facets of intellectual property law and was conferred with one of the highest teaching awards (the Pattishall Medal for Teaching Excellence) before he moved to the UK to take over as the Director of the Oxford IP Research Centre (OIPRC). </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
As for <a href="http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/judges/randall-r-rader-chief-judge.html">Judge Rader</a>, although he has not switched borders yet, his reputation is by all accounts very "trans-border" in scope. Many would agree that he qualifies as a well known mark in several jurisdictions, where he routinely visits and speaks, leaving one to ponder the source of his indefatigable energy, good cheer and occasional creative outpourings on the non IP side, which have rightly earned him the sobriquet,<a href="http://www.managingip.com/Article/2922924/Review-Chief-Judge-Rader-rocks-rolls-and-wriggles.html">the Rock Star of IP.</a>" </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Judicial Assessments:</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
For those interested, here is a <a href="http://spicyip.com/docs/PIPC/2012/Assessment%20of%20Judges.pdf">link</a> to a document capturing the core essence of the judges' assessments/rankings (anonymised of course), so you get a snapshot view of what each of them felt about the essays. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>A Special Thank You: </b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Before I end, I really want to thank the following people who played a significant role in seeing this competition to fruition:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
i) Sai Vinod (ex student, NUJS) for intiating this competition and seeing it all the way through till the end. But for his insistence, this would have never happened. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
ii) Shan Kohli (ex student, NUJS and Trainee Solicitor, Linklaters) for being very generous with her time and helping us with the internal shortlisting process. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
iii) Nayantara Ranganathan (IV Yr. NUJS) for designing the poster for the competition. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
iv) Professor Ishwara Bhat, Vice Chancellor, NUJS for encouraging these activities aimed at encouraging students to exercise their creative faculties. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
And last, but certainly not the least, I really want to thank the Ministry of HRD for setting up these IP chairs and providing us excellent support to create more IP awareness around the country. And in particular to Mr Ashok Thakur, (Secretary, MHRD), Ms Veena Ish (Joint Secretary) and Mr Raghavender (Copyright Registrar) for going out of their way to encourage our activities. </div>
</span> </div>
Shamnad Basheerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07152989743112178836noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17664472.post-63495017050722602682013-08-30T00:29:00.000+05:302013-08-30T00:29:42.415+05:30Now Showing: Satyagraha: Bom HC denies an Injunction to Restrain its Release<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I recently <a href="http://spicyipindia.blogspot.in/2013/08/bollywood-flick-satyagraha-faces.html" target="_blank">blogged</a> about the dispute between Narayani Productions and Prakash Jha Productions over the movie title <i>Satyagraha</i>. Yesterday, the Bombay HC denied Narayani Productions an interim injunction to restrain the defendants from releasing <i>Satyagraha</i>. We have a copy of the order passed by Justice Kathawala, thanks to a SpicyIP reader.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://redwingcinema8.yolasite.com/resources/now%20showing%20popcorn%20copy.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="110" src="http://redwingcinema8.yolasite.com/resources/now%20showing%20popcorn%20copy.jpg" width="200" /></a>The Plaintiff, Narayani Productions submitted that the Defendants used their power and influence in the industry to manipulate the records of the Association of Motion Pictures & T.V. Programme Producers(AMPTPP), and have deprived the Plaintiff of its legitimate right to use the title <i>Satyagraha. </i> The title was registered by the plaintiff with the AMPTPP since 2005. The registration of the title was thereafter renewed by the Plaintiffs on a yearly basis. The Plaintiffs admittedly failed to renew the said registration after 29th January, 2011. In fact, on 16th February, 2012, the Plaintiffs filed an application before the Trade Mark Registry seeking registration of the trademark <i>Satyagraha</i> under class 41, which is still pending. In the meantime on 15th June, 2011, the Defendant filed an Application seeking registration of <i>Satyagraha</i> for its film with another Association viz. Indian Motion Picture Producers' Association (IMPPA).</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Realising the lapse, the Plaintiffs applied for registration of the title with AMPTPP on 25th August,2011, which was subject to approval of the Title Registration Committee. The AMPTPP and IMPPA are two Associations with whom its members are allowed to file applications seeking registration of the title proposed to be used by the members for their proposed Hindi feature films. Over a series of decisions taken by the two associations, the title was finally registered for the Defendants, because the registration of the Plaintiffs lapsed in January 2011, and the Defendants' application was prior in time after the lapse. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The Court put the blame squarely on the plaintiffs for losing rights over the title due to their delay in re-applying for the same. It dismissed the allegations of manipulation made against the defendants. Further the Court held that no copyright can be claimed in the title. Since the trademark <i>Satyagraha</i> was not registered till date in favour of the Plaintiffs, the Plaintiffs cannot claim any statutory rights in that regard. The Plaintiffs also cannot claim any common law rights in the admitted absence of any plea of existence of any reputation and goodwill in the mark. The Plaintiffs therefore failed to make out any prima facie case in their favour. The application for injunction to restrain the release of <i>Satyagraha</i> was accordingly dismissed.</div>
</div>
Anubha Sinhahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12224977198641433528noreply@blogger.com1