Delhi High Court | Decided: 8 February 2011 W.P. (C) No. 801 of 2011 Bench: Justice S. Muralidhar Background Nippon Steel Corporation, a Japanese corporation with world-class technology in the field of medium-high grade steel, was engaged in intensive research and development in steelmaking and related engineering. On 9 February 2007, Nippon Steel filed an […]
Copyright law operates on two distinct but interconnected axes. The first is economic – the bundle of exclusive rights that allows a creator to control the reproduction, distribution, performance and communication of their work and to extract financial value from it. The second is personal – the connection between a creator and their work that
Moral Rights and Author’s Special Rights under Section 57 of the Copyright Act, 1957 Read More »
The grant of a patent is not an automatic entitlement that follows from novelty or inventive step alone. Before any invention can be examined on those standard criteria, it must first clear a foundational threshold: it must constitute a patentable subject matter under Indian law. The Patents Act, 1970 draws this threshold with deliberate precision
Non-Patentable Subject Matter in India: A Complete Guide to Section 3 Read More »
The examination of a trademark application in India operates at two distinct levels. The first level, governed by Section 9 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, concerns the inherent qualities of the mark itself – whether it is distinctive, whether it is descriptive, whether it offends public policy. These are the absolute grounds and they
Relative Grounds for Refusal under Section 11 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 Read More »
Copyright law is, at its core, a bargain. Society grants creators a bundle of exclusive rights over their works for a limited period, in exchange for the enrichment that creative expression brings to public life. But the bargain was never intended to be unconditional. An absolute monopoly over the use of a work would impede
Fair Dealing under Section 52 of the Copyright Act, 1957 – A Comprehensive Analysis Read More »
Delhi High Court | CS(OS) 1656/2005 | 17 September 2008 | S. Ravindra Bhat, J. Background The plaintiff, the University of Oxford – one of the world’s most recognized academic publishers – had been publishing educational books in India since 1912. In collaboration with the Jammu & Kashmir State Board of School Education and pursuant
Supreme Court of India | April 26, 1990 | 1990 Supp (1) SCC 727 M.N. Venkatachaliah, N.D. Ojha & J.S. Verma, JJ. Background Wander Ltd. was the registered proprietor of the trademark “Cal-De-Ce” in respect of vitaminsed Calcium Gluconate Tablets. In March 1986, Wander Ltd. entered into a manufacturing agreement with Antox India (P) Ltd.,
Bombay High Court | Decided: 19 December 2007 Bench: Justice A.H. Joshi Citation: (2008) 3 MLJ 599 Background Garware-Wall Ropes Ltd., the plaintiff-appellant, was the registered holder of two patents – “GSWR” and “Spiral Lock Systems” bearing Patent Nos. 196240 and 201177 respectively – relating to rope and wire systems used in infrastructure projects. The
Garware-Wall Ropes Ltd. v. A.I. Chopra & Another Read More »
Delhi High Court (Division Bench) | FAO(OS) 583/2011 & 584/2011 | 21 August 2012 | Pradeep Nandrajog & Manmohan Singh, JJ. Background Yashraj Films Pvt. Ltd., the respondent, held copyright in the sound recordings and cinematographic films of several commercially successful Bollywood productions, including Bunty Aur Babli, Nayak, Lagaan, Aks, Main Hoon Na, Salam Namaste,
India TV Independent News Service Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Yashraj Films Pvt. Ltd. Read More »
Bombay High Court | October 10, 1995 | Appeal from Order Nos. 1152, 1153 & 1154 of 1994 AIR 1996 Bom 149 Background The Kirloskar Group of Companies is one of India’s most storied industrial conglomerates, tracing its origins to 1888 when Laxmanrao Kashinath Kirloskar began a bicycle repair business in Belgaum. By 1920, the
Kirloskar Diesel Recon Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. vs. Kirloskar Proprietary Ltd. & Ors. Read More »