Lawmitra

US forcing Spain to Draft On Line Piracy Law

lawmitra — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 16:15:01 +0000

United State of America pressured Spain to implement Online Piracy Law and to Show the leaks File.

The US ambassador in Madrid threatened Spain with “retaliation actions” if the country did not pass tough new internet piracy laws, according to leaked documents.

The latest revelation comes amid a fierce debate over America’s own plans to pass online piracy legislation that critics claim will damage the infrastructure of the internet and restrict free speech.

In a letter dated 12 December and obtained by Spanish newspaper El Pais, US ambassador Alan Solomont wrote to the outgoing Spanish prime minister expressing his concern about the lack of movement on a online piracy bill, known as the Sinde law.

“The government has unfortunately failed to finish the job for political reasons, to the detriment of the reputation and economy of Spain,” reads the letter to José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero. The letter was also sent to minister of culture Ángeles González-Sinde, after whom the law is named.

Spain would go on to pass Sinde at the start of this year.

In his letter, Solomont issued veiled threats, reminding its recipients that Spain is on the Special 301, the US trade representatives’ list of countries that do not provide “adequate and effective” protection of intellectual property rights. Spain risks having its position on the list “degraded”, and could join the real blacklist of “the worst violators of global intellectual property rights.”

Spain was among 28 countries put on 2011′s Special 301 list, including Belarus, Greece, Italy and Ukraine. Countries deemed the worst offenders are put on a “priority watchlist” and can be subject to “retaliation actions” including the elimination of tariff agreements and a referral to the World Trade Organisation. Last year’s priority list included China, India, Israel and Russia.

“The government of Spain made commitments to the rights owners and to the US government. Spain can not afford to see their credibility questioned on this issue,” Solomont wrote.

“The rampant Internet piracy hurts the economy of Spain and cultural industries,” he added.

The law creates a government body with powers to force internet service providers to block sites alleged to have infringed copyright. Copyright holders can lobby the government body to close down sites.

The Spanish legislation is similar to Protect IP and Sopa, the stop online piracy act, two pieces of anti-piracy legislation now being discussed in the US Congress.

Art Brodsky, director for Public Knowledge, a Washington-based public interest group that has campaigned against Sopa, said: “It appears as if the US government has been pressuring the Spanish government for at least three years on the copyright issue

“It is unfortunate that the US ambassador is again issuing threats to the new Spanish government over the implementation of a law similar to one that is generating quite a bit of controversy in the US and has brought forth opposition from all sides of the political spectrum.”

In 2010 El Paid published WikiLeaks cables that showed the US government has consistently pushed for Spain to tighten up its online piracy legislation and threatened to put the country on its 301 watch list.

In one 2008 cable, US officials wrote: “We propose to tell the new government that Spain will appear on the Watch List if it does not do three things by October 2008. First, issue a [Government of Spain] announcement stating that internet piracy is illegal, and that the copyright levy system does not compensate creators for copyrighted material acquired through peer-to-peer file sharing. Second, amend the 2006 ‘circular’ that is widely interpreted in Spain as saying that peer-to-peer file sharing is legal. Third, announce that the GoS will adopt measures along the lines of the French and/or UK proposals aimed at curbing Internet piracy by the summer of 2009.”

• This article was corrected on 6 January 2012 because it described José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero as a former Spanish president, instead of prime minister.

* The news publish over here only for Reading purpose. News collected from http://www.guardian.co.uk

Ginger Patent Issue.. Remember East India Company…!

lawmitra — Thu, 05 Jan 2012 17:54:36 +0000

Fight for Ginger…! Britishers are well known about the effect of Ginger that is why they are actively working for patent rights of Ginger. Recently a British Pharma company has filed for a patent application regarding Ginger use in Cold Treatment. Department of CISR, Council of Scientific and Industrial Research opposed that application. In favor of Indian Medicine history CSIR produced lot of evidence. As evidence produced Ilaaj-al-Amraaz (18th century), Bhaisajya Ratnavali and Bharata Bhaisajya Ratnakara (1000 BC), Bayaaz-e-Kabir (1938 AD), Muheet-e-Azam (19th century) and Khazaain-al-Advia from the 20th century. ANd Yessssss…! The Patent application has rejected. But a big question mark is there… Why Britishers are still fighting to snatch all traditional resources…???

Cyber Squatting….. ICICI Bank Ltd Vs. Chuandong Xu & Anr.

lawmitra — Wed, 04 Jan 2012 16:59:53 +0000

New Issue Settle – Cyber Squatting….. ICICI Bank Ltd Vs. Chuandong Xu & Anr.
Now a days cyber squatters are actively involve in hijacking the domain names of well known companies.
A judgment pronounced by Hon’ble Delhi High Court for the case ICICI Bank Ltd Vs. Chuandong Xu & Anr.
A registered trademark ‘ICICI’ is completely owned by plaintiff.
Plaintiffs trade-mark “ICICI” is an abbreviation the expanded form of which is a set of arbitrary words i.e. “Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation of India”.
The word ICICI was adopted by company in the year of 1995.
In short defendant got registered a domain icicigroup.com and plaintiff stated that defendant register the domain to get benefit of the ICICI goodwill.
Plaintiff have already many domains related to ICICI like; icicilife.org, iciciprulife.org, iciciprulife.net, icicibima.org, icicilife.net, icicibank.com.sg, icicicaps.com, iciciresearchcentre.org, icicibankuk.co.uk, icici.biz, icicibankchina.cn, icicibankchina.org.cn, icicibankchina.net.cn for other different banking and insurance services.
Plaintiff proof the intention of defendant n hon’ble Delhi HighCourt passed the order in favor of plaintiff.

’8PM’ V/S ‘PALONE 8′

lawmitra — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 17:31:35 +0000

Radico Khaitan V/S Carlsberg India Pvt. Ltd. (decided on 20th December, 2011)
Carlsberg India launched beer ‘ Palone 8′ and sued by 8PM.
Radico stated that they have a registerd Trademark of 8PM and the number 8 is also registered in the same trademark application. Redico stated that Carlsberg using the same Trade Mrak 8 and the same trade dress as that of Redico’s 8PM.
In a detail judgment and compassion between the both tradedress and Trademark certification, Court decided that both tradedress were not similar and both Brands can use their brand name with numeral 8.

Madras high court Upheld the judgment of IPAB

lawmitra — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 17:08:13 +0000

Madras high court Upheld the judgment of IPAB.
Yahoo Filed a Patent application regarding Yahoo Search Engine Mechanism. The patent application was opposed by Rediff and refused by controller.
In the result Yahoo challenge the order at IPAB. Due to Pre Grant Representation section 25(1) was not applicable, and refused the appeal.
Against the order of IPAB, yahoo challenged it at High court Madras.
Honorable High COurt Upheld the judgment.

Cyber Squatting- New Era in Indian Law.

lawmitra — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 17:06:52 +0000

Cyber Squatting- New Era in Indian Law.
Again Delhi high court decided a land mark judgment under S.34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
The domain internet.in was registered with the .IN registry in Feb 2005.
On a other hand a tobacco goods manufacturer and smoke articles got their Trademark registration in class 34. the brand name of smoke articles are known as ‘INTERNET’.
Now the dispute… is related to internet.in, against the order of arbitration delhi high court decide this judgment.
For full judgment search for ;
Delhi High Court
Stephen Koenig vs Arbitrator, National Internet on 14 December, 2011
O.M.P. 132 of 2007
Decision on: December 14, 2011
STEPHEN KOENIG
versus
ARBITRATOR, NATIONAL INTERNET
EXCHANGE OF INDIA (NIXI) & ANR ….

Madras High court- Views on BAJAJ-TVS Case.

lawmitra — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 17:05:12 +0000

Madras High court- Views on BAJAJ-TVS Case. Over at the Bajaj-TVS trial, which, yes, is still happening in the city formerly known as Madras, a Division Bench of the High Court has reversed the trial court decision, observing that asking Bajaj to lead evidence first to defend its infringement action against TVS. would be “prejudicial”. In a well-reasoned order discussing the “Right to Begin”, the… order,offers a refresher course in principles of civil jurisprudence and evidence law, in context of the multiple suits pending between the two parties. Judgment details- Madras High Court Bajaj Auto Ltd vs Tvs Motor Company read more...

National Pharmaceutical Policy-2011

lawmitra — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 17:00:26 +0000

National Pharmaceutical Policy-2011, The Draft..
The 2011 policy follows two failed attempts (2002 and 2006) to replace the 1994 policy currently still in place.

Main Features of the Policy

… * Prices would be regulated based on essentially of drugs rather than the economic criteria and market share principle enunciated in the Drug Policy of 1994.
* The new policy would regulate the price of formulations only which is different from the earlier principle of regulating the prices of specified bulk drugs and their formulations.
* The price of formulations would be regulated through market based pricing rather than cost based pricing.
* Formulations will be priced only by fixing the ceiling price which would be calculated on the basis of Weighted Average Price (WAP) of the top three brands.
* The policy is unclear on the pricing of patented drugs; it states that their prices will be determined by a separate committee constituted by the Government.

HC prohibits use of Trademark \’Thalapakattu\’ for Biriyani

lawmitra — Fri, 09 Dec 2011 05:30:23 +0000

Madras High Court today prohibited \’\’Thalapakattu Biriyani and Fast Food\’\’ from using that name or anything deceptively similar to the registered trademark of Thalappakatti Naidu Anandha Vilas Biriyani Hotel, Dindigul, in shops or restaurants opened after November 19 2008.

Justice V Ramsubramanian gave the interim order on applications from Thalappakatti Naidu Anandha Vilas Biriyani Hotel after getting registration of trademark \”Thalappakatti.\”

In 2007, Thalappakatti Naidu Anandha Vilas Biriyani Hotel had sought permanent injunction restraining Thalapakattu Biriyani and fast food from infringing its trademark and restraining them from passing off their products as that of the former.

A Single Judge had granted an injunction restraining Thalapakattu Biriyani and Fast Food from infringing the trademark and passing off on two applications from Thalappakatti Naidu Anandha Vilas Biriyani Hotel, Dindigul.

Challenging the common order passed in both applications,the defendant filed two appeals.During hearing,both parties agreed to an interim arrangement, as suggested by the Division Bench, as per which Thalapakattu Biriyani and Fast Food was permitted to change the name to \”Chennai Rawther Thalappakattu Biriyani\”

Even before institution of this suit, Thalappakatti Naidu Anandha Vilas Biriyani Hotel had applied for registration of trademark \”Thalappakatti\” and Thalapakattu Biriyani and Fast Food had also applied for registration.

On Sept 22,Deputy Registrar,Trade Marks allowed application of Anandha Vilas Biriyani Hotel and issued certificate.By another order the same day, TBFF\’s application was refused.

Thalappakatti Naidu Anandha Vilas Biriyani Hotel filed two fresh applications for injunction where the reliefs were confined to further opening of outlets using the trademark and committing further infringement of the registered trademark.

Justice V Ramasubramanian said it was found plaintiff is registered proprietor of the trademark and that they were its prior user, far ahead in time than use by defendant.

He said defendant\’s attempt to get the same mark registered had failed. At a time when an interim arrangement was in place, defendant had only four outlets, but started nine more. Since case is one of same marks and not similar ones applied on same type of goods and services, an injunction should follow.

Justice Ramasubramanian said plaintiff has established a prima facie case.Consent by them before a Division Bench to buy peace by way of temporary arrangement appears to have been construed as weakness and misused by the defendant.

Granting limited injunction order in favour of the Dindigul hotel, he restrained Thalapakattu Biriyani and Fast Food Chennai from using \”Thalappakattu\” in any restaurant or shops opened after Nov 19 2008.

The Judge said the defendant is entitled to use the name for existing four shops as on Nov 19 2008. But benefit of the consent given by Anandha Vilas Biriyani Hotel would not be available in respect of shops or restaurants opened after the date.

“Concept level rethinking”

lawmitra — Fri, 09 Dec 2011 05:24:02 +0000

In a matter closely tracked by patent attorneys and the aviation sector for some years now, the Chennai Patent Office last week finally issued its decision on the opposition filed by Jet Airways and the UK-based Contour Airspace Ltd in favour of the patent applicant, i.e., Virgin Atlantic Airways.

You can download and read the 128-page decision here. This case, as you will gather, involves a complex series of events, including the filing of two oppositions, and a parallel re-examination proceeding. The patent application itself related to passenger seats for use in aircraft, among other things.The patent office eventually decided in favour of Virgin, with a catchphrase of an observation that the invention involved “concept level rethinking”. (I have never encountered this phrase in patent parlance before, but I am confident it will be enthusiastically taken up by patent attorneys across the country in future defences of patentability.)While we have not as yet had an opportunity to study the decision in detail, by way of a quick snapshot of the timeline and issues involved:

Application: Virgin filed a patent application in India via the National Phase in 2004 for a passenger seat and related claims.
Opposition: In July 2007, by when the application came up for examination, Jet filed a pre-grant opposition (under section 25(1) of the Patents Act) on grounds that Virgin’s application was anticipated and obvious.
Amendment: Virgin also amended its application in the interim, in response to the First Examination Report issued by the Patent Office. This came up as an issue, in context of the closing phrase of section 25(1), i.e., “…but on no other ground and the Controller shall, if requested by such person for being heard, hear him and dispose of such representation…”
The semantics of claim construction are tested here, pivoting around equivalence (or difference) between the terms “characterized by (in that)” and “wherein”. This debate (in the decision) also tests the quality of the manual of patent and procedure.
A new citation was also introduced mid-way in the course of the hearings, requiring the IPO to adjudicate upon whether this was introduced in good faith or otherwise.
The first pre-grant opposition (filed by Jet) was rejected, and the patent application was sent for re-examination under section 59(1), dealing with the amendment of application or specification.
Meanwhile, the manual of patent office practice and procedure was finalised, and thereafter, in October 2010, a second pre-grant opposition was filed by Contour Airspace on grounds of anticipation and obviousness.
A postal delay in the receipt of an “expert report” submitted by the second opponent invited a debate and an adjournment.
The final of six hearings from March 2010 onwards was held on 12 October 2011, and the decision was signed dated 24 November 2011.