Intern – Ayush Mittal has commenced his General IP Internship with the firm’s law practice.
We hope his stay in the firm during the 4 week period of his internship will be mutually enriching and that the firm and he will learn exciting things from each other!
A ‘Special Legal Issues Seminar- General IP’ (SLIS-GIP) was conducted by Anurathna Mathivanan, Senior Associate and Nivrati Gupta, Associate, on “Is the Applicant obligated to serve the Counter-Statement upon the Opponent in a Trade Marks Opposition proceeding?”. The seminar discussed an aspect of the Delhi High Court’s decision in Sun Pharma v. Dabur India wherein the Court, in passing, observed that under the Trade Marks Rules, 2002 and Trade Marks Rules, 2017, onus of the service of Counter-Statement in an opposition proceeding is on the Applicant or at the very least, not a duty of the Registrar. The session attempted to dissect the implications of this observation made by the Court and the interpretation of Section 21(3) of the Trademark Act vis-à-vis the Trade Mark Rules.
The presentation can be accessed here.
During last week’s PWS Session, Shreyak Patnaik, Associate, led a discussion on ‘Whether considering directors as authors of film would be necessary for holistic protection of cinematographic films?’ The session began with a discussion on what authorship entails and whether a director’s contribution can be considered a work of authorship. The participants discussed whether allowing authorship rights will unfairly prejudice producers’ rights in cinematograph films. The participants also debated on whether a director is already fairly compensated through the current practice of contractually provided rights. The discussion concluded with the participants providing concluding remarks on whether only extending moral rights will be sufficient protection owing to the intangible nature of a director’s contribution to a film
A ‘Legal Issues Seminar- General IP’ (LIS-GIP) was conducted by Devesh Kapoor, Associate, on “Does the unauthorized use of a trademark by way of spoken use in a critical comment result in infringement?”. The seminar discussed relevant provisions under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 to determine infringement of trademark by spoken use as well as visual representation. The session deconstructed decisions of the Supreme Court and High Courts wherein infringement was sought to be determined based on spoken use and visual representation, such as via cinematograph films. The seminar involved an interesting discussion on whether intent of the spoken use and visual representation holds value in determining infringement by detriment to reputation of a trademark. The session concluded with a discussion on the difficulty of balancing brand protection with the need for open public discourse, reflecting the challenge of harmonizing legal principles with free speech and creative expression.
The presentation can be accessed here.
During last week’s Practice Work Shop (PWS), Madhulika Tyagi, Trainee Associate, hosted a discussion on “Should cultural elements in fashion be accorded Geographical Indications tags?”. The session began with a discussion on the commercialization of cultural elements by influential designers. The participants discussed the ability of traditional cultural expressions to supersede geographical boundaries, particularly in the age of internet. The discussion also considered actions that can be taken to ensure traditional knowledge and expression are protected while also allowing for creators to take inspiration from these expressions and continue to create. The participants debated on whether mandatory monetary compensation or attribution can be a sufficient middle ground that allows for use of such expression while also ensuring such expressions continue to derive benefits for the communities which are the originators of such expression.
