ALG Counsel Sakthiya Dakshi will be delivering a Webinar for the students of Dhanwate National College, Nagpur, Maharashtra on “Intellectual Property 101” organised by The Intellectual Property Right (IPR) Cell, on June 30, 2021

During last week’s Practice Work Shop (PWS) Session, Siddharth Varshney, Associate, lead a discussion on whether the judiciary needs to take a passive role in adjudication of IP disputes in India. During the session, various views were put forward on the issue of passive and proactive roles assumed by the judiciary in adjudication of IP disputes. The session also saw some interesting points raised on how the judiciary needs to be proactive to keep up with technological changes while adjudicating IP disputes.

ALG recently secured a win for its client, leading home appliances manufacturer Westinghouse Electric Corporation (‘Westinghouse’) against the unauthorized domain name registration for  <whitewestinghouse-servicecenterinmumbai.com>. In the domain name dispute filed before the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Centre (‘WIPO’), it was pointed out that the Respondent-Registrant identified itself as a “Whitewestinghouse Service Center” and an “Authorized Service Center in Mumbai” on the website hosted at the disputed domain name.

In the order dated May 10, 2021, the WIPO-appointed Arbitrator observed that “…the website to which the Disputed Domain Name resolves copies the Complainant’s official website in color, design and layout, displays the WHITE-WESTINGHOUSE Mark, and claims to be the authorized service center in Mumbai demonstrating that the Respondent is attempting to pass itself off as the Complainant to deceive the Complainant’s customers into believing that they have arrived at the Complainant’s official website, which is an indication of bad faith.” The disputed domain name was ordered to be transferred to Westinghouse.

A ‘Legal Issues Seminar-General IP’ (LIS-GIP) was conducted by Sunidhi Bansal, Associate, on “Puffery and Generic Disparagement: Where do Courts Draw the Line?”. The seminar provided insight on how courts deal with the issue of disparaging advertisements and discussed at length landmark judicial precedents on disparagement. The seminar also delved into the test and parameters applied by courts to determine the permissible limit of puffery. The session saw interesting questions and insights from the team, including whether advertisements for products that claim to help combat Covid-19 could amount to puffery or are misleading in nature.

The presentation can be accessed here.

During last week’s Practice Work Shop (PWS) Session, Sannidhi Mahapatra, Associate, lead a discussion on whether a generational divide is causing mismatch between aspirations of associates and expectations of partners in IP-Law firms. The session saw some interesting views with some opining that generational gap does play a role in the different approaches adopted by partners and associates alike. On the other hand, others were of the view that individual personality drove changes in a firm and a seamless blend of both Associates’ innovation and Partner’s experience is needed for a firm to thrive.