IPR Amicus, August, 2015 covers an article titled ‘Make in India meets the Biological Diversity Act’. This article explains about the nation-wide initiative of the Government of India launched in September 2014. It also analyses the importance of having harmonization among the wo

IPR Amicus, July, 2015 covers an article on ‘Separation of rights under copyright & design laws’. This article explains that protection available to artistic work under Designs Act and Copyrights Act are different, and considering the inherent overlapping, one should opt carefully for

The article in IPR Amicus, June, 2015 on law of disparagement, comparative advertising and acceptable competitive behaviour as regards trademark discusses the meaning of disparagement and the extent to which the comparing is allowed in advertising of products keeping in mind the fairness

The Article Section of IPR Amicus, May, 2015 discusses the initiative of government in promoting the Digital India project and issues like copyright, use of Open Source Software (OSS) and underlines the need for the cohesive policy platform to realize the dream of Digital India. R

The Article section of IPR Amicus April, 2015 contains a discussion on the Central Government guidelines for implementation of International Treaty on plant genetic resources under Multi Lateral System for food and agriculture. The Ratio Decidendi section covers the Delhi

Article in this month’s IPR Amicus discusses elaborately the draft National IPR Policy released recently by the IPR Think Tank. According to the author, while the draft policy is a step in the right direction, the challenge lies in implementing its objectives within a realistic timefra

Article in this issue of IPR Amicus discusses at length process patent litigation in the pharma sector. The author notes that it will be interesting to see if courts continue to employ intermediates as the criteria or if parties are able to convince the courts of other parameters to ascertai

An overview of Design registration in India is provided by the Article in this January 2015 issue of IPR Amicus.

Article in this December 2014 issue of IPR Amicus discusses elaborately, recent order of Delhi High Court on rules for determining deceptive similarity and consequent trademark infringement when the conflicting trademarks under consideration are composite marks i.e. marks comprising more than one element.

Delhi High Court has recently upheld order of the Single Judge that revocation of a patent is not automatic under Section 64(1)(m) of the Patents Act, 1970 and that it is open to the court to examine whether the omission to furnish information under Section 8 of the Act was deliberate or intentional.