SpicyIP Weekly Review (November 18 – November 24)
SpicyIP
Here is our recap of last week’s top IP developments including summary of the posts on Madras High Court’s order in Sakata Seed Corporation v. The Controller of Patents and Designs, India’s first AI Copyright litigation involving OpenAI, and the rejection of an RTI Application concerning IPRS’ compliance with the Copyright Act. This and a lot more in this week’s SpicyIP Weekly Review. Anything we are missing out on? Drop a comment below to let us know.
Highlights of the Week
Discussing the conundrum of ‘Essentially Biological Processes’ under Section 3(j) in the context of the MHC’s Sakata Seed Corporation order. Read Kartikeya S.’s post on the development.
ANI Media v. Open AI : The Opt-Out Strategy
ANI v. OpenAI before the Delhi High Court – In a major update, Open A.I., for (perhaps) the first time in a lawsuit, agreed to block the domain of a website (ANI) from use in AI training. What would this mean for emerging developers? Read Akshat Agrawal’s post on this to know more!
Highlighting the underlying public interest in information about IPRS’ compliance with copyright law, Kartikeya S. analyzes the CIC’s order in Dipak Ranjan Mukherjee vs. Ministry of Commerce & Industry. Read on to know more.
Other Posts
A Closer Look at the Patent Stats from WIPO’s 2024 IP Indicator
Patent filings and grants are at an all-time high in India, according to the latest figures from the WIPO 2024 Indicators. What does this rise in patent numbers mean for the Indian IP regime? Is the existing system equipped to handle such a steep increase? Praharsh Gour writes about the India-specific findings on patents from this report.
With the wedding season just around the corner, here’s an interesting update concerning the use of sound recordings during wedding festivities. The DPIIT has announced that it will keep its notification on Section 52(1)(za) (the provision exempting such uses) in abeyance, pending the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the Novex case. Read on as Lokesh Vyas updates us about this development
SpicyIP Tidbit: Delhi High Court Issues Notice to OpenAI in the ANI Copyright Infringement Case
The ANI v. OpenAI copyright infringement case before the DHC may see some interesting arguments up ahead as OpenAI challenges maintainability of the suit and cites opt-out defence against the allegations of infringement. Read this quick tidbit by Md Sabeeh Ahmad to know more!
The Beginning of AI-Copyright Litigation in India?: ANI vs OpenAI in DHC Tomorrow
AI Copyright litigation seems to have reached India as ANI sues Open AI in DHC. Read on to know more.
Case Summaries
The appellant filed an appeal aggrieved by the rejection order of the respondents, refusing to grant patent to the appellant on the ground that the so claimed invention of the appellant is not patentable as it is hit by Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970. The appellant contended that its invention of “cryptography on a simplified elliptical curve” is patentable since it shows both a technical contribution and a useful application. The respondents argued that the invention was not patentable under Section 3(k) since it only incorporated a business method and a mathematical formula. The appellant’s arguments, including non-applicability of exclusion from patent under pertinent Indian and European patent guidelines, were not addressed in the contested ruling, the Court observed, and it lacked a speaking order. Because the appellant was not made aware of the “business method” objection beforehand, the Court invalidated the non-speaking order for violating natural justice principles.
Monster Energy Company vs The Registrar Of Trade Marks on 7 November, 2024 (Madras High Court)
The appellant had filed an application challenging the order passed by the respondent refusing to register the appellant’s trademark “SUPER FUEL”, on the ground that the appellant’s trademark “SUPER FUEL” is identical with similar registered trademark, “FUEL”. In contrast to “FUEL,” which is registered for beers, mineral waters, fruit drinks, and syrups, the appellant contended that “SUPER FUEL,” which was sought for under Class-32 for non-alcoholic beverages, is different. The Court agreed, noting the respondent’s non-application of mind to product differences. It held that the trademark should first be published in the trademark journal and oppositions can then be decided on merits, in accordance with law. The Court, therefore, quashed the impugned order and directed the respondent to permit publication of the trademark.
M/S Holla Associates vs M/S Nandini Deluxe on 14 November, 2024 (Bangalore District Court)
The plaintiff (Holla Associates) is a prominent law firm and filed a lawsuit against the defendant (Nandini Deluxe) in this case pertaining to Trade Marks and Copyrights. It filed the suit to recover outstanding money for its services to the defendant. The plaintiff sent a legal notice to the defendant on 16.04.2023 which was unanswered. The defendant also failed to appear in the Court and the proceedings were rendered ex-parte. It was held that the plaintiff failed to give sufficient evidence to support its claims. No invoices or relevant documents were provided and the evidence that was provided had no relation to the present case. Consequently, the Court ruled against the plaintiff and dismissed the suit with costs.
Qualcomm Incorporated,San Diego vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax … on 14 November, 2024
The assessee, Qualcomm Incorporated filed an appeal challenging the taxation of royalty income from licensing on subscriber units from original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) located outside India and royalty income on infrastructure equipment, under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal held that the two limbs that would allow taxation in the instant case are not present – (i) covers cases where the right property or information has been used by the non-resident payer (OEM) itself and is so used in a business carried on by OEMs in India; and, (ii) covers a case where the right property or information has not been used by the non-resident payer (OEM) itself in the business carried on by it, but the right property or information has been dealt with in such a manner as would result in earning or making income from a source in India under the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). Hence, the Tribunal concluded that Qualcomm’s royalty income was not taxable.
Other IP Developments
- Delhi High Court appoints Adarsh Ramanujan and Prof Arul Scaria as Amici Curiae in ANI versus OpenAI copyright dispute.
- Copyright clash between actors Nayantara and Dhanush over use of behind the scenes videos.
- P&H High Court disposes of the Jindal student AI use case after University issues revised transcript.
- Supreme Court directs Delhi High Court to expeditiously decide the ‘Sigrima’ patent case.
- Delhi High Court directs RSY News to remove ANI’s copyrighted videos from its Youtube channel.
- Delhi High Court issues permanent injunction in favor of Radio Mirchi, restrains defendants from using “Mirchi”, “Radio Mirchi” marks and the radio station’s content.
International IP Developments
- Australian Court invalidates two pharmaceutical patents.
- WIPO member states adopt the Riyadh Design Law Treaty.