This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
INDIA: AT THE THRESHOLD OF CHANGE JURISDICTION REPORT: INDIA


Purnima Singh Mulla & Mulla & Craigie Blunt & Caroe


It has been an active year for intellectual property in India. Important events have been the grant of the first compulsory patent licence, the coming into force of the new copyright law and developments in the infamous fight over the FT brand in India.


In March, Natco Pharma, the Hyderabad-based drug company, was granted India’s first compulsory licence on the grounds that the patented drug Nexavar (a kidney/liver cancer drug) was too expensive for Indian patients, and merely importing the drug to India did not amount to Bayer working the patent in the country. (In order to satisfy the requirement for working the patent in India, Bayer would have needed to either manufacturer the drug in India or grant a voluntary licence to another to do so.) Te grant entitles Natco to manufacture and sell the generic version. Bayer is to be paid a 6 percent royalty on net sales. Tis licence makes the drug available at Rs8,800 ($160) for a monthly dose of 120 tablets—it was previously Rs280,000 ($5,000).


Te licence also records Natco’s commitment to donate drugs free of charge to 600 patients each year. While Bayer has appealed against the grant, the US House of Representatives and the US Patent and Trademark Office are reported to have considered challenging it before the World Trade Organization.


Copyright law Te Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012 came into force in June. While the real impact will be felt in future, the amendments are applauded by artists, writers and music composers, who had lobbied hard to incorporate measures securing a share in royalties. Authors of underlying works cannot now assign the right to receive royalties for the use of their works, other than for use in a film where the work is communicated to the public. Tey will now retain the rights to royalties for the non-theatrical use of their works and can assign these only to their heirs or to copyright societies. Similar provisions apply to sound recordings. Te mechanism by which royalties will be paid to artists requires some work.


Te amendments prohibit sound recording cover versions of literary, dramatic or musical works for five years from the first recording of the original. Other significant changes include compulsory licences for the benefit of disabled people and for broadcasting literary and musical works and sound recordings, and the very controversial inclusion of protection of technological measures and the protection of rights management information. Striking inclusions are the safe harbour provisions for intermediaries in cases of secondary infringement and the mechanism of notice and take-down.


Minor amendments which may have a far-reaching impact include extending the exception of fair dealing to cover all works (except computer


programs). Te definition of


‘communication to the public’ has been


expanded to include performances in addition to works. Performers also have the right to receive royalties when a performance has been used for commercial purposes.


Media wars Continuing in combat are Financial Times Limited, London (FTL), owner of Financial Times, and Times Publishing House Limited (TPHL), owner of India’s leading pink paper, Te Economic Times. Te two had briefly entered into a syndication agreement in the early 1990s, which fell through. TPHL introduced a supplement to its publication Te Economic Times under the name Financial Times. It also holds the title registration for this title at the Registrar of Newspapers for India, thereby blocking FTL’s ability to obtain it.


Over almost 20 years, both have filed multiple proceedings and actions claiming ownership rights in India to the marks ‘FT’ and ‘Financial Times’. In April the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) held that the mark ‘FT’ in relation to printed material did not belong to either of them. Tis resulted in the registration of ‘FT’ under the names of both these entities being cancelled. Te Delhi High Court has stayed IPAB’s order, and the matter is scheduled before the court in October.


IPAB’s rationale for the cancellation of FTL’s registration of the ‘FT’ mark was that FTL had claimed the date of first use as 1948 but was able to demonstrate use in India only since 1952. Tis was seen as insufficient to sustain the registration since the initial entry in the register was held not in accordance with the law because it was made based on a statement of first use which the registered holder could not substantiate, even though the IPAB acknowledged the reputation FTL enjoyed in India. Fortunately FTL had also registered ‘FT’ on the basis of proposed use for video disks and the like. Tis registration remained safe, since FTL was not required to establish use for these goods prior to its application.


Te importance of demonstrating use of a mark in India from the actual date claimed in the application cannot be emphasised enough.


Purnima Singh is a senior associate and head of Mulla & Mulla & Craigie Blunt & Caroe’s IP practice. She can be contacted at: purnima.singh@mullaandmulla.com


104 World Intellectual Property Review September/October 2012 www.worldipreview.com


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128