Internship Experience @ J Sagar Associates, Mumbai||Friendly Environment, Good Work||Rs. 6,000/- Stipend

Nikita Panse, IV BSL LLB, ILS Law College, Pune

Worked at:

J Sagar Associates, Mumbai.

Office Details:

18 Sprott Road,

Ballard Estate,

Mumbai, Maharashtra – 400001

Contact No. – +91 22 4341 8600 Continue reading


Internship Experience @ Khaitan & Co. ||Mumbai, Real Estate Dept||Great Work||Rs. 7000/- Stipend


Worked at:

Khaitan & Co, Mumbai

Address: One Indiabulls Centre, 13th Floor, Tower 1, 841 Senapati Bapat Marg,, Mumbai, Maharashtra 400013

Continue reading

Internship Experience: Bharucha and Partners ||Mumbai||Great Work|| No Stipend

Harish Adwant, IV B.S.L. LL.B., ILS Law College, Pune.

Worked at:

Bharucha and Partners, Mumbai.

Continue reading

Interitus Quickies: Instant IP Updates!

R. M. Kulkarni


So here’s presenting our new segment of the Interitus IP blawg! It has essentially been constituted for those who just want to take a quick mental note of what’s happening in the IP world in the last couple of days. You can then take out the time to make a formal and more elaborate enquiry into those bits you stored at the back of your mind. So read on and skim through, because that’s all you need to do here!


National IPR Policy to be finalized by the Government within 2 months


Arrow Coated Products (ACP), a maker of water-soluble films in India, sees a 3000% rise in its share price in the last 2 years after it strategically monetized 3 of its 30 patents.

Google and Microsoft make truce; settle around 20  Motorola patent infringement litigations.

Queensland based cancer patient Yvonne D’Arcy successfully takes down pharma-giant Myriad Genetics in suit against the latter’s patent in the BRCA1 human gene.


Indian musician Rupa Marya successfully gets invalidated Warner Bros’ copyright in the famous “Happy Birthday to You” song before  the California District Court

Producers of the Kapil Sharma-starrer  Kis  Kis Ko Pyaar Karoon sued by makers of 2014 Kannada film Nimbe Huli before the Madras HC on grounds that the former film is a copy of the latter.

New Zealand agrees to extend its copyright term to life plus 70 in accordance with the USA’s requirement under the Trans-Pacific Agreement.

Trademark and GI

Nestle fails before the CJEU to secure trademark protection for its four-finger wafer shape of KitKat because the shape was held to not be distinctive enough.

Bombay High Court finds NTC Industries guilty of infringement of ITC’s trademark in GOLD FLAKE and HONEY DEW in relation to cigarette products.

Pokalli rice, which already received GI protection in 2008, has now been trademarked by the Krishi Vigyan Kendra (Ernakulam) under brand name JAIVA POKKALI.

The Kashmiri Chamber of Commerce and Industry has successfully secured GI protection for Kasmhiri “MEERA” Carpets.

This Just In: Bombay HC Grants Injunction Against Manshi Systems and GoDaddy From Replicating NSE Figures

Harish Adwant

The Bombay High Court, vide an interim order, has directed Manshi Systems to refrain from publishing the contents of the National Stock Exchange website without the express permission from the organization.

Continue reading

Case Note: You Should Make Your Own TV Series, You Zee?

Aishwarya V. Bedekar, IV BSL LLB, ILS Law College, Pune

Ever wondered why the telecast of a the TV Series named “Badi Devrani” was stopped abruptly? Maybe that is because the Bombay High Court has recently granted an ad interim injunction against Zee Telefilms to stop its telecast.

Continue reading

Internship Experience: Wadia Ghandy & Co. (Dispute Resolution Practice), Mumbai| Good Work| Rs. 1500/- Westside Voucher

 Name and Contact Details:

Ritvik M. Kulkarni, ILS Law College Pune

Continue reading

Registered Design Owner can also be held Liable for Design Infringement

(The content of this post was first published in the ILS Abhivyakti Law Journal and is reproduced here with due permission) 

Whirlpool of India Ltd. v. Videocon Industries Ltd.[1]

Ritvik M. Kulkarni, III BSL LLB, ILS Law College, Pune

Both Whirlpool and Videocon are engaged in the business of manufacturing home appliances in India. Whirlpool contended that Videocon’s ‘Videocon Pebble was an exact replica of its washing machine model, for which it had design registration. Videocon argued that it had also procured registration for its design for ‘Videocon Pebble’; and that a registered design owner cannot be sued for piracy of a design.

Whirlpool argued that on a plain reading of the words “any person”s. 22 of the Designs Act, 2000 (the Act),[2]  includes even a registered proprietor. It contented that if the legislative intent was to exclude registered proprietors, then the Act would have expressly mentioned such exclusion;as can be found under s. 29 of the Trademarks Act, 1999 which deals with the  infringement of a registered trade mark.

Videocon argued that since s. 11 grants a monopoly right to use its registered design, it cannot be sued for piracy. At best, Whirlpool could challenge the validity of the design before the Controller under s. 22(3) of the Act.

Ruling  in favour of Whirlpool, the Court held that a registered proprietor could indeed be held liable for piracy of another’s registered design. Since Videocon obtained registration after Whirlpool did, it could not invoke its registration as a defence. The Court observed that the monopoly right granted under s. 11 was not being absolute, but subject to all other provisions under the Act, including s. 22.

After comparing the visual features of the two products (the washing machines were literally brought to the Court for inspection), the Hon’ble Court concluded that Videocon certainly infringed Whirlpool’s registered design. Since the Defendant’s product was an obvious imitation of that of the Plaintiff’s, the Hon’ble Court upheld the latter’s action for passing off as well and granted an injunction against Videocon restraining it from making or selling the impugned product.

The Court has therefore made it amply clear that one cannot get away by simply procuring a registration for an inherently infringing design.

[1] NM No. 2269 / 2012  in Suit No 2012 / 2012 decided on 27 May, 2014 by Bombay High Court.

[2]22. Piracy of registered design.

(1) During the existence of copyright in any design it shall not be lawful for any person

(a) for the purpose of sale to apply or cause to be applied … the design or any fraudulent or obvious imitation thereof, …;
or …
(2) If any person acts in contravention of this section, he shall be liable for every contravention-

(a) to pay to the registered proprietor … a sum … recoverable as a contract debt, or
(b) … to pay such damages as may be awarded and to be restrained by injunction accordingly:

This Just In: Bombay High Court Restrains YouTube from Broadcasting IIFW “MasterClass” Episodes  

By Harish S. Adwant, III BSL LLB, ILS Law College, Pune

The Bombay High Court granted an ad-interim ex-parte injunction to the Indian Independent Filmmakers Worldwide Association (IIFWA) (“Plaintiff”) against YouTube LLC and Google Inc. (“Defendants”) The Court said that the Plaintiff has made out a prima facie case of copyright infringement against the Defendants.

The Plaintiff is a body of independent film-makers which aimed to “promote, support and nurture independent cinema by film-makers of Indian origin anywhere in the world.” In light of this objective, IIFWA conceptualized a non-profit project named “IIFW Masterclass”, a series of video recordings, which featured celebrated film-makers, who would share their knowledge and experiences of filmmaking with budding filmmakers, critics and movie enthusiasts. The first season of IIFW Masterclass kicked off in 2010, which was recorded in the form of a cinematographic film and televised on National Geographic Channel.

Wide acclamation of the first season led the Plaintiff to record the second season of the programme.  Subsequently the second season was recorded in 2015. An agreement granted exclusive broadcasting rights to several advertisers, directors, producers and TV channels and prohibited filming/broadcasting by any other person/entity. Within a week, the Plaintiff discovered that ‘infringing recordings’ of the first interview of the second season (which was launched at “FICCI FRAMES” 2015) were uploaded and broadcasted all over YouTube titled “Sudhir Mishra & Rajkumar Hirani | Curtain Raiser of FICCI Frame 2015”. Owing to this, IIFWA filed a suit against Youtube LLC and its owner, Google Inc. as the Defendants.

On 21st April, Justice S.C. Gupte restrained YouTube from “exhibiting, communicating, distributing, storing, caching, transmitting in any manner” the infringing cinematographic film of second season of “IIFW Masterclass” till further orders. Moreover, it also directed YouTube to “expeditiously remove and/or block any and all references to materials and content which fall within the Plaintiff’s (IIFWA) copyrights, and any stored, cached or embedded copies of links which will enable copyright infringement of the plaintiffs content.” The ad-interim injunction order can be accessed here.

The matter is to be heard on 10th June, 2015. Jurisperitus Mumbai represented the plaintiff in the instant case whereas the Defendants remained absent.