PATENT
PATENTS ON INDIAN BIO-RESOURCES ENLISTED
The Unit for Research and Development of Information Products (URDIP) of the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) has prepared a database of patents granted world-wide to Indian bio-resources, which include food crops, forest trees, marine organisms, microbial resources, livestock, other animals and agro-resources.
The database project supported by the National Bio-resource Development Board (NBDB), department of biotechnology, New Delhi is part of the NBDB programme on digital inventory of plant resources of India. This list would assist in monitoring the patenting of bio-resources, detection of bio-piracy, commercial exploitation and benefit sharing. The information will be part of the Indian Bio-resources Information Network (IBIN) portal which is expected to be launched in August 2012.
URDIP has already prepared the database on patents on aromatic, medicinal and economic plants (PAMEP) that would be extended to bio-resources for the IBIN portal. The development of patent database on plants and monitoring of claims will also help India take appropriate action in protecting its bio-resources and traditional knowledge.
COPYRIGHT
YASH RAJ FILMS ACCUSED OF COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT
Yash Raj Films has been accused of copyright infringement in a lawsuit filed by the producers of a Tamil movie “Naan Avan Illai” against Yash Raj Chopra. They claim infringement of their copyright with YRC’s recent film "Ladies v. Ricky Bahl".
“Naan Avan Illai” released in 2007 is a remake of a 1974 movie by the same name and it was a remake of a 1962 Marathi film and play – “To Mee Navhech”. The Marathi play relates to a real life incident involving Madhav Kazi, convicted by the Sholapur Sessions Court for impersonating as different men and luring naive ladies to marry him. Kazi’s conviction was upheld by the Bombay HC.
The Madras High Court heard the lawsuit over 'Ladies v. Ricky Bahl' on 8th December, 2011, a day before the date of worldwide theatrical release and the plaintiffs were declined an ex-parte injunction.
ANGELINA JOLIE ACCUSED OF COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT
Angelina Jolie has been accused of copyright infringement by a Croatian journalist James Braddock. Braddock has filed a lawsuit against Jolie, Film District and the producers of Jolie's upcoming directorial debut, “In the Land of Blood And Honey”, claiming copyright infringement of his book entitled, “The Soul Shattering”. The actress however claims to have written the story for “In The Land of Blood and Honey”.
Braddock has claimed Jolie's producer and Croatian contact Edin Sarkic had earlier approached him and discussed regarding the feasibility of a film adaptation of his book in 2007. Though the adaptation never worked out, Braddock alleges many similarities between his book and Jolie's film.
Braddock has sought injunction against release of the film including damages.
TRADEMARK
BAYER SETTLES TRADEMARK SUIT OVER ANTI-FLEA MEDICATIONS WITH CIPLA
Bayer HealthCare unit has settled a trademark infringement case concerning the German drugmaker's pet products, with Indian drugmaker Cipla. Bayer HealthCare had alleged infringement of trademark rights of its flea preventative medication, Advantage, by Cipla's DA Double Advantage pet treatment. Bayer had sought to block future sales of the product in the United States.
Cipla would stop making the anti-flea product, DA Double Advantage, and selling it to U.S. consumers via the Internet and give up all profits it made from its sale, amounting to $100,000, and terminate all uses of the trademark. An extra $100,000 as reimbursement for attorneys' fees would also be paid to Bayer. Cipla has also agreed to recall any product remaining in the sales pipeline, according to the settlement reached between Bayer’s Animal Health Division and India-based Cipla Ltd.
Cipla will also discontinue using the trademark 'Advance' for a companion animal product and not make any product with the same formula as Bayer's Advantix, another patented flea preventative, during the remaining term of those patents.
DC COMICS LOSES SUPERMAN TRADEMARK DISPUTE
The international comic and movie company DC Comics and the owner of the Superman license has lost a three year trademark battle against New Zealand-based loans firm Superloans.
DC Comics had filed a complaint against Superloans, which uses a flying superhero – Buck – as its mascot, with the International Property Office of New Zealand. New Zealand’s assistant commissioner of trademarks has ruled that the Superloans's mascot Buck does not infringe on DC's Superman license. Superloans' talisman is similar to a caricature of the Man of Steel, dressed in green with a dollar symbol on his chest. But the commissioner concluded that there are "clear differences" between the two designs.
The shield on Buck's chest with a dollar sign differentiated it from that of the Superman's, and his portrayal holding money went against Superman's humane nature. DC Comics was ordered to pay for a quarter of Superloans' legal costs, totaling to $3,570 in New Zealand currency (£1,700). DC now has the option to appeal against the ruling to the High Court.
GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS
EU-SWITZERLAND GI AGREEMENT COMES INTO EFFECT FROM 1 DECEMBER 2011
The Agreement between the European Union and the Swiss Confederation on the protection of designations of origin and geographical indications (GIs) for agricultural products and foodstuffs has been effective from 1st December 2011. This Agreement adopted on 13 September and ratified on 20 October this year, amends the agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on trade in agricultural products by adding an Annexure 12 to the Agricultural Agreement. Annex 12 relates to providing for the mutual recognition of protected designations of origin and geographical indications for agricultural products and foodstuffs. Article 7 of this Annex details the extent of protection granted to the GIs listed in Appendix 1 to the GI Agreement. The direct or indirect commercial use of a protected GI is forbidden (Art. 7(2) Annex 12): (a) with regard to a comparable product which does not comply with the specification; and (b) with regard to a non-comparable product if the use thereof exploits the reputation of the GI in question.
