Delhi HC on the Maaza TM Dispute

The interesting case on the allegedly unauthorized use of the MAAZA Trademark closely contested between Coca Cola and Bisleri International already has been reported on the blog here, here and here.

To briefly recount the facts for our newer readers, in this case, Bisleri Sales Ltd. previously Golden Agro Products, was the registered proprietor of the TM Maaza as well as the owner of the secret base etc. used to manufacture the product. The company then amalgamated with Bisleri International. As far back as 1993, Coca Cola and Bisleri Intl. entered into an agreement to "irrevocably" transfer all the rights as to technical know how and a general as well as specific assignment as to goodwill, etc. The agreement also, importantly, contained a negative covenant that allowed Coca Cola to use the MAAZA trademark in India, but nowhere else. Thus, when Coca Cola company confronted Bisleri with information received as to the sale of beverages under the MAAZA mark in Turkey, they were answered with a legal notice stating that not only were they allowed to sell in Turkey without infringing the mark, and that they planned to sell in India as well.

As it turns out that was a bad move.

As per this order delivered by Justice Manmohan Singh of the Delhi High Court sometime this month following the judgment of Products v. Rajesh Chopra [2006 (32) PTC 301(Delhi)], (apart from other well articulated reasons), a "groundless threat" such as the one contained in the notice by Bisleri as well as newspaper reports would in fact confer upon a Court the necessary jurisdiction to try and entertain the suit. The threat would amount to an intention to "use" the said mark; this with conjunction of the assignment of a registered mark MAAZA in favour of Bisleri International was held to be within the meaning of Section 2 (2)(c) (i) of the Trademarks Act and therefore mean that a part of the cause of action would lie within the jurisdiction of the Court in Delhi.

For all the IP Practitioners interested in the boring jurisdictional bit, and not just the juicy gossip -no pun intended- Justice Singh after a thorough examination of Section 134 of the Trademarks Act and Section 20 of the CPC, also held that the Delhi High Court could try and entertain the suit since:

- Maaza was sold extensively in Delhi: Meaning that business was carried out within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court; and,

- The Defendant had a plant (the same being used to bottle drinking water being of no major consequence): Meaning that the Defendant carried out business within the jurisdiction of the Court at Delhi; and,

- Export of beverages under the mark MAAZA by the sister concern of Bisleri: If the infringing activity is conducted within the territory of the Court- even if the same is for export purposes, the Court would have the necessary jurisdiction to try the matter. Justice Singh used the cases of Janinder Jain v. Arihant Jain, 2007 (34) PTC 128 (Del).

Thus, upholding the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court, Justice Manmohan Singh then went on to dispose quickly of other issues- holding that there was no bar against seeking a Specific Relief of an injunction under the Specific Relief Act since there was a determinable contract in this case and further that the once a prima facie case of infringement had been proven, the relief of an interim injunction will follow.

So the woes of Bisleri continue, while it seems that for now at least Coca Cola will have quite a Maazedar time (pun intended time around!)

Getting Primed in the Language of Copyright

Copyright law has since long been one of the most prominent cornerstones of intellectual property regime worldwide. However, while there already exist a large amount of literature and scholarly work regarding that discipline, few have cared till date to make an effort of conveying the basic features of copyright law to the mass populace at large. In an attempt to fill the said void, the Copysouth Research Group has recently published a copyright primer in September, 2009. The book, titled “An alternative primer on national and international copyright law in the global South: eighteen questions and answers”, has been penned by Alan Story (who is a teacher of intellectual property law at Kent Law School in the United Kingdom) and aims to answer questions such as what are the so-called basic nuts and bolts and traps and dead ends of copyright law, who is the owner of the copyright over a work, what are rights that users of copyright have and what functions do international copyright conventions perform to serve the interest of the global populace and so on and so forth. While the primer is bound to be helpful to a lawyer seeking a quick review of the basic features of copyright law, the audience it primarily targets include people like librarians, musicians, readers, information activists, students, and others who want to know how the copyright system actually works in practice in a Latin American, African, or Asian country. Consisting of 64 pages of straightforward writing shorn of undue legal complexities, the book may not secure the top rank in the list of the literature suggested by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), but it promises to be quite a useful tool to get acquainted with the basic knowledge pertaining copyright. Translations of the book in Spanish and Portugese languages will be available soon within the next 6 months. At present, the primer can be downloaded from here.

Adwords and Trademark Law

We have earlier blogged on the Consim-Google Adwords controversy here and here. In this post, I shall try to make sense of the issues involved in the dispute. But first, what exactly are Adwords? Adwords are advertising keywords which advertisers of products and services may specify so that when the specified keyword is entered as a search string on Google’s search engine, the sponsored advertisement of the advertiser appears on the right hand side of the search results page.

Naturally, the keywords specified by the advertiser would have some relation to the advertiser’s field of business. For a detailed explanation of how the whole system works and how Adword ads are shown in a particular order, visit Google’s Adwords site and Wikipedia.

How does trademark infringement figure in the working of this system? According to Consim, if Google allows registered trademarks of an entity, say X, to be used as keywords by its competitors, every time a surfer searches for X, sponsored advertisements of X’s competitors appear on the right-hand side of the search results.

This, according to Consim, leads to either the surfer assuming that the ad belongs to X or ends up diverting visitor traffic to the competitor’s site. Specifically, Consim contends that this amounts to free-riding on X’s goodwill and amounts to passing off.

Interestingly, luring a surfer away from a site to a particular site is an issue we had come across in the OkTaTaByeBye domain dispute as well. In that case, the defendant had reasons to host a site by that name, but here the defendants/competitors specify a particular registered trademark to be used as a keyword. How does this lead to trademark infringement?

The question that needs to be asked is, does the law proscribe use of trademarks as keywords for search? This is to be answered in light of the fact that in the past, use of metatags to attract customers has been held to infringe trademarks. If so, why shouldn’t this apply to specification of registered trademarks as keywords by a competitor?

I think I ought to clarify that I raise these questions, not in a rhetorical sense to lead readers to a particular conclusion, but to merely rephrase issues to bring out the possibility of counter-perspectives to instinctive popular reactions.

Let's take a cursory look at recent decisions on the issue, all of which needless to say, are not Indian. In Rescuecom Corp. v. Google Inc., the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit equated the use of trademarks as keywords to use of trademarks as metatags. Google too was held liable for recommending the use of the trademarked word in its Keyword Suggestion Tool.

A few decisions have revolved around the issue of “use in commerce” i.e. would the use of a trademark to generate a sponsored link on a search engine amount to “use in commerce”? A few Courts have held in the affirmative and a few, otherwise. The key question that needs to be addressed here is, what would constitute “use in commerce” as far as search keywords are concerned?

One case that has been cited often is the 1-800 Contacts v. WhenU.com which related to Adware (Advertising Software). In that case, WhenU sold dowloadable software that displayed ads; the feature in contention was that whenever a user searched for popular brands/trademarks like Walmart or Apple, a WhenU pop-up featuring ads of Walmart or Apple's competitors would appear on the user's desktop. This according to the 2nd US Court of Appeals did not attract trademark infringement because the purpose of the software was to provide the customer with alternative options to that of established brands and that customer was aware of the purpose of the software before downloading it.

In other words, trademark owners cannot deploy trademarks to restrict availability of customer choices. The Court further held that WhenU's use of the keywords did not constitute “use in commerce” under the Lanham Act for the purposes of trademark infringement since neither were the trademarks used in the ads nor were the trademarks sold as keywords to competitors.

The latter part of the Court's observation could mean that if WhenU had sold trademarks, it would have been in violation of the law. Does this observation warrant drawing an adverse conclusion against the Google Adword program?

With specific regard to WhenU's Adware, if one were to construct an analogy in real-world advertising terms, what this means is, it is not wrong for a retailer to place the product of, say 3M, with that of a relatively lesser known brand. This, however, in my opinion, is subject to deliberate attempts to create confusion in identities. For instance, if the competitor were to name his product or style it in ways similar to that of a known brand, one could raise the prospect of likelihood of confusion. Even otherwise, does this real-world retail product placement defense apply to Google's program?

In Merck & Co. v. Mediplan Health Consulting, Inc., the Court was of the opinion that such use would amount to “internal use” and compared it with retail product placement. In contrast, Courts in the Ninth Circuit have held that the intention of the competitor to piggy-back on the plaintiff's goodwill and reputation is writ large in such cases, particularly when the advertiser is a competitor. The non-binding opinion of the Advocate General before the European Court of Justice in a case involving Google and Louis Vuitton assumes relevance in light of divergence in jurisprudence.

This opinion was given with respect to two distinct instances, the first instance where trademarks, registered and well-known, were used by genuine competitors to reference their sites; and the second, where the marks were to refer to sites which sold counterfeit products. In the latter instance, Google allowed selection of keywords/phrases which were a combination of the trademark and words such as imitation/replica/copy. An interpretation of Article 5(1) of EU Directive 89/104 was sought with regard to the use of trademarks in the aforesaid instances.

Interestingly, Article 5(3) of the same directive prohibits use of trademarks in business papers and advertising. Article 14 of another directive, (Directive 2000/31) provides for an exception from infringement for hosting activities. The provision, in effect, states that an information society service which stores information provided by the recipient of a service shall not be liable for infringement, provided he does not have knowledge of the illegality of the information and when in possession of such knowledge, acts expeditiously.

It does however state that Member States can require the service provider to terminate or prevent an infringement or lay down guidelines to that end. The directive defines information society service as any service which is normally provided by electronic means for remuneration at the individual request of recipient of services. The question here is, can Google use this provision to defend its Adword program?

Before I discuss the opinion of the Advocate General, I would like to make sense of the exception to liability provided for information society services.

Information society services, in the manner in which they have been defined, may have to be distinguished from advertisements i.e. something provided in yellow pages is not the same as content provided in classifieds. The former is meant to provide information and the latter, in addition to providing information, is intended to influence the choice of potential customers. (I am aware that this distinction stands the risk of being run down as academic and hence naive)

So strictly speaking, Google Adword is not an innocent information society service since it provides sponsored links for advertisement. Google’s primary search function may be in the nature of an information society service, but the Adword program is distinct owing to the very nature of the listing of results and the purpose for which they are listed by specific entities.

The generalized second-price auction mechanism the Adword program uses, shows the advertisements in a particular order. The mechanism is not as objective as Google’s primary search results. Ergo, the Adword program is of commercial nature and the use of the marks, either internally to trigger results or in the results themselves, ought to be seen as “use in commerce”.

Merely because Google’s technology provides circumvention from express use of trademarks in the competitor’s advertisements, the purpose behind proscription of use of such trademarks by other entities cannot be lost sight of.

Moving to the opinion, as mentioned earlier, use of trademarks has to be analysed (1) with respect to sale of counterfeit goods and (2) with respect to promotion of competitor’s goods.

The first situation is relatively simple because encouraging a combination of keywords which facilitates access to counterfeit products contributes to infringement of trademarks. So it is the only second instance which needs greater scrutiny.

As far as the second situation is concerned, one needs to understand if Google Adword is being accused of contributory infringement or infringement itself. If Google allows advertisers to choose trademarks as keywords and receives revenue based on number of clicks to the advertiser’s site, would that use by Google amount to “use in commerce”? If yes, Google could be liable for trademark infringement.

The Advocate General (AG) has addressed this question as a subsidiary issue. According to him, the intention of trademark owners is to pre-empt the use of their trademarks from being used as keywords to advertise sites which deal with counterfeit products and therefore, they seek a blanket ban on Google using their trademarks to prevent the possibility of infringement. His analysis starts off by saying:

“my examination of the question whether there is trademark infringement will reveal, first, that the use of Adwords of keywords which correspond to trademarks does not, in itself, constitute trademark infringement, and secondly, that the connection with other (potentially infringing) uses is better addressed, as it has been hitherto, through the rules of liability.”

To the issue of Google’s act of allowing advertisers to choose trademarks as Adwords, the AG is of the opinion that it does not satisfy the criterion of use of the mark in relation to goods or services because no good or service is being sold under the trademark and that Google was merely using it for an internal selection procedure.

The AG states his opinion on this issue thus in para 68:

“The essential factor is therefore the link that is established between the trademark and the good or service being sold. In the traditional example of a use in advertising, the link is thus established between the trademark and the good or service sold to the general public. This, happens, for example, when the advertiser sells a good under the trademark. That is not the case with the use by Google consisting in allowing advertisers to select keywords so that their ads as presented as results. There is no good or service sold to the public. The use is limited to a selection procedure which is internal to Adwords and concerns only Google and advertisers.”

I find myself unable to accept this interpretation because it refuses to recognise the possibility of new ways of using trademarks in connection with goods or services.

If Google is involved in a transaction wherein it benefits by specifically dealing in a registered trademark without the authorization of the owner of the mark, which right belongs exclusively to the owner of the mark, how is the Adword system free from liability for infringement?

In my opinion, use in relation to advertising is not restricted to use of trademarks in the text of the ads itself, but includes or atleast ought to include, instances where the trademarks are used specifically to trigger ads of competitors at the instance of competitors. In real world product placement, this translates to a competitor paying retailers to strategically place his product next to a well-known brand. Of course, it is entirely possible that my understanding of the issue and the concept is way off the mark. I am open to being convinced otherwise.

The AG too endorses the opinion that Google Adwords is not as neutral as Google's primary search engine and observes that the liability for information society service may not be applicable to Google Adwords. However, he states that this does not by itself mean that he holds the view that Google Adwords is liable for trademark infringement.

The long and short of it is that the nature of the Adword program or similar programs of other entities is yet to be fully understood and an outmoded interpretation of “use in commerce” in the light of new business models could erode the rights of trademark owners. That said, a balance between a consumer’s right to information on alternative choices and the trademark owner’s legitimate interests has to be struck.

We look forward to hearing from our better-informed and articulate readers on this issue.

Also, to understand typical responses from Yahoo or Google to complaints of trademark infringement, please visit this site.

The case of the Fabulous Fake …

In light of a recent decision by the UK High Court, tweeting might just have a new meaning. To make things a clearer, recently the UK High Court allowed an injunction to be served on an unknown/anonymous blogger who had been posting threads on twitter impersonating Donal Blaney, a solicitor and Conservative blogger.


For further details, Donal Blaney (principal at Kent firm Griffin Law and right wing blogger) runs a blog called Blaney's Blarney and posts updates on Twitter under the name Donal_Blaney. The anonymous blogger posted ten times to Twitter under the name Blaneysblarney. People were obviously fooled by the impersonation, and friends and colleagues of Blaney believing that it was in fact Donal Blarney were following the blog. As per news reports the contents of the fake blog were mildly objectionable. Hence, Blaney’s case was that the unauthorised use of his name breached his copyright and intellectual property rights.


In relation to service of injunction orders, UK law states that an injunction does not have to be served in person and can be delivered by several different means including fax or e-mail. A BBC news report quoted Danvers Baillieu (a solicitor specializing in technology) as saying, "..it was possible for anyone to approach the court about any method of serving an injunction if the traditional methods are unavailable. The rules already allow for electronic service of some documents, so that they can be sent by e-mail, and it should also be possible to use social networks."


This order follows a recent Australian case where Facebook was used to serve a court order. Note that in the Australian case, the court allowed the service of an injunction via Facebook after the defendants had refused all other means of service. The difference being, in the present case the defendant was an unidentified blogger posting on twitter, while in the Australian case the ‘identified’ Defendants refused to accept service of notice. However, the underlying problem in both the cases is the same, i.e., the difficulty/impossibility of being able to serve notice/an order on the other party. The solution being similar, the use of social networking sites to achieve the goal.


The injunction is now famously known as the Blaney's Blarney Order. The status presently is that the injunction order was duly served and is covered by confidentiality but the blogger has agreed to pay damages to Help for Heroes, the charity set up in 2007 to help British soldiers injured in wars since 9/11.


This case is quite interesting given the situation of serving notices/orders in India. The most evident question is whether such service would be possible in India? Our readers will remember the case brought by Shiv Sena against Ajith D, a 19 year old Computer Science student for defaming them through an anti Shiv Sena community on Orkut. The case made headlines because the Supreme Court refused to quash proceedings against the student, even though the defamatory remarks on the community were mainly through the medium of comments of visitors to the community (More importantly, there was a death threat to Bal Thakeray by way of a anonymous comment on the website.)


What is more interesting was that Orkut readily shared the IP address of Ajith with the police and they managed to trace him. One wonders what the case would be in a situation where privacy and data protection laws were stronger or the internet community/portals were more user friendly, and consequently such details did not go out. Would service of notice through Orkut by way of a comment and link to the court order be sufficient?


The law on service in India is found in Rule 9, Order V of the CPC.
Rule 9 (extract) reads as follows:
9. Delivery of summons by Court
(1) Where the defendant resides within the jurisdiction of the Court in which the suit is instituted, or has an agent resident within that jurisdiction who is empowered to accept the service of the summons, the summons shall, unless the Court otherwise directs, be delivered or sent either to the proper officer to be served by him or one of his subordinates or to such courier services as are approved by the Court….
(3) The services of summons may be made by delivering or transmitting a copy thereof by registered post acknowledgement due, addressed to the defendant or his agent empowered to accept the service or by speed post or by such courier services as are approved by the High Court or by the Court referred to in sub-rule 1 or by any other means of transmission of documents (including fax message or electronic mail service) provided by the rules made by the High Court)
Provided that the service of summons under this sub-rule shall be made at the expenses of the plaintiff….


Thus, the relevant provision allows for service through electronic mail service and fax messages. Can Indian courts interpret the rule in a manner similar to the interpretation of the UK High Court? More importantly, should such a step be taken given that it might just be used as a tool by intolerant entities to curb the Freedom of Speech and Expression on the Internet?



On an unrelated note, please find below links of two interesting articles I came across while researching for this post:
1. A.Varma, “India’s cops get Orwellian”, available at http://www.livemint.com/2007/09/06001248/India8217s-cops-get-Orwelli.html, and

2. S. Ninan, “The New Evil Empire”, available at http://www.hindu.com/mag/2008/09/14/stories/2008091450100300.htm.

Call for Papers: Indian Journal of Intellectual Property Law

The Indian Journal of Intellectual Property Law is accepting papers for its third volume to be released in 2010. The Journal is published by the NALSAR University of Law. Contributions are invited in the form of essays, articles, notes and comments. The last date for submission of papers which was initially set at October 5, 2009 has now been extended to October 30, 2009.

Submission guidelines and previous articles can be found on the IJPIL website.

IP Hall of Fame, 2010

THE NOMINATION PROCESS FOR THE IP HALL OF FAME 2010 IS NOW OPEN.

The IP Hall of Fame honours individuals who have made outstanding contributions to the global Intellectual Property system. Inductees to the Hall of Fame have included people from various backgrounds, united by their commitment to the promotion of Intellectual Property. The Hall of Fame has been devised and developed by the IP Publication Intellectual Asset Management Magazine.

Hurry and start nominating as the process closes on 2nd December 2009. For further details click here.

Image from here.

SpicyIP Jobs: Fabulous Oppurtunity for Patent Attorneys

Interested candidates are requested to apply immediately. Please direct your queries in this regard to spicyipjob@gmail.com

Position Title: Patent Attorney

Firm Profile: One of India’s leading law firms

Location: Delhi

Roles and Responsibilities:
1. Preparing, filing and prosecuting patent applications
2. Dealing with Patent Oppositions
3. Preparing written opinions on issues of patentability
4. Conducting patent searches, patent landscaping, analysis etc

Required Qualification:
1 - 2 years experience with patent drafting and prosecution


Salary:
Commensurate with the best in the industry

Contact:
If interested, please drop an email with your CV to spicyipjob@gmail.com

SpicyIP Teasip: Darjeeling Tea almost a G.I. in the E.U.

After a wait for almost two years, Darjeeling Tea, is now on the verge of being granted the status of a Geographical Indication by the European Union. The EU is currently inviting public comments. This is a significant step as this is potentially the final step before Darjeeling Tea is deemed to be a G.I. by the E.U.

'Darjeeling Tea' has already been granted a G.I.

status by a few individual member-states such as the United Kingdom and Germany. However with the European Commission granting Darjeeling Tea the status of a G.I., all E.U. members will be bound to consider Darjeeling Tea as a G.I.

As our readers must already know a Geographical Indication is granted for a product which derives its special properties due to certain factors that can be traced to either the climate, the resources or the skills of the people of a particular geographical area. The most popular examples of course are Champagne and Scotch. In this case the distinctive flavour and taste of Darjeeling Tea is attributed in part to the climate and soil properties of Darjeeling.

Unlike what some newspapers may want you to believe, it is our firm belief that G.I.s have absolutely no link to patents. The only right a G.I. bestows upon a community is that it forbids any entity or person whose product is not from the geographical region associated with the G.I. to ever use the G.I.

Moreover G.I.s are a collective right as a result of which G.I.s as a rule are granted only to a community of producers. Darjeeling Tea for example is registered in the name of the Tea Board of India.

This makes the Tea Board of India the authority responsible for initiating enforcement action against those infringing the Darjeeling Tea G.I. For a fantastic case study on the problems faced by the Tea Board in maintaining the distinctiveness of the Darjeeling Tea, in Japan, France and Russia please click here.

Uncertainty at Bangkok Climate Change meet

The recent UN session on Climate change which ran from 28th September to 9th October in Bangkok, highlighted what has become an all too familiar scenario of a clash of interests between developed and developing countries leading to failed talks. The Bangkok meeting brought together delegates from over 180 countries to deal with the issue of the expiry of the Kyoto Protocol 2012 deadline for reduction of carbon emissions and with the goal of refining a 200 page draft agreement for further action. Coming soon after the UN General Assembly and the G20 summit a few weeks ago at New York, the meet was opened with much promise for development for the build up to the Copenhagen summit which will be held in December this year. (image taken from here)

Past UN discussions, including the Kyoto protocol, have recognized that the developed countries have historically contributed the most to the current problem and hence should take the major portion of responsibility in the action against climate change. In fact, the Kyoto protocol, which is currently the only legally binding international treaty for reducing greenhouse emissions, has been signed and ratified by 184 countries of which the 37 highly industrialized ones took on commitments to cut down emissions by 2008-2012. USA signed the treaty, but their Senate refused to ratify it since it did not commit India and China. (more about the Kyoto Protocol here ). Considering that USA is the highest producer of greenhouse gases, it is now of vital importance that they are a signatory to the agreement which is reached at Copenhagen.

New environmental technology is a key aspect in the reduction of carbon footprints, and these new technologies can only be used if there is access to them. Thus, as a natural corollary, industrialized nations have a duty to reduce barriers to these technologies, so developing countries can participate efficiently, effectively and ecologically in their own industrialization. Intellectual property is proving to be one of these major barriers, along with capacity building and financing.

USA has already categorically stated that it will not accept any compulsory licensing provisions in the new agreement. As reported by IP Watch, Jonathan Pershing, deputy special envoy for climate change at the US Department of State said, the US “will look at things” that increase technology diffusion in the market, not compulsory licensing which “does the opposite.” It is also important to note that currently the US Senate is working on a climate change bill, which seems, unfortunately, that it will not be ready by December when the Copenhagen talks will take place. This is relevant because it is much more likely that US will take a solid stance in the December meet, if it's own domestic climate change bill is in place by then. That bill refers to a strong system of IP so as to protect and encourage research and investment, while calling upon US funding to developing countries to "promote the robust compliance with and enforcement of” IP rights protection."

In the meantime, aside from specifically vying for compulsory licensing provisions, developing countries have shown displeasure with the developed countries overall attitude towards the Kyoto Protocol.
Shyam Saran, the India's special envoy on Climate Change, expressed disappointment with the developed countries, stating that it seemed like there would be a failure by most of the Annex 1 countries (developed countries) to meet their emission reduction obligations. “At this penultimate stage of our negotiations, new concepts and instruments have been proposed, which taken together, would mean firstly, the setting aside of the Kyoto Protocol altogether; secondly, the diminishing rather than enhancing of the level of commitment as well as ambition with regard to mitigation; and thirdly, the rewriting of key principles and provisions of the UNFCCC itself. As you would appreciate, this is not the mandate we agreed upon by consensus at Bali,” he said. (sourced from here)

Blaming 'political interests', China's delegation led by Su Wei, said of developed countries, "They neither offered satisfactory plans on their own emissions cut, capital and technological transfer to developing countries, nor responded positively to developing nations' suggestions on these aspects" (More here).

Right now, all eyes are on USA for several reasons. Being the greatest producer of greenhouse gases, it is vital to get it as a ratified member of the new agreement. As stated earlier, the progress of its domestic climate change legislation will more or less direct the stance that US will take. Though unlikely, some are also weary of US doing a repeat of the Kyoto protocol, where it was a big participant in the formulation (courtesy Al Gore) but ended up eventually giving up on it (courtesy George Bush). President Obama's recent Nobel Peace Prize may also play a role in the talks, as the prize specifically mentioned his contribution to fighting global warming amongst other factors. This may put some added pressure on him to advance negotiations and hopefully arrive at a compromise commonly agreeable.

There is one more set of talks at Barcelona in November, before the summit meet at Copenhagen. Hopefully the parties will agree on a mutually acceptable compromise wherein the focus of the issue of global warming and climate change is not lost out due to fights over selfish short term economic interests.

For more on the Compulsory Licensing issues involved, you can check IP-Watch.
For more on the unyielding blocks on both sides, you can check The Guardian.

SpicyIP Tidbit: Madras High Court vacates ex-parte interim injunction against Google's ad-word program

In an interesting development in the Google Adwords dispute Medianama has reported that the Madras High Court has vacated its earlier ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining Google from infringing Consim's trademark. The ex-parte Order against Google had been passed in late September and had ordered Google to stop using the Consim trademark in either its Keyword suggestion tool or the Adwords program.

We had posted on this issue earlier over here.

Another website has quoted Google's lawyer - Mr. Poovayya - as saying "The order vacating the earlier stay essentially reinstates the position to before Consim filing the suit." Merely using a trademark in a search-word or a key-word does not violate the trademarks act. One is not passing off his product as that of another. You are only ensuring that the consumer has a wider choice," he argues.

In other news Google scored an important victory in the E.U. when the Advocate General's office in a non-binding opinion advised the European Court of Justice that Google should be allowed to sell trademarked keywords. This is an especially important victory for Google because it has suffered several reversals in Europe especially at the hands of Louis Vutton.

Earlier this year in the United States of America, Google's Ad-word program suffered a legal setback when the a three judge panel of the Second Circuit overturned a lower court judgement which dismissed claims of trademark infringement against the Ad-Words program. The matter was thus remanded to the lower court where it is now pending trial.

The main issue in this proceeding is whether Google is 'using' registered trademarks as understood by the Lanham Act.

It would be interesting to observe whether the Indian litigation takes the same route.

SpicyIP Tidbits: of Marlboro and Montblanc

It's raining trademark tidbits today - in this post, we bring to you updates of two very exciting cases in progress, involving Indian and international majors, and world-famous brands, including Marlboro and Montblanc. For more, keep reading.

(Wel)come to where the flavour is...

That's a terrible pun, but I was in the mood. This case may be fascinating from the prospect of trademark jurisprudence, a cracker of a row, timed to perfection in the middle of the Diwali week.

The Indian conglomerate ITC has moved the Delhi High Court to restrain Philip Morris, the international global tobacco major, from using a new festive pack logo for its Marlboro brand of cigarettes. Interestingly, the case has come up once again in the court of Justice S R Bhat, whom we reported on in an earlier post today.

ITC has alleged that the new logo resembles and dilutes the 'Namaste', or 'folded hands' trademark, made popular by its hospitality brand, WelcomeGroup. An image of the Marlboro pack is unavailable online, but sources inform me that it is a black pack with a stylised form of Marlboro's traditional logo of an inverted 'M'. This one has a slightly tilted, inverted image of the character 'M', that appears to be on fire, alluding to the season, in all likelihood. (You can read a news-report on this here.)

The arguments at present pivot around the issue of trademark dilution. In a nutshell, a trademark is said to be diluted if the use of the same or similar marks in relation to completely different goods or services would reduce or weaken the value of the original mark. Readers will recall a fantastic guest post by Dev Gangjee of the London School of Economics which had appeared on SpicyIP about a year ago, which spoke of 'the Polymorphism of Trade Mark Dilution in India", which I would invite you to revisit to understand the evolving position of Indian law.

The WelcomeGroup logo, it was contended, has been associated with the ITC group for 30 years, and Philip Morris's use of the mark in question could mislead customers. (Readers may be aware of the overlapping business interests of Philip Morris, and ITC, once an acronym for the colonial hand-me-down, the Imperial Tobacco Company).

On its part, Philip Morris, represented by senior advocate CA Sunderam, argued that their mark had been been registered in 1956, at least twenty years before that of ITC, and was a well established brand. The word Marlboro was clearly written on the pack in question, leaving little room for the plaintiff's contention of dilution. We shall keep you posted on this as and when we get updates.

(Hat-tip to Ashish Prasad, who brought this matter to our attention.)

No Moonwalk for Montblanc?

In a completely unrelated, but just as interesting tidbit, there is news that Montblanc (yes, the pen-wala Montblanc) has been issued a notice by the Supreme Court. For those whose eyes may be popping out in excitement, it is a mere trademark infringement matter, with no references having been made to emblems or other national symbols.

The notice was issued on an appeal filed by the Mumbai-based manufacturer, Add Corporation Ltd., challenging a Delhi High Court order that had earlier restained it from using the marks "Spacewalker" and "Goldtop" on its Add Gel pens. The High Court restraining order had come on a petition filed by Montblanc alleging that these marks were infringing of their own registered Indian trademarks, including "Starwalker" and "Mieserstruck". Do read this news report for more details.

SpicyIP Tidbit: India, Brazil to file WTO complaint against the E.U over 'seizures' of pharma drug consignments

The Mint and the BS both recently reported that India has prepared a legal brief to challenge the 'seizures' of Indian drug consignments by the Customs Department in Netherlands. In pertinent part both reports have quoted a commerce official as stating that "India has compiled a legal brief to challenge the ad hoc decision taken by the Netherlands at the WTO. We have consulted Brazil on the matter and they will join in with us. Both will file the complaint against the European Commission in WTO," a commerce ministry official said." .

The 'seizures' in question are those of 16 Indian pharmaceutical drug consignments which were allegedly transiting through European territory while on their way to a number of South American and African Countries. These consignments were detained on the grounds of either patent or trademark infringement. The question that has arisen in this context is whether this action of seizing transiting drug consignments under the EC Directive 1383/2003 is TRIPs compatible especially since the drug consignments were not patent infringing in either the exporting or the importing country. (For a more detailed background please refer to the earlier posts on the issue).

A Freedom of Information request filed by a Dutch NGO - HAI and which can be accessed here, revealed the breakup of the 16 consignments seized in the year 2008 as follows:

Destination:

5 x Peru

4 x Colombia

2 x Ecuador
2 x Mexico

1 x Portugal
1 x Spain

1 x Brazil

1 x Nigeria
Its surprising to note that Brazil is ready to join India in a WTO action despite only one of its consignments being seized. It must also be noted that two of the consignments were headed to Spain and Portugal, both members of the E.C.

Type
The following types of goods were involved:
8 x cardiologic medicines (in total, 100,000 pills and 1850 kg)
5 x lifestyle medicines (in total, 400 kg)
2 x AIDS inhibitors (in total, 30,000 pills and 24 kg)
1 x medicines against dementia (94,000 pills)
1 x medicines against schizophrenia (500,000 pills)

The normal procedure under EC 1383/2003 after a seizure by the Customs Department is for the rights holder to initiate proceedings in a court of law to determine whether there has been infringement of any intellectual property rights. The EC directive mandates that the consignment be released in 10 days if no legal proceedings have been initiated in such a court. It must be noted that this procedure is in marked difference to the Indian law which requires the Customs Department itself to determine patent or trademark infringement. At this point it is unknown to me if any of these consignments that were 'detained' in E.U. territories were actually contested in the national courts of those jurisdictions by either the Indian generic companies or by the Indian Government. If any of our readers have information on this, please do pass it on us. It would be extremely surprising if the Indian Government went ahead with trying to challenge the E.U. at the W.T.O. without actually challenging the 'seizures' in the Dutch Courts especially since a crucial question in all 16 cases would be factual i.e. whether there was a serious risk of diversion of these consignments into the E.U. market.

The Freedom of Information Request notes that the action taken in the case 16 consignments is as follows:

Action
6 Presumed authorisation
4 No action
2 Waiver
1 Prejudgment attachment
1 Settlement
1 Pending
1 Summons by the trademark owner
1 No response by the trademark owner

I am completely clueless as to what 'presumed authorization', 'no action', 'waiver' actually imply. It would be great if one of our better placed readers could explain the same to the rest of us.

An equally pertinent question is whether the Indian Government should challenge the EC Directive as such or alternatively whether it should challenge only the Dutch interpretation of this Directive. This question has arisen in the context of an English judgment on the same point which held that EC 1383/2003 did not permit transit goods to be seized. For more on this please read Shamnad's post over here.

SpicyIP Tidbits: Revlon fashions a TM trump

The Delhi High Court saw an infringement suit decided in favour of the international cosmetics brand Revlon. The order, which we laid hands on earlier today, was passed by Justice S Ravindra Bhat, who has had an eventful (some would say even illustrious) tenure in deciding IP matters in Delhi. (Image from here)

Revlon had filed a suit against a Delhi-based businessman and his associate companies who were using the mark Revon in their trade. Specifically, the defendants operated two websites: www.revonbeauty.com (which is now "under construction") and www.naturesmagicworld.com, which came under scrutiny in this case.

The first website was that of a beauty magazine called Revon, which the plaintiffs objected to as infringing the rights. The second website/enterprise, in which the former has a controlling stake, manufactures cosmetics under the brand "Nature's Essence", which were regularly advertised in Revon magazine.

Interestingly, the website of the magazine alleged to be infringing the international brand (www.revonbeauty.com) seems to have gone off the virtual radar, but a cover grab of its latest edition could be found on the second website, i.e., www.naturesmagicworld.com - from where this image is taken.

The upshot of it all is that Justice Bhat has passed an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against the defendants, restraining them from using the mark Revon or any mark similar to that of the plaintiffs in any manner.

SpicyIP would like to thank Ashish Prasad of Lall and Sethi for bringing this to our attention.

SpicyIP Tidbit: PIL filed at the Madras HC against GI for Tirupati Laddu

Sumathi ran quite a few interesting posts on the grant of GI to Tirupati Laddu. In the last post, a regular reader of the blog and a scientist from Kerala, Mr.Praveen Raj, posted in his comment that he had written a letter to the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India K.G.Balakrishnan against the grant of the GI, further requesting that the letter be treated as a writ petition.

We now have information that a PIL has been filed before the Madras HC on similar lines by one Mr.Mohanraj, a retired Police Officer and the General Secretary of Jebamani Janata Party (JJP). The PIL contests the grant of a trademark to the image of the presiding deity of the Attukal Temple and the grant of GI to Tirupati Laddu; a stay over the grant of both rights has been prayed for. To read the contents of the PIL, please visit this site.

SpicyIP Tidbit: Changing Trends in Grant of Temporary Injunctions in IP Cases

Last month, we had reported on the Indian Supreme Court's observations on parties in IP cases squabbling over temporary injunctions. Apparently, this view is shared by China's Apex Court as well. In a short article, Peter Ollier of Managing IP reports a formal opinion expressed by China's Supreme People's Court on April 21 on Intellectual Property adjudication.

It however comes from a perspective different from that of the Indian Supreme Court; it requires Chinese courts to exercise caution in granting interim injunctions, which some feel is aimed at shielding the domestic industry from the effects of recession. In cases where the defendant claims that he has been unfairly accused of IP infringement, the Court has set out guidelines for the grant of a declaratory judgment.

This is intended to prevent plaintiffs from using infringement actions as a ruse to gain access to the trade secrets of the defendant (In this context, s.104A(2) of the Indian Patents Act, 1970 provides for a protection of the defendant's manufacturing or commercial secrets).

The opinion talks of “public interest” being cited by the defendant against grant of an interim injunction and states that such a ground ought to recieve close examination and must be considered only where it concerns public health, environmental protection or “any other social interest”. The opinion also sets out that higher damages may be considered as an alternative to grant of a permanent injunction. If I have understood it right, what this means is the defendant may have to cough up a hefty amount, but can continue to infringe the IP right. If this isn't the right interpretation, this certainly beats me! The opinion also emphasises the use of laches and acquiescence to refuse temporary injunctions to right holders.

This Opinion is probably reflective of the position of local authorities whose approach to IP enforcement has been diplomatically termed as “lenient” and the purpose of which is to ensure that people don't lose their jobs in these hard times. The implementation of this opinion by subordinate courts remains to be seen....

Tuesday Titbits: Mashelkar, Correa and "Unnatural" Crimes

1. The Eco Times published an editorial of mine today on the Mashelkar vs Correa Controversy. I find it incredulous that Prof Correa himself has now trained his guns at Dr Mashelkar with a rather contrived "binary" proposition.

My first thought was: Prof Correa, it is but natural for an Indian to think "binary". After all, Information Technology (IT), which put us on the world economic map for the first time is all about being "binary"! But jokes apart, anyone reading the TEG's terms of reference in a straightforward, logical manner will fail to see it as anything but "binary". Perhaps this misreading of the terms of reference comes out of intrinsic differences between Argentine English and Indian English?

Unfortunately, I cannot post the ET article on the blog for another 2-3 days. For those of you who wish to read it, it is on page 15 of today's Eco Times (Delhi edition). You can also try and access it online here.. though not in an optimal readable format.

ps: Prashant Reddy wrote a very persuasive piece exposing the flaws of a commentary that attempted to draw a misleading distinction between the terms "limiting" and "excluding". I also address this specious distinction in the ET piece above.

2. Despite my best efforts, I'm unable to find a credible "IP" peg for the Naz Foundation judgment dealing with section 377 of the Indian Penal Code and the criminalisation of homosexuality in India.

So for those of you who want a small break away from the "natural" world of IP to the "unnatural world" of section 377, see this post of mine on LAOT, where I co-blog.

Incidentally, Venkatesan, a journalist with the Frontline and the key force behind LAOT has written a superb piece on the Tirupati Laddu case, which Sumathi referenced earlier.

The “Ardhnarishwar” Drug Model: Whither the Interests of Patients?

Soon after the Ranbaxy Daichi merger was announced, I had written an op-ed in DNA, commenting on the emergence of a likely "Ardhnarishwar" model in the Indian pharma industry. As a follow up to this story, the Mint carried an edit of mine in today's paper, as below:

(image from here)

The End of a Drug Alliance

"The Ranbaxy-Daiichi merger in June 2008 heralded the onset of what one might call an “Ardhanarishwar” model in the Indian drug industry, where innovator companies (creators of new drugs) and generics manufacturers came together in holy matrimony for the first time. The recent past has witnessed more such alliances, with companies such as Shantha Biotech, Dabur Pharma and Wockhardt tying the knot with multinationals, which wished to ramp up their generic capabilities. Most recently, the industry is abuzz about GlaxoSmithKline circling Dr Reddy’s to pick up stake.

The mergers appear a win-win situation for both generics companies and innovators. For one, given the recent push by most governments to reduce healthcare costs, multinational innovators get to partake in an ever lucrative generics pie. As far as Indian companies are concerned, the hope is that such unions will make them more innovative.

However, an oft-ignored consequence of such mergers is the likely impact on patient or public health groups. Ever since 1970, when India resolved to bolster its generic capabilities by denying product patents to pharmaceutical inventions, public-health groups and the generics industry have coalesced in their fight against multinational patentees. Not too surprising, since the regime shift in 1970 was premised on the assumption that creating a vibrant generics industry would also result in a reduction of drug prices and thereby benefit patients.

The recent past is, however, witnessing an increasing schism between the interests of the generics industry, on the one hand, and that of patient groups. The advent of the World Trade Organization’s Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) and the consequent pressure to conduct more research and development to survive in an increasingly competitive world market may have prompted part of this schism. Indeed, even prior to its merger, Ranbaxy was speaking a language familiar to multinationals—it actively supported the grant of patents to incremental inventions in its submissions before the Mashelkar committee.

This schism is even more evident in the debate over price controls. Illustratively, Cipla is routinely targeted by the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority for overpricing its drugs in India, indicating that the interests of the generics industry are not always aligned with that of patient groups.

With Indian generics firms now acquiring dual personalities, and speaking the language of patents and innovation, the number of patent oppositions mounted by generics companies against their innovator partners is likely to decrease. Indeed, a cursory examination of patent challenges filed the world over would indicate that one multinational innovator rarely challenges the patent of another.

It bears noting that the Indian patent regime contains what is probably the world’s most potent and comprehensive “opposition” mechanism, where a patent can be challenged for embodying only a trivial, non-meritorious invention.

A recent study by the author, based on publicly available patent opposition decisions, shows that of the 9,719 pharmaceutical applications filed since 2005, only 34 were challenged in an opposition. Of these 34, patient groups were involved in only three challenges, indicating perhaps that they may have relied on generics companies to take on problematic patents in a vast majority of the cases.

Depending on which side of the ideological fence one is on, the recent alliances between originators and generics could be seen as either “holy” or “unholy”. But what is incontrovertible is the fact that patient groups can no longer rely fully on the generics industry to take up cudgels on their behalf. They have to enhance capabilities and challenge more unsavoury patents to fulfil the mandate bestowed upon them by ailing patients."

SpicyIP Tidbit: Role of Science in Policy-Making

More than a week ago, my attention was drawn to this interesting link to a guide on including scientists in innovation policy making, published by UK's National Environmental Research Council (NERC). NERC sees itself as an entity whose purpose is to undertake research in areas which have critical public policy implications.

This objective requires it to not only communciate the results of its research to those in the corridors of power, but also help the governmental and non-governmental machinery make sense of the results in a manner which helps them calibrate their responses to issues and challenges. This, in turn, requires a certain level of policy awareness on the part of a researcher because in most such cases, the trigger for the research is the issue and so the research cannot be open-ended. A practical spin-off is to help the researcher retain his focus using policy issues as “blinkers”, if I may call them so, which, needless to say, keeps research budgets within check.

As for the angle for policy makers, sound scientific evidence to back their proposals is always an add on. More so, if the issue concerns innovation in general or environmental research, which in the past few years has provided us with a lot of food for thought on validity of certain claims made by warring groups and the “evidence” cited to substantiate their respective positions. The long and short of it is that the guide lays emphasis on increased awareness on the part of scientists and policy makers which is possible only by frequent interactions.

From an IP perspective, I am sure patent practitioners would agree when one says that this kind of informed communication channel is an absolute must between the inventor, patentee, patent drafter and the litigator if the activity has to be meaningful and yield results. I would say that communication within these individuals who are involved in patenting and defending patents would seem an obvious requirement, what wouldn't seem banal is the need for such a guide book for the judiciary because wherever science comes into play, policy cannot be viewed in isolation.

A few others could do with this guide too...a year ago, I was surprised to read a mail from the member of the editorial board of a journal in which he sounded very sure of himself that the decision taken by certain countries, including India, not to grant patents to computer programmes per se was but a policy decision and that a discussion on the scientific underpinnings of such a decision was irrelevant...I think this guide would come in handy when I try again, with cautious optimism, to explain my point of view to the gentleman...

SpicyIP Events: International Seminar on TK, New Delhi, Nov 13

The Federation of Indian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (FICCI), in cooperation with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) & the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion, Ministry of Commerce and Industry of the Government of India, is organizing an International Seminar on Traditional Knowledge at FICCI, New Delhi, on 13 November 2009.

The Seminar will be inaugurated by His Excellency Dr. Francis Gurry, Director General of WIPO, and will be attended by participants from across the world.

This international conference will assist stakeholders in sharing experiences, articulate views and provide meaningful recommendations on the following issues:

• i) The State of Play in the International Protection of Traditional Knowledge (TK) and Traditional Cultural Expressions (TCEs); and
• ii) The Effective Protection of Traditional Knowledge and Cultural Expressions: National and Community Experiences.

For more details about the Conference, including the programme, and the response proforma, please visit the event website: http://www.ficci.com/events-page.asp?evid=20221

SpicyIP Tidbits: The End of 'End User License Agreements'?

In a very recent judgement a U.S. District Court has ruled that the purchase of Autocad software from Autodesk under an End-User Licence Agreement (EULA) was not a licence but a sale. As a result the Court held that that a person who purchased the Autocad software could re-sell the same to another party and that Autodesk could not stop such a sale since it had exhausted it rights under the first sale doctrine. (Image from here)

The facts of the case are simple: Autodesk had initially licensed the Autocad software to an architectural firm by the name CTA Associates. CTA Associates was supposed to have destroyed the software in question when it got an upgrade from Autodesk. CTA however in breach of the licensing agreement sold the software to Timothy Vernor who made a living for himself by trading on E-Bay. Vernor then put up the software on E-Bay in response to which Autocad sent E-bay a take-down notice on the grounds of copyright infringement. Vernor disputed this by stating that he had original packages of the Autocad software. Vernor then succeeded in selling two copies of the software on the website after which he filed for declaratory relief on the grounds that Autodesk had no right to interfere with his business activities since it had exhausted its rights on the software under the first sale doctrine.

While analysing the agreement the Court noted that the label given to the EULA agreement by Autodesk was of no relevance and that the nature of the agreement had to be determined according to its content. Going by previous precedents of the Ninth Circuit the Court held that one of the main factors that distinguished on whether an agreement was a sale or a licence was whether the agreement had a clause requiring a return of the software package to Autodesk after a certain period of time. According to the Court this was the crucial factor in distinguishing between a sale and a licence. Analysing the EULA under which Autodesk was 'licensing' its software the Court held that the EULA did not have any such clause requiring return of the software package and thus the agreement could be termed as a transfer of ownership and not a licensing agreement. In this context the Court made a crucial distinction i.e. while Autodesk was well within its right to licence the terms of the use of the licence it had, for the purpose of the law, sold copies of the software package. Therefore although Autodesk sold the software package it could still enforce restrictions on fair use or reverse engineering or on how many computers the software as such was used. The distinction is therefore between the intangible software and the tangible software packages. Thus even if the person did not have the right to make copies of the software package in his possession he could still transfer ownership of the package as such to another person. A software manufacturer like Autodesk would not have the rights to control the future transfer of the software package since it would have exhausted its rights under the first sale doctrine. The implications of this judgement are massive for the software industry in the U.S.A. since it has opened up a market for second hand software packages.

It remains to be seen how this judgement will hold on appeal especially since the Ninth Circuit has a series of conflicting precedents on this point. The District Court chose the earliest of these conflicting judgements.

In a related development the Patently O has reported that the U.S. Supreme Court has indicated an interest in a case involving parallel imports and exhaustion of rights in an intellectual property rights case that involves the sale and transfer of Omega watches.

The Vernor v. Autodesk judgement is available here.

SpicyIP Tidbit: The Laddu and after

SpicyIP ran a guest post recently on a post-grant analysis of the Tirupati Laddu geographical indication (GI). The post itself received an overwhelming response from readers, most of whom were in agreement with the author's views that the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam (TTD), being the sole producer and sole beneficiary of the sale of the product, could not qualify as a legitimate "association", as required under the GI Act.

A Bittersweet Tale

Apologies to those who feel the story's been done to death, but I can't help but draw your attention to an excellent analysis by V Venkatesan , entitled "Bittersweet Status" in the latest issue of Frontline who similarly argues that the TTD may not have met the requirements of establishing that it was an association of producers. I quote some key paragraphs below:

"According to experts, the dual objectives of the registration and protection of G.Is. are to protect the community rights of stakeholders and to prevent the consumer from getting deceived or confused by fakes or substandard products. The TTD’s application satisfies the second objective but not the first. In the prescribed application, the TTD has mentioned only TTD against the column on the list of association of persons/producers/organisation/authority.

...It is tempting to term G.I. as the poor man’s I.P. (intellectual property) in India because most of the stakeholders of G.Is are farmers, artisans and craftsmen belonging to the lower economic strata and, ideally, the benefits of G.I. registrations must trickle down to them. If instead of the TTD a community of skilled cooks in and around Tirupati makes these laddus, and supplies them, after due quality checks, for distribution to pilgrims visiting Tirupati, then the registration as G.I. may be warranted.

Experts in I.P. are, therefore, worried that the granting of G.I. status to Tirupati laddus militates against the very spirit of G.I. protection, which is aimed at protecting, preserving and promoting collective community rights as opposed to private monopoly rights. They point out that permitting such registrations can lead to a situation where a community or private enterprise carrying on a monopolistic business can get a G.I. for its product if it can demonstrate that it is the only one manufacturing or producing the product and that this product has unique features..."

In defence of the Laddu

The same article, however, does contain a defence against these allegations:

"Subodh Kumar of the Andhra Pradesh Technology Development and Promotion Centre, who had a major role in drafting the TTD’s application and statement of case before the G.I. Registry, said that Section 2 (k) (iii) of the GIGA defines producer as any person who makes or manufactures the goods, and that under Section 2(n) of the GIGA, any organisation could be the proprietor of the G.I. In other words, according to him, the GIGA protects the G.I. of a single producer, such as the TTD, as well as a community of producers, if there is any."

Meanwhile, TTD itself appears to have been mysteriously silent on this whole issue. I have to admit I am yet to come across a formal statement from the Devasthanam about its registration or a response to the clamour surrounding it. If any readers have a clue, do post a note in the comments section.

The Trendy Laddu?

On a related front, and as though the Frontline article had portended it, regular reader and commentator RS Praveen Raj points us to a news report in the Economic Times that the Pazhani (or Palani) Murugan temple in Tamil Nadu may be contemplating a GI application on similar lines, for its 'Panchamritam' prasadam made from local ingredients (Image from Wikipedia):

The Chairman of the Temple Trust, S Balasubramaniam, is reported to have told ET the following:

"[T]he trust will also consider applying to the Patent office for geographical indication (GI) for panchamirtham, since the final product is a generic one with a unique mixture of Viruppachchi plantains, kandasari sugar from Kangeyam area, dates, honey, sugar candy, cardamom and ghee in proper proportions.

The Viruppachchi plantains grown exclusively in the Palani Hills already has a GI status and Palani temple has a tie-up with the farmers for this important raw material. "The small-sized virupachchi plantain has very little water content and therefore it is highly suitable for preparation of panchamirtham," said Mr Balasubramaniam."

Ah, it's that religion and IP affair again, you say: what a devil of a combination.