Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The patent application at the centre of the case was filed by Novartis in India in 1998, after India had agreed to enter the World Trade Organization and to abide by worldwide intellectual property standards under the TRIPS agreement. As part of this agreement, India made changes to its patent law; the biggest of which was that prior to these ...
Penguin Books Ltd. v. India Book Distributors and Others; Pichaikkaran 2; Paran Jai Jaliya Re; PPL India; Pranayam (2011 film) Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights Act, 2001; Pushpa: The Rise; Pushpaka Vimana (2017 film) Pyaar ki Pungi
Current events; Random article; ... Indian intellectual property law (2 C, ... Supreme Court of India cases (2 C, 60 P) Pages in category "Indian case law"
Lawyers Collective represented the Cancer Patients Aid Association in the landmark intellectual property case Novartis v. Union of India., [5] opposing Novartis' patent for Glivec, a life-saving leukemia drug. The case has generated global attention for its impact on access to medicines worldwide. On 1 April 2013, Novartis' patent was rejected ...
The economic effects of intellectual property reform in India is a complex subject area, and would require a separate detailed article. A beginning may be made by referring to Sunil Kanwar and Stefan Sperlich (2020), [18] who study the effect of intellectual property reform on technological advancement and productivity increases in manufacturing industry in the emerging market context of India.
Indian trademark law statutorily protects trademarks as per the Trademark Act, 1999 and also under the common law remedy of passing off. [1] Statutory protection of trademark is administered by the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks, a government agency that reports to the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP), under the Ministry of Commerce and Industry.
Apple Inc. litigation (multiple, multinational cases) Apple v. HTC (US, 2010) Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (multiple, multinational cases, ongoing [citation needed]) Ariad v. Lilly (US, 2006) Arizona Cartridge Remanufacturers Association Inc. v. Lexmark International Inc. (US, 2005) Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad ...
The interim decision in the case, given by Justice Jaspal Singh, given in favour of the plaintiff, restricted the Indian Government from causing any further loss to the plaintiff by destroying the property. The interim ruling, given in 1992, established two central points about the ambit of moral rights within India.