Google (Youtube) Wins Copyright Battle Initiated By Viacom

In 2007 New York based media giant VIACOM (which in collaboration with Network 18 owns channels like COLORS in India), filed $ 1 billion lawsuit against YOUTUBE (Youtube was bought by California based GOOGLE in 2006 for about $ 1.65 billion).Viacom accused Youtube of broadcasting 79,000 copyrighted videos on its website between 2005 and 2008 thereby illegally hosting videos that infringe on the Viacom's intellectual property, including popular content like MTV videos and TV shows like Comedy Central’s “South Park.”

Many content providers supported Viacom in the battle, including the Associated Press, Gannett Co, the National Football League, Garth Brooks, the Eagles and Sting. 

Google and Youtube were supported by eBay Inc, Facebook Inc, Yahoo Inc, Human Rights Watch and Consumers Union.

In its lawsuit, Viacom argued that users posting videos of Viacom’s programs, including South Park and The Daily Show contributed in YouTube’s explosive growth. In defense Google argued that the Digital Millennium Copyright Act protected YouTube from liability because the site promptly takes down infringing content once it is notified.

U.S. District Judge Louis Stanton, who presided over the case for several years, on 18th April ruled in favor of Google and YouTube considering their protection under the “safe harbor” provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which is a 1998 law that limits the liability of websites if they remove content when notified of possible copyright violations. Safe harbor protection under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, applies if an Internet service provider like YouTube “responds expeditiously to remove, or disable infringing content.”

After the loss VIACOM now is planning to Appeal against the said Ruling.

For any suggestions/query you can email me at securingip@gmail.com or drop in your comments

Courtesy:

Time

India Today

Hindustan Times

Business Benefit With Madrid Protocol For International Registration of TradeMarks

With India’s Commerce and Industry Minister Anand Sharma depositing India's instrument of accession at WIPO, India finally accedes to Madrid Protocol for the International Registration of TradeMarks, hence businesses can eventually protect their trademark in many countries by filing a single application with one set of fees. The said protocol will enter into force with respect to India in July, 2013. 

The Madrid system offers a trademark owner the possibility to have his trademark protected in several countries by simply filing one application directly with his own national or regional trademark office. The Madrid system also simplifies greatly the subsequent management of the mark, since it is possible to record subsequent changes or to renew the registration through a single procedural step.

Understanding the procedure in brief:

It is important to understand here that international trademark registration system is governed by two treaties, namely:

-the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Trade Marks (1891) and

-the Madrid Protocol Relating to the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Trade Marks (1989).  

Under the Madrid Protocol, International Trademark Application cannot be filed directly with International Bureau of WIPO, rather it is only to be filed through the Intellectual Property Office of one’s country or organization of origin.An applicant may freely choose his Office of origin (basic application country) on the basis of business  establishment, domicile or nationality. Where an Applicant has industrial or commercial establishments in different States that are party to the Protocol. In such a case, any of the Offices of the respective States may qualify as the Office of origin.

Under Madrid Protocol, an international application may be based on either:

-A registration with the Office of origin or

-An application for registration filed with that Office.

And the same may be filed in English, French or Spanish, depending on the Office of origin. Official forms for an international application, are available on WIPO’s website. As India being a signatory to the Madrid Protocol, the applicant, while making an international application to the National Office on prescribed form, may select from the list of the member countries where he wishes to protect the mark.

The Office of Origin shall on receipt of such international application, examine it to check whether the Application is in accordance and complies with the requirements laid. Thereafter the Office of Origin forwards the said Application to the International Bureau at WIPO, which examines the international application to confirm that it complies with the requirements of the Madrid Protocol. Any irregularities found are conveyed to the Office of origin and the applicant must remove the objections within the prescribed time limit.

On successful examination the International Bureau then Records the mark in the International Register, publishes the mark in the Gazette, and notifies each contracting party or member country that are the designated countries listed in the application, asking for their consequent approval, and granting of registration. Thereafter the Office of a Contracting Party adopts the exact procedure adopted for a direct national application . The initial date of receipt of the application by the Office of Origin, shall be the date of the international registration and the period of protection granted by an international registration is 10 years, which can be extended before the expiry of this period.

For Complete details visit the WIPO website : http://www.wipo.int/madrid/en/

For any suggestions/query you can email me at securingip@gmail.com or drop in your comments

Diabetes Drug War Between 'Merck Sharp and Dohme Corp (MSD)' and 'Glenmark'

Merck Sharp and Dohme Corp’s.(MSD) Anti Diabetes Drug JANUVIA and JANUMET Versus Glenmark Alleged Generic Drug Zita and Zita Met

Today’s sedentary lifestyle where definition of work has changed from physical work to hours of sitting before our computers and stretching our mind’s limit to the point of exhaustion, this coupled with nations growing addiction towards fast food, no wonder India is fast becoming the diabetes capital of the world.

“The More The Merrier” for Pharma Companies as the growing Indian diabetes drug market, with the second-largest diabetic population in the world, is one of the key growth markets for companies selling anti diabetes drugs and where there is money involved, litigation follows.

After the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgement against Novartis, another case against alleged generic drug production comes in forefront.Merck Sharp and Dohme Corp.(MSD) filed a suit against Glenmark alleging  Glenmark's drug infringed on the patents of its products branded JANUVIA and JANUMET.

Sun Pharmaceuticals has joined MSD's suit against Glenmark as Sun Pharmaceuticals, last year signed a license agreement with U.S.-based Merck to market the drug in India under the brand name Istavel Istamet.

MSD's move comes a week after Glenmark Pharma launched alleged generic versions of a range of anti-diabetes products sold by the US company under the brand names Januvia and Janumet. Glenmark has branded its medicines Zita and Zita Met.

Januvia and Janumet are patented and enjoy IP protection of 20 years in India.Launched in 2008, Januvia and Janumet (the medicines are among a class of products known as Gliptins) figure among the best-selling anti-diabetic drugs in India. Gliptins drugs help to raise insulin levels, the lack of which causes the blood sugar level to go down.

MSD, in its plea, alleged that the Indian pharma company has violated its intellectual property right over its anti-diabetes medicines, Januvia and Janumet, by coming in the market with their own drugs containing the same salts.

The Delhi High Court refused to grant interim relief to Merck Sharp and Dohme (MSD) which sought a restraint on Glenmark Pharmaceuticals on manufacturing and marketing Zita and Zita-Met.

Under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act of India, a company can apply for approval to market a patented drug four years after its launch. Glenmark has used this route to get an approval to launch the drug. Under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, state-level regulators can grant marketing approval even if a patent exists, as long as the drug has been around for four years.

A strip of seven tablets of Januvia (50 mg and 100 mg) is priced at approximately Rs 300 while Glenmark’s version costs around 30 per cent less.Obviously MSD is extremely disappointed with the decision and will consider all options, including an appeal of the decision Whereas Glenmark said it has not infringed on the patents and respects patent laws and that it launched the drug after due diligence and research.

For any suggestions/query you can email me at securingip@gmail.com or drop in your comments

Courtesy:

Economic Times

First Post

Wall Street Journal

Pharma Giant Novartis claim to Patent modification on existing cancer drug rejected by Supreme Court of India.

Glivec is an important and expensive drug in the treatment of myeloid leukaemia that blocks cancer growth in patients and is already on the market. Novartis decided to seek a patent on a slightly altered version, potentially giving it a longer period of market exclusivity.

Novartis application for a patent for its new version of the drug, arguing that it was easier to absorb and therefore qualified as an innovation was rejected by the Controller of Patents in 2006.

 

The Appeal in said matter was finally decided by the supreme court of India on April 01, 2013 wherein the Hon'ble Court noted that the new drug is not significantly different from the old version. 

Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act, does not allow patents of new versions of known drug molecules, unless they make the medicine significantly more effective than before.

Novartis argued that better physicochemical qualities, such as shape of the molecule, stability, hygroscopicity and solubility, would satisfy the test of enhanced efficacy.

But the court decided that the changes were simply an attempt at "evergreening" – refreshing the drug so that a new patent would be granted – which is common practice in Europe and North America.

The decision is seen as a major boost for generic drugmakers in India who supply cheap medicines to poor people across the developing world.

India exports generic drugs worth $11bn including crucial anti-retrovirals supplied to Africa.

The ruling was welcomed by bodies such as Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), Cancer Patients Aid Association in India (CPAA) and others. However, Novartis said the decision "discourages future innovation in India" and company will be cautious about investing in India, especially over introducing new drugs, and seek patent protection before launching any new products.

You can access the complete judgement at:http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/165776436/

For any suggestions/query you can email me at securingip@gmail.com

Courtesy:

The Guardian,

BBC.