An insight on the legal implications of BYOD

Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) is a scheme wherein employees are allowed to bring their own devices like mobiles, laptops, tabs and utilize them in the workplace for work purposes. Some employers themselves fund the software to their employees, meanwhile some prefer to simply grant permission for their employees to bring their technology at their own expense. This is beneficial to the employee since it would be evident that he would be comfortable using his own devices, adding to the fact that he can work from home on his own gadget at his own convenience. Sounds simple, doesn’t it? Unfortunately,... Read More

Generic v. Branded patent battles in India foray into life management diseases too

Patent wars in India between the foreign innovator companies and the Indian generics now seem to be spreading over life-management diseases segment. Till now the patent infringement cases have revolved and are still revolving over drugs for life-threatening diseases such as HIV, cancer where the public interest has played an important factor in the adjudication of the cases. However a recentlaunch of a generic version of Merck’s anti-diabetic blockbuster drug Januvia by Glenmark has opened the gates to India’s its first such patent litigation case in Diabetes market. Merck sued Glenmark for infringing over it their product patent on Sitagliptin... Read More

India Joins Madrid Protocol

India became signatory to the Madrid Protocol for International Registration of Marks at the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) on 8th April 2013. Now, Indian applications can register their Trade Marks in as many as 89 countries through a single application. India is the 14th G-20 economy to accede to the protocol. The treaty will enter into force with respect to India on July 8, 2013 according to the WIPO statement. The Madrid System offers trademark owners a cost-effective, user-friendly and streamlined means of protecting and managing their trademark portfolios internationally. In 2012, there were 44,018 applications by companies for... Read More

The Glivec saga in India is finally over

As it has been widely covered by media in and outside India, it is no new news to pharmaceutical and patent fraternity that Novartis has lost about 7 year long legal battle to secure a patent protection for its invention on beta crystalline form of imatinib mesylate in India. A 112 page long Supreme Court judgement delivered by a Supreme Court (SC) bench comprising Justice Aftab Alam and Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai details a complete account of all events leading to appeal to Supreme Court and a historical account of India’s patent regime including policy decisions leading to amendment of section... Read More

Khurana and Khurana win an award from Corporate Intl Magazine

We are pleased to announce that our firm Khurana and Khurana Advocates and IP Attorneys has been chosen as the winner of 2013 Corporate Intl Magazine Legal Award for the category of ‘IP  Patents Law Firm of the Year in India’. Since 2005, Corporate Intl has been firmly established as one of the leading monthly titles for business leaders, professional advisers and providers of finance throughout the world. The Corporate INTL Awards value those who have been active in the year 2012 and have demonstrated superiority in terms of client service and legal knowledge. All award winners have been chosen... Read More

Multi Time Machine v. Amazon.com

No one can resist shopping online in today’s busy times. Online retailing is one of the low costing and productive methods of earning more profits without much effort put in. Take Amazon for example. Amazon, in a bid to gain potential consumers, display alternative products when they look for the initial product they liked. These complementary products, very often can turn into competitive products by showing other brands selling the same good. This move boomerangs on the brand owner as very often the consumer can be lured into buying the competitor’s product, when their intention was not so. Take the... Read More

An analysis on comparative advertising

Comparative advertising means comparing different brands on price, services and other factors and focusing on advertising one of the brands in a way to show how their rivals are inferior as compared to it. This comparison would be very obvious to the audience due to its explicit comparison. The Federal Trade Commission (USA), defined comparative advertising as “advertisement that compares alternative brands on objectively measurable attributes or price, and identifies the alternative brand by name, illustration or other distinctive information.” The case Gillette Australia Pty Ltd. v Energizer Australia Pty Ltd. (2002) 193 ALR 629 seconded this definition. The types... Read More