Search results for

In the wake of the Law on Advertising, which came into force on July 1 2006, the State Duma adopted some changes to the Criminal Procedure Code. The Criminal Code already contains provisions for the punishment of IP infringers and in past years those sanctions have been made harder. Now the new procedure makes it easier for law enforcement bodies to deal with infringement cases in the field of copyright. At present, only public prosecutors are empowered to initiate criminal cases against infringers according to Section 146 of the Criminal Code. The new provision of the Criminal Procedure Code empowers the police to prosecute wrongdoers in copyright matters. A criminal case according to Section 146 may be initiated if the damage to the copyright owner is more than R50,000 ($2,000). A crime of this calibre shall be punished by imprisonment of up to five years.

MIP presents its fourth annual list of the most influential people in IP. Join us as we meet the 2006 top 50

In a surprise arbitration decision, Nike has lost its complaint over five domain names registered by a Korean company.

Pravin Anand and Gitanjali Bhatnagar, of Anand and Anand in New Delhi, explore the ethical concerns, legal spats and validity issues raised by licences in the IT industry, and look at potential overlaps with patent rights

Advertising regulation involves the interaction of trade mark, copyright and competition law. Jatin Trivedi and Prateek Garg of YJ Trivedi & Co review decisions on what constitutes ''disparaging advertising'' in India

Niti Dewan and Mohan Dewan, of RK Dewan & Co, discuss the impact of strategies for defendants - such as malicious prosecution, groundless threats, cancellation and revocation actions

The increase in digital piracy has led to questions about the liability of internet service providers. Anuradha Salhotra and Kajigailiu Gaiduwan Kamei of Lall Lahiri & Salhotra examine the legal position in India

The Indian Patent Office faces a number of important challenges, including a lack of personnel, high pendency and corruption. Peter Ollier spoke to the newly appointed head P H Kurian to see how he is dealing with these tests

Under current patent practice in the field of pharmaceutical inventions, it is required that a pharmaceutical invention be clearly defined by its pharmacological efficacy in terms of diagnosis, treatment, reduction and prevention of certain diseases. In exceptional cases, it is possible for a pharmaceutical invention to be defined by its pharmacological mechanism without clearly defining diseases for which the pharmaceutical invention is used.

The issue of divisional applications continues to keep the EPO busy on various levels. The Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) has previously dealt extensively with the allowability of amendments to divisional applications in decisions G 1/05 and G 1/06, and a new set of rules, aimed at limiting the number of divisional applications, will enter into force in 2010. Despite the EPO's past efforts to clarify the procedural peculiarities of divisionals, a new question has now arisen, which the EBA is to consider in pending case G 1/09.