Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
43 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Amar Nath Sehgal v Union of India |
Gov't dumped sculpture - sculptor wanted PI on distortion, compensation for hurt, delivery-up - wide moral rights affirmed |
|
|
Authors Guild v Google Inc |
(1) search/snippet functions are transformative w/o providing substantial substitute (2) no market substitution - different market + no exclusive right to talk about the book (3) profit-motivation is irrelevant. (4) hacking risk does not expose authors to reduction in CR value (5) provision of digital copies to participatinglibraries, authorizing them tomake non-infringing uses, is non-infringing. |
|
|
Oracle America Inc v Google Inc |
.. |
|
|
Baker v Selden |
Books describing accounting system - "idea" of accounting was inseparable from its "expression" in the form of ledger sheets. Merger > not c'rable. |
|
|
CCH Canadian Limited v Law Society of Upper Canada |
'Originality' = use of skill and judgment - mere industriousness insufficient, but need not be creative. Followed in EBC v Modak. |
|
|
EBC v Modak |
¶-segregation/re-numbering + indicating judge votes - requires legal knowledge selection, co-ordination or re-arrangement of pre-existing information which changes its character - skill and judgment BUT cross-cites/pin-points/corrections/compression > no skill or judgment required. |
|
|
Feist Publications, Inc v Rural Telephone Services |
(Feistcopied 1,300 names from Rural’s phone book) – An alphabetical re-listing of telephonesubscribers and numbers not 'creative' enough to be considered original. Rejects sweat of the brow. |
|
|
Krishika Lulla v Shyam Vithalrao Devkatta |
(Desi Boys/z) - Generally, title of a synopsis of a film, composed of ordinary words, not c'rable. Might be under passing-off or trademark. |
|
|
Mannu Bhandari v Kala Vikas Pictures Pvt Ltd |
... |
|
|
RG Anand v Delux Films |
... |
|
|
University of London Press v University Tutorial Press |
... |
|
|
Walter v Lane |
... |
|
|
Computer Associates v Altai Inc |
.. |
|
|
Eastern India Motion Pictures |
... |
|
|
Leibovitz v Paramount Pictures |
... |
|
|
Viacom International v YouTube |
... |
|
|
Super Cassettes v Myspace |
... |
|
|
Abercrombie & Fitch Co. v. Hunting World, Inc |
Spectrum - arbitrary (unrelated existing word) or fanciful (new word) > suggestive - requires thought to connect > descriptive - identifies product feature > generic |
|
|
Amritdhara Pharmacy v Satdeo |
Averagely intelligent person with imperfect recollection would likely be confused between "Amritdhara" and "Lakshmandhara" wrt similar products. Long acquiescence contention - not adjudicated |
|
|
Balkrishna Hatcheries vNandos Int’l |
(Nandu frozen meat products v Nando's hospitality and sauces) - Similar marks, but former is for a good and the other for a service (sauces only sold at restaurants) - no p.f. case, injunction denied. |
|
|
J Bollinger v Costa Brava Wine Co Ltd |
"Champagne" as a geographical indication - D's sale of "Spanish Champagne", although clearly distinguishing itself from champagne proper, held to be an instance of passing off. |
|
|
Cadila Health Care v Cadila Pharmaceuticals |
(Falcigo - Falcitab malaria medicines) - passing off factors. (1) nature (2) degree of resemblance (3) nature of the goods (4) similarity in the nature, character and performance of the goods of the rival traders (5) class of purchasers - education/intelligence, degree of care (6) mode of purchasing the goods or placing orders for the goods (7) surrounding circumstances |
|
|
Cipla Ltd v Cipla Industries Pvt Ltd; Raymond Limited v Raymond Pharmaceuticals |
§29(5) of the act would apply when a trademark "XYZ" is registered in respect of the goods "A" AND defendant uses "XYZ" as a part of the name of his business concern dealing in the goods similar to the goods in respect of which the trade mark was registered. |
|
|
F. Hoffmann-La Roche v Geoffrey Manners |
(DROPOVIT-PROTOVIT) - no chance of being slurred over in speech. Prescription medicine - less chance of mistakes. Former not generic equivalent of 'drop of vitamins'. |
|
|
Pepsi Co. v Hindustan CocaCola Ltd. |
Disparagement - "drink for children" - noted, terms used must be seen in context of expressions/feelings conveyed |
|
|
Pidilite Industries v Vilas Nemichand Jain |
Passing off, ingredients: (i) employment of deception (ii) intent is not a necessary as long as the unwary consumer is deceived (iii) the act of the tort should injure the goodwill not just his reputation. In a passing off action, the plaintiff must show both distinctiveness and reputation. |
|
|
Reckitt & Colman Products Ltd v Borden Inc |
(Jif Lemon - lemon shaped lemon juice) Where a party alleged passing-off by similarity of the get-up of the goods, the crucial question was whether what the defendants were doing was a misrepresentation. Held, no error in holding that many shoppers would inevitably purchase defendant's juice when they thought they were buying plaintiff's. |
|
|
TATA Sons v. Greenpeace Intl. |
(Game criticizing effect of Dhamra Port Project on Oliver Ridley turtles) - use of a trademark, as the object of a critical comment, or even attack, does not necessarily result in infringement - libel not found. |
|
|
TV Venugopal v Ushodaya |
(Eenadu - 'this land' in Tullu - news source vs agarbattis) - well known TM - protection extends across classes of goods |
|
|
Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International |
(Computerized escrow arrangement) - Held, (1) the abstract idea of an intermediated settlement was not patentable, (2) implementing abstract idea on a computer did not transform it into something patentable. |
|
|
Association of Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics,Inc. |
(Isolating cancer-associated DNA) - groundbreaking, but not patentable - naturally occurring - Oz HC agreed that it is not a "manner of manufacture" u/Monopolies Act. (Synthesizing exon-only cDNA) - patent-eligible - novelty found. |
|
|
Bayer v Union of India |
(Liver-cancer medicine) - §84 (1) Failure of reasonable efforts to get voluntary license - refusal to negotiate. (2) 84(1) is disjunctive. (3) Only 12.5% of demand met by patentee - offenders' supply irrelevant (4) Rs.2,80,000/- p.m. not reasonably affordable from purchasers' perspective - R&D costs/patient assistance irrelevant (5) No adequate reason for not making in India. |
|
|
Bilski v. Kappos |
(Hedging formula for commodities buyers in energy market) - just solves a math problem, not patent-eligible. |
|
|
Biswanath Prasad Radhey Shyam v Hindustan MetalIndustries |
(Dish manufacturing method) - no novelty or inventive step found where the method claimed was already in use before patent registered - revoked. |
|
|
Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee |
"Inter-partes review" u/America Invents Act - court cannot reconsider PO's decision to hold it or overturn their findings |
|
|
Diamond v. Chakrabarty |
GM microbes are patent-eligible. |
|
|
Dimminaco AG v Controller of Patents |
(Process of making poultry-bursitis vaccine microorganism) - held, patentable under Indian Act as well. |
|
|
FTC v Actavis |
Pay-for-delay is anti-competitive and illegal. |
|
|
Harvard College v Canada |
Oncomouse, a higher life form, not patent-eligible (animal suffering + environmental impact/human health improvements). |
|
|
Roslin Institute, Re |
(Dolly cloning) - time delayed genetic equivalent, not patentable. Consequence of different mDNA/phenotype on characteristics of clone needed to be identified. |
|
|
F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd& Anr v. Cipla Ltd |
(Erlotinib - Erlocip/Tarceva) (1) Public knowledge != wide use, practitioner knowledge sufficient (2) BOC with Defendant due to importance of their drug for public - no injunction |
|
|
Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. v. Linde AirProducts Co |
(Substituting manganese for calcium/magnesium silicates) - Doctrine of equivalents "whether persons reasonably skilled in the art would have known of the interchangeability of an ingredient not contained in the patent with one that was." It performs substantially the same function in substantially the same way to yield substantially the same result. |
|
|
KSR v Teleflex |
(Connecting adjustable vehicle control pedal to an electronic throttle control) - obvious to try for a person skilled in the art, non-patentable. |
