IP law, litigations offer a promising career for lawyers, says HC judge
He was delivering the inaugural address at the event marking the World Intellectual Property Day celebrations and the AA Mohan IP Lecture Series in Chennai on Saturday. The event was organised by Intellectual Property Association of South India, a body of lawyers.
'Now, we have so much in the way of intellectual property laws. Technology has developed so much. So many branches of this law have come up. The developments are giving rise to new branches,' the judge said.
He noted if the lawyers specialise in IP laws and prove their mettle, they will have abundant opportunity.
A panel discussion, moderated by justices C Saravanan and Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy of the high court, on Artificial Intelligence and IP Rights was held. Senior counsels PVS Giridhar, Srinath Sridevan and advocate Rajesh Ramanathan were also part of the panel.
State advocate general PS Raman, president of the association PV Balasubramaniam and Secretary Ramesh Ganapathy also spoke at the event.
Advocate R Sathish Kumar delivered a lecture on the legacy of AA Mohan who was a specialist in IP laws in Chennai. A newsletter was released at the event, in which Justice Abdul Quddhose also participated.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India.com
3 hours ago
- India.com
Days within wedding, BIG relief to Jeff Bezos in Rs 3400000000 case of damages and costs for…, HC stays order directing…
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday put a hold on an order that required Amazon Technologies Inc to pay approximately Rs 340 crore in damages and costs for alleged trademark infringement involving the luxury lifestyle brand Beverly Hills Polo Club. The decision of a bench comprising Justice C Hari Shankar and Justice Ajay Digpaul came on the plea against a single judge's order directing Amazon Technologies to pay Lifestyle Equities damages of 39 million dollars after finding that Amazon infringed upon its 'Beverly Hills Polo Club' trademark. Delhi HC Stays Order Against Amazon 'The considerations outlined herein above make out, in our considered opinion, an exceptional case, in which it would be a complete travesty of justice to require the appellant Amazon Tech to deposit, or secure, any part of the amount decreed by the impugned judgment, in order to maintain its appeal,' the bench said on Tuesday. The court held there was no specific finding by the single judge and that it was largely generalised in nature, concentrating on the phenomenon of e-infringement and reflect a view that, if Amazon Tech desired, it could infringe, rather than that it did infringe. It did not find any prima facie sustainable allegation of involvement by Amazon in any infringement of Lifestyle's registered trademark. 'This, therefore, is not merely a case in which damages have been awarded against Amazon Tech without any finding, by the learned Single Judge, of involvement, in the alleged infringing activities, but is, in fact, a case where no such pleadings exist,' the court said. What Were Allegations Against Amazon? In 2020, Lifestyle Equities filed a trademark infringement suit against Amazon Technologies and others alleging that they infringed upon its registered 'BEVERLY HILLS POLO CLUB' logo/device marks by using a deceptively similar mark on apparel and other products sold on their platforms. It was claimed that Amazon was manufacturing and selling products under the brand 'Symbol' with the infringing mark, and that Cloudtail India, operating on the marketplace, was also involved in the sale of these infringing products. (With Inputs From PTI)
Indian Express
3 hours ago
- Indian Express
HC notes ‘egregious misuse' of Delhi Rent Control Act, says ‘well-off tenants…unjustly occupy premises paying pittance for rent'
The Delhi High Court observed on Wednesday that the Delhi Rent Control (DRC) Act, 1958 sees an 'egregious misuse of an anachronistic piece of legislation' where well-off tenants 'unjustly' occupy premises paying a pittance as rent while the landlords are forced into 'impecunious and desperate circumstances'. The Delhi High Court was dealing with petitions challenging the 2013 orders by the additional rent controller (ARC) that had dismissed eviction petitions by the UK- and Dubai-based owners of a property in Sadar Bazar, ruling in favour of the tenants. The petitioners had sought eviction of the premises on the ground that they run two restaurants in London and bona fide require the subject premises for expanding the business in India. The ARC, while ruling against the petitioners, had recorded that they are settled-in and are running their businesses in London and Dubai respectively, and that the petitioners did not require the premises for their 'subsistence or survival'; and therefore their bonafidé requirement did not amount to being an 'actual need'. The ARC had also reasoned that the premises were too small to run a sit-in restaurant from. Justice Anup Bhambhani, setting aside the ARC's orders, recorded that 'the financial well-being of a landlord, or the financial ill-health of a tenant, are not relevant considerations while deciding an eviction petition under section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act'. The court further recorded that the ARC's view that the petitioners' need is not bona fide 'is wholly uncalled-for and illegal'. '…whether they are able to run a full-fledged, sit-down restaurant or a smaller food take-away vend is entirely the petitioners' prerogative; and the bona-fidés of their requirement cannot be discounted based merely on the learned ARC's assessment of whether a food business can be run from the subject premises. This view taken by the learned ARC is flawed…,' Justice Bhambhani observed. On a parting note, allowing the petitioners to evict the tenants, Justice Bhambhani noted, 'This court is compelled to record, that while manning the Rent Control Roster it has found that cases abound where very well-off tenants enjoying financial prosperity persist in unjustly occupying premises for decades on-end, paying pittance for rent, while in the process their landlords are forced into impecunious and desperate circumstances, resulting from egregious misuse of an anachronistic piece of legislation, namely the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.'
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
4 hours ago
- Business Standard
'Right not a favour', says HC on pension to disabled kids: what law says
When a government employee passes away, their dependent children with mental or physical disabilities are legally entitled to a lifetime family pension. Yet, experts point out that on ground things are a tad different. Red tape, unnecessary document demands, and long waiting periods make life difficult for the intended beneficiaries. A recent Madras High Court ruling is now being seen as a ray of hope for such families. The rule is clear, but delays are common 'Despite clear statutory protection under Rule 54(6) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, which allows for lifetime family pension for such dependents, authorities often insist on documents like income certificates that the law does not require,' said Sonal Alagh, founding partner at Alagh & Kapoor Law Offices. 'This reflects bureaucratic rigidity and causes immense hardship to families already grappling with caregiving responsibilities.' 'Even though the Rules only require medical certification of disability, the authorities often insist on additional proof, most commonly, an income certificate, which is beyond the Rules. This leads to prolonged processing times, often running into months or years, and, in many cases, outright rejections,' said Jeevan Ballav Panda, partner at Khaitan & Co. The case of Jerald, a mentally disabled son of a deceased forest officer, and Sujatha, the disabled daughter of a former acting chief justice of the Madras High Court, laid bare such administrative apathy. Both faced repeated requests for documents already submitted and endured long delays, noted Soayib Qureshi, partner at PSL Advocates & Solicitors. Judgment strengthens legal footing The High Court, in The Principal Accountant General (A&E) v. AV Jerald & Ors., unequivocally said that authorities cannot demand documents not prescribed under the rules. 'By linking timely pension payments to Article 21 of the Constitution (right to life and dignity), the court reaffirmed that pension is a legal right, not a favour,' Qureshi said. 'This ruling serves as a timely reminder for government departments to act quickly and humanely, especially when dependents suffer from intellectual disabilities,' added Nihal Bhardwaj, counsel at SKV Law Offices Required documents -- No income proof needed All four experts stressed the minimum required paperwork: Death certificate of the pensioner Proof of relationship with the dependent (e.g., birth certificate) Medical certificate from a government hospital or Medical Board confirming the disability and inability to earn a livelihood Guardianship certificate (only if the dependent is incapable of managing affairs) Identity proof (such as Aadhaar) 'Importantly, income certificates are not legally required. The focus is purely on disability,' Alagh emphasised. What families can do if the pension is delayed If a dependent's pension is held up despite submitting all required documents, families can escalate in stages: File a formal representation with pension authorities citing Rule 54(6) and the Madras HC judgment Approach tribunals or file a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if ignored Lodge a grievance on CPENGRAMS, the central pension grievance portal 'Maintain detailed records of submissions. Courts have taken a firm stance against unjustified delays,' Qureshi advised. A precedent with nationwide reach Though from the Madurai Bench, this ruling is already being seen as a strong precedent. 'It aligns with the Supreme Court's stand in Bhagwanti Mamtani versus Union of India (1995) and offers a legal foundation that families across India can rely upon,' said Alagh. With expert backing and a supportive judicial interpretation, the message is clear: families of disabled dependents have a right-- not a request-- to pension, and they now have the legal tools to assert it.
