1. The Delhi High Court in the matter of Champagne Moet and Chandon (“Petitioner”) vs. Union of India and Ors. (“Respondents”), W.P. (C) 9778 of 2006, has held that same trademarks can be registered for different classes of goods.
2. The Delhi High Court passed interim orders in the copyright infringement lawsuit filed by Sholay Media & Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. (“Plaintiff”) against Vodafone Essar Mobile Services Ltd. & Ors. (“Defendant”), CS (OS) No. 490/2011, regarding the sale and distribution of ringtones of songs from the Bollywood movie Sholay.
3. In the case between Gorbatschow Wodka KG v. John Distilleries Limited, the shape of the bottle of Vodka gave rise to the controversy.

SC Accepts Petition Against Indian Arm of MS

(Economic Times, 29 January 2013, New Delhi (page no. 23))

The Supreme Court has accepted a petition alleging that the Indian arm of Microsoft is abusing its dominant position in the market to sell the same product under different price tags. 

A two-judge bench granted leave to appeal on a plea filed by law firm Singhania Partners LLP against an order passed by the Competition Appellate Tribunal (COMPAT). The decision implies that the court has agreed to examine the issue without first seeking the views of the parties involved. 

Shekhar Naphade, the counsel for Singhania, alleged that Microsoft Corp India Pvt Ltd was selling software package under two differently priced licences and that large entities, such as law firms, were being compelled to buy the higher-priced versions. Contesting this claim, Microsoft India’s lawyer Abhishek Manu Singhvi said that Singhania was a law firm and hence could not demand “original equipment manufacturer (OEM)” rates. Singhvi added that OEM rates were only for wholesale or bulk buyers (in the way of assemblers), and a law firm could not be construed to be one. Singhania allegedly placed orders for software at OEM rates through a dealer, but was told that it could only apply under the higher-priced volume license rates. The Delhi-based law firm has already lost two rounds in the case: first at the Competition Commission of India and then at COMPAT. 

The CCI had rejected Singhania’s appeal in June 2011 citing lack of evidence. An appeal against the CCI order was rejected last year by COMPAT.

Pursuant to the consultative paper on Regulations in 2007 and the concept paper in 2011, Securities Exchange Board of India (SEBI) has now notified the Securities Exchange Board of India (Investment Advisers) Regulations 2013 (Regulations).