The Indian scenario does seem to have lit up a little, following the announcement of a differential pricing scheme by the Government. Under this, imported patented drugs would have two prices, one declared by the company, and the other one negotiated by the Government. The latter price would be for the wholesale purchase of the same drugs for Government hospitals and underprivileged families. As drugs like Tarceva and Glivec may come under the umbrella of this initiative, one does hope that the government keeps the brainwaves coming!!!

Another feather in the government’s hat is that of licensing traditional remedies from local plants and animals to prevent multinational companies from patenting the same. Around 200,000 licenses have been granted, as ‘public property’ free for anyone to use, but no one to sell as a ‘brand’. This enterprise was undertaken when scientists in Delhi came across a scandalizing trend of ‘bio-prospecting’ of natural remedies by companies abroad. Out of the 5000 patents issued, 2000 happened to belong to Indian systems of medicine. However, Dr. Vinod Kumar Gupta, the head of the Traditional Knowledge Digital Library, foresees a change in this disturbing trend, with both the introduction of the library, as well as the licensing antics.

Stockholm happens to be quite a convenient place for conferences, what with the environmental conference and the conclusion of the Paris Convention. This time round though, it has been chosen for arbitration and dispute resolution. The Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce, to decide the ownership of the well-known Wahaha brand and thereby end the 20-month long legal spat between The French food and dairy giant Danone Groupe SA and its Chinese partner Wahaha Group, has launched the hearing

The brand used on bottled water, juices and tea, is the result of a joint venture between the two companies, wherein the French company owns 51 percent of the shares. Danone accusing the Hangzhou-based company of setting up independent companies and selling products identical to those sold by the Joint Venture Company, triggered the dispute. A clause included in the initial agreement between the two companies mandated that any dispute between the two would be resolved at Stockholm.  

December of last year saw the new Scotland Yard logo being licensed out to toy makers John Adams for children’s forensic science kits. This was the first deal signed after the decision of the Metropolitan police to use the revolving 3 sided sign as a commercial brand, which until then was used only outside the headquarters of the force. The logo, in addition to being used on children’s toys, would also be for marketing other products such as cufflinks and watches. "This is a really exciting time for us and a great opportunity for new licensees to get on board and tap into the heritage of New Scotland Yard.," said Anna Gardiner, the head of licensing at the Metropolitan Police.

The deal however does not allow the force to use their logo on clothing, as an American kilt company based in a Scotland Yard in Kentucky already licensed the rights for the same out in the 1970s.

Miss Gardiner said that the rights to use the NSY logo on other goods are now open to bidders.

She said, "Essentially it's a clean slate and most categories are up for grabs. We are looking forward to working with a range of licensees to establish the New Scotland Yard brand firmly in the market place."

It is hoped the plan will generate funds to pay for the upkeep of the Metropolitan Police's historical collection. It contains more than 15,000 artifacts including uniform and medals dating back to 1829, the year the force was founded.

As cops deviate their brawny attention from fighting crime to curbing piracy, it leads to the effect caused by a butcher cutting glass. One of the disastrous examples is that of Christina Eyre, a seller of ‘ROCKTOBER’ emblazoned T-shirts. The term ‘ROCKTOBER’ refers to the Colorado Rockies, a Major League Baseball Team, whose winning extravaganza in October 2007 facilitated the coinage of that term by many.

A Major League Baseball lawyer and the police accused the woman of infringing copyright and insisted that she stop sale immediately. Her refusal to comply led the officer to arrest her forcefully, thereby causing nerve damage in her thumb. Christina’s repudiation was based on her contention that she had obtained a copyright for the word ’ROCKTOBER’ and held a peddler’s license to sell the T-shirts. Additionally, she claimed that her lawyers were in negotiation with the League and the Rockies to sell the copyright.

 The complications led to the charges against Christina being dropped and she was compensated monetarily by the Rockies and Major Baseball League to clear them from charges of ‘any unlawful or improper conduct’.

The famous statement, “there’s a superhero in all of us”, can now be applied to Gordon Brothers Brands(GBB) which purchases, licenses and sells intellectual property, specifically brands. GBB is a branch of the Gordon Brothers Group (GBG) which also specializes in saving companies in distress by purchasing and selling all types of assets owned by the company. They are a global advisory, restructuring and investment firm, specializing in retail and consumer products.

GBB lately purchased the name and logos of “Linens and Things”, the home retailer who filed for bankruptcy last year, thereby saving the 35-year-old company from fading away into oblivion.  GBB, together with Hilco Consumer Capital purchased not just the brand and logos, but also the software, technology and marketing material, for approximately $1 million.

Judge Patterson in New York ruled in Rowling’s favor as he awarded $6750 as statutory relief. The lawsuit, initiated by Rowling (RDR Books) and Warner Bros., was the result of a declaration on part of the defendant, Steve Vander Ark, about his intention to publish a lexicon on Harry Potter. The same lexicon is actually available online, and was quite popular before the suit. It publishes Harry Potter essays, finds Harry Potter mistakes, explains Harry Potter terminology, devises Harry Potter timelines and does a thousand other things aimed at people who cannot get enough Harry Potter. It is a Harry Potter encyclopedia for obsessive fans.

Rowling, initially happened to be quite a fan of the website http://www.hp-lexicon.org/index-2.html, until Vander Ark decided to have its contents published. She claimed it wasn’t for the money, and rumor has it that she did shed a few tears in court. “I feel as though my name and my works have been hijacked, against my wishes, for the personal gain and profit of others and diverted from the charities I intended to benefit,” she said in a declaration to the court. The author plans to release her own Harry Potter encyclopedia some day, and donate the proceeds from that to charity.

The judge ruled against Vander Ark, stating that he had crossed the limit of fair use and had infringed the copyright of Rowling. This whitewash however has failed in dampening the librarian’s spirit. He still plans to write The Lexicon, but will now adhere to the specifications set down by the judge, such that copyright infringement would be eluded successfully, and it would fall within the definition of a reference book.

The suit was one of the many filed by Rowling around the world, each being a different issue over the Harry Potter series of books and movies.

August of last year saw Kevin Cogill’s arrest, for uploading nine songs from the upcoming comeback album Chinese Democracy, of Guns n Roses. The blogger uploaded these songs on his music site antiquiet on June 18th, 2008.

This act caused a cease and desist letter to be issued in his name from the band’s attorneys. Although Cogill immediately removed the songs, a warrant for his arrest was issued on august 27 as the RIAA brought the case to the FBI. The person responsible for the arrest was Special Agent Jensen D. Penalosa who investigated the upload and tracked Cogill down. The court complaint alleged that Cogill "knowingly and willfully distributed a copyrighted work being prepared for commercial distribution" and that he "[made] the songs available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, knowing that the works were intended for commercial distribution."Though initially charged for felony for violating Family Entertainment and Copyright Act of 2005, which would have landed him a term of 3 to 5 years in prison for each act of copyright violation, his charges were dropped to misdemeanor, which would significantly reduce his term to a year at the most. Cogill was the first Californian charged by authorities under this law, but because he lacks a previous criminal record and because he has already offered an admittance of guilt, authorities reduced the charge against Cogill to a misdemeanor. Missakian, the assistant attorney, declined to discuss details of the plea deal that Cogill reached with federal prosecutors. The album, from which the blogger uploaded the songs, is the first original material from the group since 1991’s double release “Use Your Illusion” I and II.

A five page written order on the 24th of December revealed the intention of Gary A. Feess, judge in United States District Court for Central California to grant the copyright interest in the movie ‘watchmen’ to Century Fox. The movie, shot by Warner Brothers and Legendary Pictures, is being directed by Zack Snyder (who also directed “300”) and has shaped up as one of most eagerly anticipated releases for this year. Century Fox however claimed that they had acquired the rights to adapt the graphic novel into a motion picture in the 1980s for the producer Lawrence Gordon. However, the concept of creating a movie based on the deglamourized lives of super heroes failed to materialize. After knocking the doors of Universal and Paramount, Gordon’s dream found a pathway to reality via Warner Brothers. The illusion nevertheless was anything but long-lived, as Fox resurrected its interest in the rights to the movie.“Fox owns a copyright interest consisting of, at the very least, the right to distribute the ‘Watchmen’ motion picture,” the ruling said.

Judge Feess advised both Fox and Warner to look toward a settlement or an appeal. “The parties may wish to turn their efforts from preparing for trial to negotiating a resolution of this dispute or positioning the case for review,” he said

James Walton, an ex-convict, sentenced for a bank robbery, has now resorted to legal means for raking in the greens. He has now sued the Government of the United States for misappropriation of work created by him while serving time in prison. Walton fashioned a substantial number of calendars during the 17 years of his imprisonment as a part of his prison assignment. He then copyrighted the work and sued the Government for infringement, claiming $500,000.

Though the lower courts dismissed the case on account of sovereign immunity, the Federal Court of Appeals allowed the suit, but ruled in favor of the Government, thereby including the sentence of an inmate into the definition of ‘service’.

The sailor who rakes in £ 1.5 billion a year is now set to enter the public domain. Spinach loving, crime fighting Popeye would be one of the first cartoon figures in the U.S  to be stripped off his copyright armor, as the 95 years of his initial copyright are due to expire in 2024. In the UK however, Elzie Segar’s lovable creation has lost protection already in January this year.  At the same time, Disney seems to be trying its level best to keep its Mouse trapped, despite various anti-copyright ‘Free the Mouse’ campaigns. Mickey Mouse should most probably be next in line, as the copyright protection surrounding him ought to terminate by 2023 in the U.S. and by 2036 in the UK.

The differences in the terms of copyright protection are due to considerable differences in US and UK legislations, where the US protects copyrightable matter for a period of 95 years after its initial copyright, while in the UK, the term of protection is 70 years after the author’s death.

Thus, in the UK, Segar’s death in 1938 started the timer for Popeye, and Disney’s death got the clock ticking from 1966. In the US however, Mickey and Popeye remain copyrighted from the years of their initial copyright, 1929 and 1928 respectively.

As Disney tries new ways of extending Mickey’s term, King Features, a subsidiary of the Hearst Corporation, plans to protect the Popeye trademark aggressively.

Barbie, who completed 50 years this march, received an early present from U.S. District judge Stephen Larson, in the form of eliminated competition by Bratz dolls. This was the result of a suit filed by Barbie’s makers Mattel Inc. against MGA corp.  Though the lawsuit yielded just a meager $100,000 in damages as compared to the 1.8 billion claimed by them, the world’s largest toy maker hailed the damage award as a victory and said it planned to file an injunction to stop MGA from producing the Bratz line. Prior to the suit, the number 1 slot was occupied by the Bratz line, which included Bratz Babyz, Bratz Step Out, Bratz Rock Angelz, Lil Bratz which are designed for girls under 6 years of age and many others. 

The court order arose from a July decision by a jury that found the Bratz creator, Carter Bryant was working at Mattel under an exclusive contract when he came up with the idea for the doll line. Mattel claimed that Bryant pitched his Bratz designs to MGA while working for Mattel. It also alleged that MGA was aware of Bryant's contractual relationship with Mattel but continued to work with the designer, and in doing so, aided Bryant in breaching his contract. MGA Entertainment Inc. and its chief executive officer Isaac Larian were told to pay a total of $90 million in three causes of action related to Mattel's employment contract with designer Carter Bryant, who developed the Bratz concept. The jury also ordered MGA, Larian and subsidiary MGA Hong Kong to pay a total of $10 million for copyright infringement. "Mattel has pursued this case first and foremost as a matter of principle," Mattel CEO
Robert A. Eckert said. "We have an obligation to defend ourselves against competitors who choose to engage in fraudulent activities against us."

Larian said he would appeal, and MGA attorney Thomas Nolan contended that the three awards related to the contract dispute were duplicative.

U.S. District Judge Stephen Larson must decide if that is true and determine a final amount to be paid to Mattel at a future hearing. Nolan said he planned to ask Larson to set total damages at no more than $40 million.

The jury did not award any punitive damages and found that neither Larian nor MGA acted willfully when they used Bryant's drawings, which could have increased the damages.

"I was just shocked" by the decision, Larian said. "It was unbelievable, but we will come out on top in the end."

The decision covered nearly all MGA products issued under the Bratz name. But MGA would have to use another moniker if it were to keep making them.

Van Nuys-based MGA employs more than 1,500 people. Other than Bratz, the company's products include a line of dolls called Rescue Pets. MGA's fashion-oriented Bratz hit shelves in 2001, and the company built the line into an empire of accessories, including clothing, bicycles and home-decor items. The pouty Bratz even have their own interactive Web site, where young girls can play games with virtual versions of the plastic toys. 

Asked whether the decision, if upheld, could mark the end of his company, Larian said, "I don't want to even think about that right now."