Introduction According to an Insight Report by the World Economic Forum, the world space economy is expected to be worth $1.8 trillion by 2035. The current valuation of the Indian space economy stands at $8.4 Billion with a 2% share in the world economy. India hopes to achieve its target of a 10% share in…
Aditi Verma and Aman Yuvraj Choudhary The Competition (Amendment) Act, 2023, overhauls the Competition Act, 2002 to bring it up to speed with more mature jurisdictions. It brings about a paradigm shift by making the penalty under Section 27 calculable upon global turnover rather than relevant turnover. This is to bring gatekeeper entities like the…
Exciting developments are underway for Geographical Indications in India, with over 60 products receiving the Geographical Indications (“GI”) tag recently. This is particularly noteworthy as it marks the largest number of successful GI applications in a single instance since the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 Act was implemented in 2003.
The international GI framework is quite diverse, and jurisdictions have adopted combinations of protections best suitable to them and their global trade. Depending on where you are, the framework covers many interesting subject matters ranging from agricultural and food products to wines. As far as a combined reading of the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 and The Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Rules, 2002 are concerned, it is used to identify “agricultural, natural or manufactured goods or any goods of handicraft or of industry and includes food stuff originating in a definite territory in India.” The legal protection granted through a successful registration certificate lasts for 10 years and needs to be renewed failing which the GI tag may be revoked. For an application to be successful, the applicant must be an association of persons, producers, organization or authorities established by or under the law. The key factor is that the applicant should represent the interests of the producers. This is a significant departure from the otherwise individual creator notion of IP laws.
A verdict dated 14 May 2024 by Justice Bela M Trivedi and Justice Pankaj Mithal has declared that services provided by advocates shall not be covered under the Consumer Protection Act (“CPA”), 2019. This judgment has, thus, questioned the very basis of the application of the CPA to medical services as laid down in the V.P. Shantha judgement. The bench opined that the legislature could never have intended the Act to cover professional services, which are already governed by respective professional councils. The ruling raised questions of procedural propriety about a partial referral to a larger bench and judgment on hypothetical premises. It is at this juncture that differentiation between the legal and the medical professions had to be brought out, concerning standards of care. The Court referred the issue for reconsideration to a larger bench, without clarifying if the referral pertains to the whole judgment of Shantha or only the question of including professionals under the CPA that is under scrutiny. The case epitomizes the dilemma of balancing consumer protection with the maintenance of professional standards. It calls for review to guarantee a regime both of professional accountability and of consumer rights in dynamic consumer protection amidst technological advancement and global networking.
Introduction For the last few decades Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) has been advancing at an unprecedented pace globally. A few decades ago, the perpetration of AI to the present extent would have been a far-fetched idea, but today, it is our reality. AI is continuously developing and pervading almost every crucial aspect of our lives. AI…