1. TITLE AND CITATION: Shreya Singhal v. Union of India.

AIR 2015 SC 1523; Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 167 OF 2012

BACKGROUND:
Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (ITA), made it a punishable
offence for any person to send 'grossly offensive' or 'menacing' information using a
computer resource or communication device. Section 66A of the ITA also made it
punishable to persistently send information which the sender knows to be false for
annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation,
enmity, hatred or ill will. Additionally, Section 66A made it punishable to send an
'electronic mail message' for the purpose of causing annoyance, or inconvenience, or to
deceive or to mislead the recipient about the origin of the message.

The vague and arbitrary terms used in the Section led to misuse of the law in both
personal and political matters. Several criminal cases were filed against instances of
online speech, including political commentary and humour. Section 66A and 79 of the IT
Act.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

In 2012, the Mumbai Police arrested two women on the grounds of posting allegedly
offensive and objectionable comments on Facebook on shutting down the city of Mumbai
after the death of a political leader. The police made the arrests under Section 66A of the
Information Technology Act of 2000 (ITA), which punishes any person who sends
through a computer resource or communication device any information that is grossly
offensive, or with the knowledge of its falsity, or when the information is transmitted for
the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, insult, injury, hatred, or ill
will. The petitioners filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution,
seeking the Supreme Court of India to strike down Section 66A, 69A and 79 of the
Information Technology as it violates a citizen’s fundamental right to freedom of
expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of Constitution of India.

ISSUES:
1. whether Section 66A of Information Technology Act, 2000, (ITA) violated the
right to freedom of expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the
Constitution of India?

DECISION:
Section 66A was contended to be ambiguous as it doesn’t describe various terms in it.
The terms can be interpreted in a very broad manner and are subjected to be abused by
the executive authorities. The Court therefore struck down Section 66A of the
 Information Technology Act, 2000. It was abrogated in its entirety as it violated the right
to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the
Constitution of India. The Supreme Court read down Section 79 of the Information
Technology Act and the related rules, and affirmed the constitutionality of Section 69A of
the Act.

2. TITLE AND CITATION: Paytm vs PayPal

BACKGROUND: In India, trademarks are protected by the Trademarks Act of 1999.

The Act establishes the rules surrounding trademark registration, infringement and
penalties. In India, trademark infringement is a cognizable offence, which means that the
offender could face both criminal as well as civil prosecution.The Indian Trademark law
requires an applicant to publish and advertise their logo for a period of 4 months in which
objections can be raised by third parties.The process of the Trademark search is done by
checking for likeness or resemblance of the name of the company or brand with those of
the existing trademarks that have been already applied or registered. This can be checked
on the ‘trademark online directory’.

FACTS OF THE CASE: Paytm started as a Recharge platform in 2010. In 2014, the
company Launched the Paytm Wallet. Paytm applied for a trademark registration on July
18, 2016 – which means its four month window expired on November 18, 2016. On
November 18, 2016, Paypal Inc. filed an objection at the Indian Trademark Office
accusing Paytm, an Indian mobile wallet company, of trademark infringement. Paytm, the
largest e-wallet company in India, was embroiled in a controversy over its logo with the
US-based PayPal, also a digitised payment system. PayPal’s argument lies in the use of a
similar colour combination. What is similar between the two logos is that the colour tones
while not identical – are undoubtedly similar – the first syllable is a darker shade of blue
while the second syllable is light blue. Secondly, the word ‘Pay’ is common to both
logos. Therefore Paypal contended that Paytm intended to confuse the customers and take
Paytm as PayPal since both of them have similar logos and since PayPal was not famous
in India and had not registered its own trademarks in India, Paytm took the advantage of
PayPal's unpopularity in India and used a logo similar to that of PayPal's.

ISSUES:
Objections Of PayPal against Paytm:
1. Names of both the companies start with the word 'Pay'.
 2. Logos of both the companies have a similar colour combination of dark blue and
light blue but with slightly different shades
3. Both the companies have used the dark shade of blue for the word 'Pay'.
4. Both companies carry out the same type of business activities that is online
payment and transaction.

DECISION: The case is still ongoing, awaiting the final decision.

3. TITLE AND CITATION: Bayer Corporation vs Natco Pharma.

2014 (60) PTC 277 (Bom)

BACKGROUND:
Section 84 (1) of the Indian Patent Act as amended provides for compulsory licence after
the expiration of three years from the date of the grant of a patent on any of the following
grounds:
a) the reasonable requirements of the public with respect to the patented invention
have not been satisfied, or
b) the patented invention is not available to the public at a reasonably affordable
price, or
c) the patented invention is not worked in the territory of India.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

1. "Sorafenib", an active pharmaceutical compound used for the treatment of liver
and kidney cancer was patented by Bayer Corporation, Germany, in India (Patent
No. IN215758). Sorefenib is marketed worldwide under the brand name Nexavar.
2. The Indian generic manufacturer CIPLA started producing and marketing the
generic version of Sorafenib in 2008 under a brand name ‘Soranib’ and the
description of ‘Sorafenib Tablets 200mg’. Bayer filed a suit for infringement
against CIPLA before the Indian courts (not the subject of this case summary).
3. At the time of the suit, Bayer charged 280,438 INR (~ US $ 5280) per month
compared to CIPLA's generic version marketed at 27,960 INR (~ US $ 525) for
the same amount of tablets.
4. During the ongoing dispute between CIPLA and Bayer, another generic
manufacturer, Natco Pharma Limited, filed a request for compulsory licence
against Bayer's patent on Sorafenib before the Controller of Patents. Natco
requested the compulsory licence based on Section 84 (1) of the Indian Patent Act
of 1970, as amended in 2005.
 5. The Controller found that Natco Pharma was deserving of a compulsory licence
as Bayer had failed to meet the requirements of S. 84 of the Patents Act, 1970.
The Controller drafted the terms and conditions of the compulsory licence and
awarded a 6% royalty from profits to Bayer.
6. Bayer appealed the Controller’s decision before the Indian Intellectual Property
Appellate Board (IPAB)

ISSUES:

1. Whether the requirements for the grant of compulsory licensing are fulfilled?
2. Whether the decision of the controller to grant compulsory licence to Natco
Pharma with a royalty at 6% of its net sales to Bayer Corporation was valid?
3. Whether the supplies by Natco Pharma & CIPLA of the disputed drug have to be
taken into account to determine the satisfaction of reasonable requirement tests?

DECISION:

The Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the SLP filed by the Bayer Corporation and
upheld the decision of Bombay High Court.

The Bombay High Court upheld compulsory licensing for a life-saving drug named
‘Nexavar’. The High Court judgement relied on the fact that even after taking Cipla’s
supplies into consideration, the public prerequisite would not be met and commitment to
meet the reasonable requirement of the general public must be of the patent holder alone,
either by patentee himself or through his licensees. The charitable program by Bayer
Corporation was unacceptable as a defence for Section 84 (1) (b) of the Patent Act, which
insists on the fact that the patented drug should be made available to the public at a fairly
affordable price i.e. to any portion of the public tendering the price.

The judgement strikes a balance between the issues pertaining to public interest and also
those made in regard to patentee’s rights. It demonstrates the focus of Indian
Pharmaceutical patent law, which indeed pushes towards affordable access to the larger
public and the Court’s primary concern is that of public interest.