Remove agencies permanent-court-of-arbitration
article thumbnail

Signing Contracts as a Representative May Lead to Individual Liability

LexBlog IP

900410-21, Supreme Court, Albany County. Platkin of the Albany County Commercial Division reinforced the textbook rule that that an individual who signs a contract as an agent for an undisclosed entity can be held personally liable on the contract if the agency relationship is not disclosed. Tharunidhar Narravula et al v. Albany Cnty.

article thumbnail

A Look Back at India’s Top IP Developments of 2021

SpicyIP

Hetero Drugs Ltd [Delhi High Court]. Hetero Drugs Ltd, the Delhi High Court ruled that under section 107 of the Indian Patents Act, 1970, the export of products from India amounted to the use of the product in India. CIT [Supreme Court]. Cup of coffee, pen and notepad on wooden background. Image from here. H Lundbeck A/S v.

IP 143
Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Trending Sources

article thumbnail

SpicyIP Weekly Review (February 19- February 25)

SpicyIP

Last week we published 3 posts on the MHC’s interpretation of Section 3(d) in the Novozymes case, DHC’s referral of 3 questions concerning the jurisdiction of High Courts in trademark rectification matters, and DHC’s decision on infringement of product by process claims. Here is our recap of last week’s top IP developments.

article thumbnail

SpicyIP Fortnightly Review (October 17-31)

SpicyIP

Delhi High Court extends the deadline to submit comments on Delhi High Court Intellectual Property Rights Division Rules, 2021. Praharsh reported that the Delhi High Court Registry announced an extension for submitting suggestions and comments on the proposed Delhi High Court Intellectual Property Rights Division Rules, 2021.

article thumbnail

15th Trademark Scholars’ Roundtable: Session 1: Congress and the Courts (including the role of the Supreme Court)

43(B)log

Introduction: Rebecca Tushnet What might we derive from things the Court has said about trademark of late? I was particularly interested in doing a deep dive on the idea that the Court thought that both Dogan & Lemley and Dinwoodie & Janis were right, when most of us understood the two articles to be debating with each other.