Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Vaish India IP & IT Laws News Letter July-August 2011


Published on

Intellectual Property and Information Technology Laws News Letter July-August-2011 by Vaish Associates Advocates, India

Published in: Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Vaish India IP & IT Laws News Letter July-August 2011

  1. 1. INDIA INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY LAWS News Letter Delhi • Mumbai • Gurgaon • Bengaluru Vol. VI, Issue II, July-August 2011 Celebrating 40 years of professional excellenceFrom the Editor’s Desk... Inside: - Do you have a Privacy Policy? NEW INDIAN PRIVACY AND DATADear Readers, PROTECTION RULESThis issue brings you an analysis of the recently Indian IPR Decisionspromulgated privacy and data protection regulationstitled as the Information Technology (Reasonable · Drink “Darjeeling Tea” at “Darjeeling Lounge”Security Practices and Procedures and SensitivePersonal Data or Information) Rules, 2011, wherein Ø Tea Board, India Vs. ITC Limitedwide ranging obligations are imposed on practicallyall entities involved in collection, handling and · 3 D Trademark Monopoly over shape of a bottleprocessing of data of natural persons for any Ø Gorbatschow Wodka K.G. Vs. Johnpurpose. These new Rules could have a profound Distilleries Limitedeffect on multinational businesses that eitheroutsource business functions to Indian service · Punitive Damages awarded by Indian Courtsproviders or maintain their own operations in India. ØProducts Inc. Vs. Pfizer B.P Singh Tyagi & .We have also tried to give you an insight into themajor trade mark infringement cases in India which Anr.have demonstrated a significant impact in creating · Deterrence philosophy: followed by the Indianextremely healthy precedents in the IPR regime inIndia. In a spate of recent judgments, the Indian Courtsjudiciary has been prompt in providing interim Ø Limited & Ors. Vs. Rajinder Kumar Castrolprotection to trademark proprietors. Gupta & Ors.Deterrence philosophy is being extensively followedby the Indian Courts these days. This issue also · !!!Punitive Damages are here to stay!!!analyses few orders of Indian Courts granting Ø Mahashian Di Hatti Ltd. Vs. Raj Niwaspunitive damages to discourage unscrupulousindividuals / companies to take unfair advantage KNOWLEDGE BANKupon the goodwill and reputation of well-establishedcompanies/organizations. Interactive Website- Platform for TerritorialIn this issue, we also bring forth an analysis of the law Jurisdiction for IP Protectionrelating to jurisdiction for initiation of legal action inIndian Courts on the basis of interactive websites.We welcome, as always, your views, comments and Soon Shiftinginput. We are soon shifting to our new office atWith Regards.Vijay Pal Dalmia 1st Floor, Mohan Dev Building, 13, Tolstoy Marg,Head IP & IT Division New Delhi – 110001, For Private Circulation Vaish Associates Advocates …Distinct. By Experience.
  2. 2. India Intellectual Property & Information Technology Laws News Letter Do you have a Privacy Policy? connected with their function or activity and necessary for that purpose. NEW INDIAN PRIVACY AND DATA PROTECTION RULES The most important feature of the Rules is the absolute requirement of taking consent, in writing by email, fax or letter,The Information Technology (Reasonable Security before the collection of sensitive personal data, regardingPractices and Procedures and Sensitive Personal Data or purpose of usage of such information and before disclosing anyInformation) Rules, 2011 information to any third party. Thus, Outsourcing companies in Affecting all, the Central Government India will have to inform the client regarding purpose of usage has recently, on 11th April, 2011, before collection of such information. This would put additional dramatically transformed the privacy responsibility on Indian suppliers to obtain consent from the and data protection landscape in India customers of their clients. It is interesting to note that the consent by promulgating the Information is not required in case of disclosure to the Government. Technology (Reasonable Security These Rules further provide that a corporation should takePractices and Procedures and Sensitive Personal Data or reasonable steps to inform an individual that personalInformation) Rules, 2011. information about them has been collected and the purpose ofThe new Rules have wide scope and extraterritorial application. that collection. The sensitive information must not be retainedThese new Rules could have a profound effect on multinational for longer than is necessary. Furthermore, personal informationbusinesses that either outsource business functions to Indian must only be used for the purpose for which it was collected. Itservice providers or maintain their own operations in India. The also empowers a person to access its personal information orRules impose wide ranging obligations on any “body corporate” sensitive information which is held by a corporation, and toregarding use and collection of personal information. correct inaccuracies. These Rules also require that an individual should be provided with the option to opt out of providing These Rules cast a duty upon the Corporate to personal information. These Rules lay down the standards for have a mandatory Privacy Policy for handling, protection of sensitive personal information. However, processing and use of personal sensitive data. Corporate is free to follow their own standards provided it is duly It also requires a body corporate to publish the approved and audited annually. privacy policy on its website. It also restricts the It also makes it obligatory for a Corporate to establish a disputeprocessing of sensitive personal data, restricts international data resolution mechanism for issues that arise during the handling,transfers, establishment of a dispute resolution mechanism and processing and use of personal information. In the event, a bodyrequires additional security measures. corporate fails to have an elaborate privacy policy or fails toSome of the provisions under the new Rules appear to be more follow the rules for handling and processing of personal sensitiverestrictive than regulations under US laws and the EU Directive. data, it becomes liable to pay compensation to the aggrievedIt is argued that the new Rules could have a dramatic effect on the person. It is to be noted that there is no upper limit specified forIT landscape in India and for overseas companies that contract IT the compensation that can be claimed by the affected party inservices with Indian companies. such circumstances. The Rules apply to Corporations in India The Rules allow the transfer of personal data to any person or getting any information from anywhere. Corporate, in India or abroad, provided that such person or These Rules define “sensitive personal Corporate ensures the same level of data protection that is data” to include password, bank account adhered to by the Corporate as provided under these rules. This details, credit card, debit card, health puts extra responsibility on the Corporate to ensure the conditions, sexual orientation, medical compliance of prescribed standards by the transferee. records etc. and permit the collection ofsuch information by Corporate only for a lawful purposeJuly-August, 2011 India Intellectual Property & Information Technology Laws News Letter 2
  3. 3. India Intellectual Property & Information Technology Laws News Letter The Courts after hearing the arguments of both the sides,The new rules lack clarity creating ambiguity as to the extent of observes that under the Trademarks Act, registration of aapplicability of these rules. Furthermore, certain terms are not Certification Trademark may be obtained both in goods anddefined and may prove difficult to determine how they apply to services and the proprietor or authorized user of the certificationtypical scenarios. service mark has a right of action against an alleged infringer whoIn view of the above, it becomes necessary that the Corporations in uses a mark which is same or similar to the certificationIndia should review their Privacy Policy and any online terms and trademark. Such right of action of the proprietor or authorizedconditions available on its website to ensure compliance with the user of a mark lies irrespective of the certification trademarknew Rules. being registered for goods and the impugned mark being used inIt also entails revision of the Employment contracts and offer respect of services or vice versa. Thus, there is no restriction onletters, requiring specific consent of the employee with respect cross category the employer collecting, accessing and using personal However, situation may differ ininformation and sharing such information with third parties in case of a GI. The GI Act, as itaccordance with the new Rules. reads today, applies only to goods and leaves services out of its INDIAN IPR DECISIONS current ambit. Therefore,Drink “Darjeeling Tea” at “Darjeeling Lounge” infringement claim would not lieTea Board, India Vs. ITC Limited in case the same GI is used in relation to the services. However,MANU/WB/0271/2011 the Honble judge, rightly considered the provision of Section Recently the Calcutta High Court in 20(2) and Section 22(1) (b) of the GI Act to examine the tenability a decision of its kind while of a cross category claim. upholding the importance of The Court in its interpretation of S. 22(1)(b) of the Geographical Geographical Indication (GI), Indication Act, 1999, which deals with the use of a GI in a manner refused to grant an injunction which would constitute an act of unfair competition including against ITC Limited, (the Defendant passing-off, held as follows: therein), from using the word “Darjeeling” for ITC Calcuttas “The expression “unfair competition including passing off” wouldlounge area. This is an important decision not just because it is the not, by reason of the explanations in the relevant sub-section, implyfirst ever by an Indian court on the infringement of a registered that every kind of passing-off would amount to unfair competition.GI, but also because it may have significant implications on the The expression has to be understood to mean that certain kinds of passing-off, not all, would amount to unfair competition as of GI rights in the country in the times to come. The phrase used is “unfair competition” and not “unfair practice” or “Darjeeling” and the logo of a woman holding tea leaves have “unfair trade practice,” though it seems to have been borrowed frombeen registered by The Tea Board (Plaintiff) as GIs as well as the TRIPS agreement and not uniquely coined. If every kind ofcertification trademarks, under the respective Acts, in passing-off amounted to unfair competition, Section 20(2) of the GIconnection with “tea”. Act would be otiose.” The Tea Board sued the ITC Sonar, The decision was categorical in stating that the word “Darjeeling” Kolkata Hotel, for their “Darjeeling could not be exclusively claimed by the Tea Board despite its GI Lounge” as the name for its executive and TM registrations. Crucially, the court held, “Even for a case of lounge. The suit was mainly based on passing-off, the use of “Darjeeling” by a person other than the issues of infringement of the GI and the plaintiff can be complained of if the word or the geographical certification TMs, as well as for passing indication has any nexus with the product with which it is off and dilution “Darjeeling Tea”, being exclusively associated upon the registration.” The matter wasthe Plaintiffs GI, was the first GI to be registered in India. accordingly dismissed by the Court in favor of the Defendant.July-August, 2011 India Intellectual Property & Information Technology Laws News Letter 3
  4. 4. India Intellectual Property & Information Technology Laws News Letter3D Trademark vodka bottle trace back to the Plaintiff alone. The Honble HighMonopoly Over Shape Of A Bottle Court further held that the Plaintiff has prima facie established both a trans border reputation as well as a reputation in theGorbatschow Wodka K.G. Vs. John Distilleries Limited market in India and the shape of goods and their packaging isMANU/MH/0630/2011 statutorily recognized as a constituent element of a trade mark as In an effort to uphold the mandate of the Trade distinguishing the goods or services of a person with those of Marks Act, 1999, the Bombay High Court others. granted an injunction while protecting the Punitive Damages awarded by Indian Courts distinctive shape of “Gorbatschow Vodka Pfizer Products Inc. & Anr. Vs. B. P Singh Tyagi & Anr. . bottles” and reiterated that the distinctive shape of containers or packaging materials used to MANU/DE/2146/2011 market products also enjoys goodwill and In an interesting case of trademark reputation and therefore can form the basis of an infringement, the Delhi High Court granted action for passing off in India. injunction against Omax Healthcare Pvt. The Plaintiff, a wholly owned subsidiary of Ltd. (“Defendant No. 2”) from Henkell & Co. Sektkellerei KG, Germany, manufacture and sale of its product being manufactures vodka which is bottled in phonetically and deceptively similar to thedistinctively bulbous shaped bottles, which bears resemblance to registered trademark of the Plaintiffs andthe unique onion dome shape of the Russian Orthodox Church. punitive damages of INR 1 lakh for act of infringement. The Plaintiff came to know about the Defendant and the unauthorized use of deceptively similar The Plaintiffs, a large multinational pharmaceutical company filed bottles from its website. The Defendant was a, rendition suit for injunction of accounts and damages against using the deceptively similar bottles for the Defendants for marketing their cough syrup under the mark manufacturing vodka under the trade mark “OREX” being phonetically and deceptively similar to their Salute. It is noteworthy that Plaintiff has registered mark being “COREX”. registered the shape of its bottle in various The Delhi High Court granted injunction restraining the countries including Germany, Poland, New Defendant No. 2 from manufacturing, marketing and distributing Zealand, Australia and in several nations cough syrup under the mark “OREX” or any mark deceptively governed by the WIPO framework, however in similar to that of the Plaintiffs and awarded payment of INR India the registration of the bottle under the 1,00,000 as punitive damages. Trade Marks Act, 1999 is pending. It is pertinentto mention herein that the deceptively similar bottle of the The Court placing reliance on its earlierDefendant was registered under the Designs Act, 2000. decision of Pfizer Products, Inc and Anr. vs. Vijay Shah and Ors., discussed the entireThe Plaintiff initiated an action of passing off against the jurisprudence on trademark infringementDefendant before the High Court of Bombay to restrain the with respect to statutory rights providedDefendant from launching its products in Defendant Bottles in under the Trademarks Act, 1999 andIndia. . The Honble High Court granted an ex-parte ad interim claims of passing off under common law.injunction restraining the Defendant from launching its productspackaged in the deceptively similar bottles. Confirming the ex- The Court noted that a “consumer with average intelligence andparte ad interim injunction the Bombay High Court held the imperfect recollection” has to be kept in mind. It is important toshape of the Vodka bottle which has been adopted by the Plaintiff note that the consumer does not have both the marks lying sideis unique to the point of being capricious and has acquired by side for comparison. This increases the chances of deception.distinctiveness. It further held that genuine and novel shape of the It is a settled law that any party using a mark, visually, phoneticallyJuly-August, 2011 India Intellectual Property & Information Technology Laws News Letter 4
  5. 5. India Intellectual Property & Information Technology Laws News Letterand deceptively similar to that of a registered trademark creating In yet another case of trademark infringement, the Delhi Highconfusion in the minds of the customers, would lead to claims of Court granted punitive damages observing that if punitiveinfringement and passing off. damages were not awarded in cases like the instant one, it would encourage unscrupulous individuals / companies to take unfairBased on the above reasoning, the Delhi High Court, granted advantage upon the goodwill and reputation of others.injunction against the manufacture, sale and distribution of coughsyrup of the defendants under the name of “OREX” or any other The Plaintiff in the instant case uses thename/mark which is phonetically and deceptively similar to the registered logo, MDH within threeregistered mark “COREX”. hexagon device on red colour background, in its business ofCastrol Limited & Others Vs. Mr. Rajinder Kumar Gupta & manufacturing and selling spices & condiments. The aforesaidOthers logo has been in use since 1949 in respect of various products ofMANU/DE/0936/2011 the Plaintiff.Deterrence philosophy is being extensively followed by the The plaintiff filed a suit seeking injunction restraining theIndian Courts these days. After the case discussed above, we see defendant from using the logo MHS or any other trademarkyet another attempt by the Delhi High Court to grant punitive identical or deceptively similar to its MDH logo in the samedamages wherever court finds a case of clear intent of riding on business. The defendant inter alia tried to blunt these argumentsanothers goodwill. by contending the phonetic dissimilarity between MDH and MHS. In the case of Castrol Limited & Others Vs. Mr. Rajinder Placing its reliance on Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma v. Kumar Gupta & Others Navaratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories 1 , the Court(decided on 21 March, 2011), Castrol filed a suit against the distinguished the remedies pertaining to trademark infringementdefendants for Permanent injunction to restrain the Defendants and passing off.from infringing Plaintiffs registered trademark CASTROL in the The Court said that “In an action pertaining to trademarkfield of oils and lubricants etc. and the violation of plaintiffs infringement, the statutory right of the owner of the registered tradecopyright in the packaging material, etc. by in counterfeit mark would be infringed when the mark used by the defendant wasmanufacturing & selling of the oils, lubricants, greases, etc., in the visually, phonetically or otherwise similar to the registered trademarket in duplicate packaging material. The defendants did not mark of the plaintiff. The plaintiff just had to prove that thecontest the matter and did not even appear in the Court. trademark adopted by the defendant substantially resembled itsRelying on the evidence provided by Castrol the Delhi High trademark on account of extensive use of the main featuresCourt not only passed a permanent Injunction order against the present in his trademark.defendants but also directed the defendants to pay proceeding Court further observed that even if the defendant proved thatcosts and punitive damages to the tune of INR 10,00,000 with a the consumer could distinguish his products from that of theview to discourage and dishearten the law breakers to indulge in plaintiff, he would still be held liable for infringement of thesuch like violations with impunity. registered trademark. On the other hand, in case of passing off, ifThe Court further directed the defendants to pay interest on the there was a possibility for distinction of goods by the consumer,aforesaid amount at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the defendant would not be held liable”.filing of the suit till realization. The Court after comparing the logos of the plaintiff and the!!!Punitive Damages are here to stay!!! defendant concluded the presence of strong visual similarity in the two marks. It also noted that both the parties were engagedM/s. Mahashian Di Hatti Ltd. Vs. Mr. Raj Niwas, Proprietor in the same business of manufacturing and selling spices. Holdingof MHS that the registered trademark of the Plaintiff was being infringedMANU/DE/1706/2011 1 PTC (2) 680 (SC)July-August, 2011 India Intellectual Property & Information Technology Laws News Letter 5
  6. 6. India Intellectual Property & Information Technology Laws News Letterby the defendant, the Court restrained the Defendant from registered trade mark to institute a suit for infringement of amanufacturing, selling or marketing any spices or condiments trade mark. Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 providesusing the impugned logo MHS or any other trademark which was for additional forum to the proprietor of a registered trade markidentical or deceptively similar to the registered trademark of the to institute a suit for infringement of trade mark in whoseplaintiff. jurisdiction, the said proprietor actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or works for gain, at the time of institution of KNOWLEDGE BANK suit.Interactive Website- Platform for Territorial Jurisdiction The internet is a paradox. It is a Jurisdiction is an aspect of state sovereignty worldwide entity whose nature cannot and refers to judicial, administrative and be easily or simply defined. In this era of legislative competence. The term e-commerce, the Indian courts Jurisdiction in common legal parlance would addressing the importance of World mean the right to administer justice. It may Wide Web in commercial transaction has broadened the ambit of be defined as the power or authority to hear the principle cause of action by including the use of an activeand determine a cause to adjudicate and exercise any judicial website for commercial transaction as the situs of jurisdiction.power in relation to it. The Indian judiciary has through a thorough understanding of theThe scope of this article is to expound the jurisdictional powers of evolving law, demonstrated what is required of Indian legislation-the courts in matters where the cause of action lies in the “World dynamism and an open mind to incorporate certain changes thatWide Web”. may be necessary considering the changing trend of cases globally.In order to invoke jurisdiction of a court to institute a suit fortrade mark infringement and/or passing off, the Indian law Over the years, several parameters have been developed byrecognizes three settled criterion i.e. various courts to determine jurisdiction over Internet related matters.• Territorial jurisdiction, In keeping with its liberal approach to issues of jurisdiction in• Pecuniary jurisdiction and infringement and/or passing off cases, the High Court of Delhi in• Subject-matter jurisdiction. the first case of its kind, Casio India Co. Limited v. Ashita TeleIn determining all the above, it is the cause of action which plays a Systems Pvt. Limited2 passed an injunction against the defendantpivotal-role. It is the subject of the cause of action which from using the website on the basis of thedetermines whether a court has jurisdiction over such subject fact that the website of Defendant can be accessed from Delhi,matter and it is the pecuniary value of the suit which establishes which is sufficient to invoke the territorial jurisdiction of thisthe presence or absence of competence in a court. Every suit Court.presupposes the existence of a cause of action and in majority of In the above case the Court further held the said website/ domaincases, it is the place where the cause of action arises and which name to be similar/deceptively similar to the registered tradedetermines the jurisdiction of the Court. mark "Casio" and website/ domain name of the Plaintiff i.e,The statutory provisions for institution of suits for infringement of,, as well asTrade Mark and/ or passing off are provided under Code of Civil, CasioIndia.Biz and CasioIndiaCo.Procedure, 1908 and the Trade Marks Act, 1999. However, Moving ahead on the same subject, a different approach wasSection 20 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is the fundamental adopted by another learned single Judge of Delhi High Court inlaw which governs the procedure and law to institute any suit in a (India TV) Independent News Service Pvt. Limited v. Indiacompetent court of law. Broadcast Live Llc And Ors.3It shall be not out of place to mention here that the Trade MarksAct, 1999 provides for a special provision for proprietor of a 2 2003 (27) PTC 265 (Del) 3 2007 (35) PTC 177 (Del.)July-August, 2011 India Intellectual Property & Information Technology Laws News Letter 6
  7. 7. India Intellectual Property & Information Technology Laws News LetterAdjudicating the suit of passing off action initiated by the Plaintiff injunct the Defendants from using the domain name tm of the Defendants which was, wherein the defendants were neither accessible in Delhi. The most strikingresiding nor carrying on business within the territorial jurisdiction peculiarity of the case was that neither ofof the court of the learned Single Judge held the following:- the parties were located within the territorial Jurisdiction of the Court.“46. I am in agreement with the proposition that the mere fact that awebsite is accessible in a particular place may not itself be sufficient In view of the conflicting decisions on the question whetherfor the courts of that place to exercise personal jurisdiction over the accessibility of a website in a particular place may itself beowners of the website. However, where the website is not merely sufficient for the courts of that place to exercise personalpassive but is interactive permitting the browsers to not only jurisdiction over the owners of the website? and since the Courtaccess the contents thereof but also subscribe to the services found the Single Judge Bench decisions of both Casio as well asprovided by the owners/operators, the position would be India TV disparate in its reasoning, Honble Justice S.Ravindradifferent.” Bhat of Delhi High Court, in the hope to find an answer to this issue referred the same to the Division Bench. The Court also stated that where the website was an interactive one, as opposed Clearing the air of speculations, the Division bench of the Delhi to one merely conveying information (static High Court settled the law on the subject of exercising website) and where the target audience and a jurisdiction on the accessibility of a website in case of suit for large consumer base of the website was passing off and/or infringement of a trade mark. located, the court could exercise The court held that merely accessing ajurisdiction over the matter, irrespective of the location of website in Delhi would not satisfy thethe defendant. The level of interactivity of the website was exercise of jurisdiction by the Delhi court.held to be of vital importance. Court further held that the Rather, it has to be shown that thewebsite "" of Defendant is not wholly of a passive defendant “purposefully availed” itself ofcharacter. It has a specific section for subscription to its services such jurisdiction, by demonstrating thatand the options (provided on the website itself) for the countries the use of the website was with intent towhose residents can subscribe to the services including India. The conclude a commercial transaction with the site user, and such useservices provided by Defendant can thus be subscribed to and resulted in injury or harm to the plaintiff. For this it would have toavailed of in Delhi i.e. within the jurisdiction of this Court. It was be prima facie shown that the nature of the activity indulged in byalso held that "the Defendant is carrying on activities within the the Defendant by the use of the website was with an intention tojurisdiction of this Court; has a sufficient contact with the conclude a commercial transaction with the website user andjurisdiction of the court and the claim of the Plaintiff has arisen as a that the specific targeting of the forum state by the Defendantconsequence of the activities of Defendant within the jurisdiction resulted in an injury or harm to the Plaintiff within the forumof this Court". state. The Honble Court further went on to say that the Plaintiff willThe decisions in the Casio and India TV matters are quite have to show prima facie that the said website, whetherdisparate, with the former stating that mere access to a euphemistically termed as "passive plus" or "interactive", waswebsite would suffice and the latter stating that commercial specifically targeted at viewers in the forum state for commercialtransactions at a particular location and the level of interactivity transactions.”of a website are vital for exercising jurisdiction. Predictably, the Undoubtedly the decision of Banyanlaw in this regard is quite uncertain. As a result, in the matter of Tree Holding (P) Limited v. A. MuraliBanyan Tree Holdings, the single bench of the Delhi High Krishna Reddy and Anr has added a newCourt made a reference to the division bench to clarify the law chapter on the protection of trade markin this regard. in India. In 21st century the use ofThe case of Banyan Tree Holding (P) Limited v. A. Murali Internet is not limited to e-mailing, 4Krishna Reddy and Anr was a suit for passing off filed by the surfing, browsing, etc. It is increasinglyPlaintiff who was using the word mark Banyan Tree since 1994 used by commercial organizations to promote themselves andand websites namely and their products and services. It is also interactively used to buy since 1996 against the use of the sell products. The amplification of the ambit of the principle of cause of action in decision of the Banyan Tree Holding Pvt Ltdword Banyan Tree Retreat and advertisement of the same on would indisputably tighten the screw on the infringement ofthe website of the trade mark and passing off goods or services through the activedefendants. The said suit was filed on the basis of website use of internet inspite of not having a physical presence before4 CS (OS) No. 894/2008 the judicial forums.July-August, 2011 India Intellectual Property & Information Technology Laws News Letter 7
  8. 8. India Intellectual Property & Information Technology Laws News Letter We may be contacted at: Vaish Associates Advocates Intellectual Property & Information Technology Laws Division 1st Floor, Mohan Dev Building, 13, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi - 110001, India Phone: +91-11-4249 2525 Fax: +91-11-4352 3668 e-mail : DELHI Indirect Tax Division MUMBAI Flat Nos. 5-7 1105, 11th Floor 106, Peninsula Centre 10, Hailey Road Tolstoy House Dr. S. S. Rao Road, Parel New Delhi - 110001, India Tolstoy Marg Mumbai - 400012, India Phone: +91-11-4249 2525 New Delhi - 110001, India Phone: +91-22-4213 4101 Fax: +91-11-2332 0484 Phone: +91-11-4925 2525 Fax: +91-22-4213 4102 Fax: +91-11-4925 2500 GURGAON BENGALURU 803, Tower A, Signature Towers Royal Arcade No. 6, 80 Ft. Road South City-I, NH-8 Koramangala Industrial Area Gurgaon - 122001, India Bengaluru - 560 095, India Phone: +91-124-454 1000 Phone: +91-80-4228 8501-02 Fax: +91-124-454 1010 Fax: +91-80-4228 8503 UNSUBSCRIBE Note : - If you do not wish to receive this News Letter in future , kindly send us an email with the word “unsubscribe” in the Subject of e-mail , else just reply this mail with the word Unsubscribe in the subject of the mail Editor: Vijay Pal Dalmia Editorial Team: Anubha Singh, Vikas Mishra, Pavit Singh Katoch, Christine Chiramel Disclaimer: While every care has been taken in the preparation of this News Letter to ensure its accuracy at the time of publication, Vaish Associates assumes no responsibility for any errors which despite all precautions, may be found herein. Neither this news letter nor the information contained herein constitutes a contract or will form the basis of a contract. The material contained in this document does not constitute/substitute professional advice that may be required before acting on any matter. No Copyright or any other right is claimed on any of the images, pictures, logos or trademarks, and all rights in the same belongs to their respective owners. * COPYRIGHT NOTICE: - © 2011, India. All Rights reserved with Vaish Associates Advocates, 1st Floor, Mohan Dev Building, 13, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi - 110001, IndiaJuly-August, 2011 India Intellectual Property & Information Technology Laws News Letter 8