|
Advocates & Corporate Legal Consultants |
June 2007 | |
|
Trademark & Patent Attorneys |
New Delhi | |
|
A Full Service Law Firm |
newdelhi@indiajuris.com | |
|
Tel:+91-120- 6567067 / 4120997 Fax: +91-120-2776538 / 4120998 |
|
This E-Newsletter has been published by India Juris, full service Indian law firm with special expertise in Business, Corporate & IP laws, on requests from clients and associates worldwide with an object to keep them abreast of latest legal & business developments in India. |
|
Contents |
| Corporate & Commercial laws |
|
* Investment by Mutual Funds in Overseas Securities - Liberalization |
| * No approval required for remittance out of India on winding up of companies |
| * ECB prohibited in development of integrated township in real estate sector |
|
Intellectual Property laws |
|
* SC restrains Dabur from using trade mark ''Glucose-D'' |
|
* Ranbaxy wins patent case against Pfizer in Norway |
| Corporate & Commercial laws |
|
Investment by Mutual Funds in Overseas Securities - Liberalization |
|
Presently, Mutual Funds, registered with SEBI,
are permitted to invest in ADRs/GDRs of Indian companies, rated debt
instruments and also in the equity of overseas companies listed on a
recognized stock exchange overseas. To enable the Mutual Funds to tap a
larger investible stock overseas, it has been decided by RBI vide
notification dated 8th June 2007 that Mutual Funds may also invest in ii) Overseas exchange traded funds that invest in securities; and iii) ADRs/GDRs of foreign companies.
Monthly reporting requirement to the Reserve Bank as stipulated vide A.P. (DIR Series) Circular No.3 dated July 26, 2006 would continue as earlier. |
| No approval required for remittance out of India on winding up of companies |
|
Till now Foreign Exchange Management (Remittance of Assets) Regulations, 2000, provided that no person whether a resident in India or not, shall make remittance of any assets held in India by him or any other person except with the permission of the Reserve Bank (RBI). Therefore, remittance of out of the assets of Indian companies under liquidation required prior approval of the RBI.
But
with effect from 31st May 2007 RBI has given general permission to banks to
allow remittance out of assets of Indian companies under liquidation under
the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 subject to any order issued by the
court winding up the company or the official liquidator or the liquidator in
case of voluntary winding up and also subject to tax compliance.
To sum up Banks are now permitted
to allow remittance of out of the assets of Indian companies under
liquidation under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 , subject to the
following conditions : (i) that the
remittance is in compliance with the order issued by a court in India /
order issued by the official liquidator or the liquidator in the case of
voluntary winding up ; and
(ii) no remittance shall be
allowed unless the applicant submits :-
No objection or Tax clearance
certificate from Income Tax authority for the remittance.
Auditor's certificate confirming
that all liabilities in India have been either fully paid or adequately
provided for.
Auditor's certificate to the
effect that the winding up is in accordance with the Companies Act, 1956.
In case of winding up otherwise
than by a court, an auditor's certificate to the effect that there is no
legal proceedings pending in any court in India against the applicant or
the company under liquidation and there is no legal impediment in
permitting the remittance. |
| ECB prohibited in development of integrated township in real estate sector |
|
As per the extant External Commercial Borrowing (ECB) policy, utilization of ECB is not permitted in real estate. The term ‘real estate’ excludes Development of Integrated Township as defined by Press Note 3 (2002 Series) dated January 4, 2002. RBI has now decided to withdraw the exemption accorded to the 'Development of Integrated Township' as a permissible end-use of ECB. Accordingly, utilization of ECB proceeds is not permissible in real estate, without any exemption. |
Intellectual Property Laws |
| SC restrains Dabur from using trade mark ''Glucose-D'' |
|
Leading ayurvedic products manufacturer Dabur has been restrained by the Supreme Court from using the trademark "Glucose-D" for its popular health drink as it was packaged on the lines of Glucon-D owned by rival company Heinz Italia. The packaging of Glucose-D when compared with that of Glucon-D is so similar that it can easily confuse a purchaser, a bench of Justices B P Singh and H S Bedi observed while passing an interim injunction against Dabur. The apex court passed the injunction on an appeal filed by Heinz Italia challenging the orders of the Punjab & Haryana High Court and a civil court, both of which declined to pass any injunction against the ayurvedic company. The trademark "Glucon-D" was used by the Glaxo company since 1940 and thereafter passed on to Heinz in 1994 along with the artisitc rights used on the packaging. It is said that Dabur had launched its own glucose drink in 1989 under the brand name "Glucose-D" which was similarly packaged to "confuse" the consumer and capitalize on the "enviable reputation" enjoyed by Glucon-D. However, Dabur took the plea that glucose was a generic expression of the product being sold and as such no monopoly could be claimed by Heinz. |
| Ranbaxy wins patent case against Pfizer in Norway |
|
The Norwegian Appeals Court on passed a favourable decision for Ranbaxy in its case against Pfizer, involving key Norwegian patents on atorvastatin in Norway. Atorvastatin is a cholesterol-lowering drug which is marketed by Pfizer as Lipitor. Norwegian Appeals Court ruled that four of the Pfizer’s patents were either invalid or not infringed by the Ranbaxy. The Oslo City Court had previously sided with Ranbaxy by finding non-infringement of two of Pfizer’s Norwegian patents (No 177,566 and No. 180,199) covering particular intermediate compounds. It had, however, denied Ranbaxy’s assertion of non-infringement on Pfizer’s Norwegian patent (No 177,706) also covering particular intermediate compound, which was then appealed by Ranbaxy. In its decision, the appeal court upheld the city court ruling on the ’566 and the ’199 patent but overturned the adverse ruling on the ’706 patent. This decision will allow Ranbaxy to market an affordable, generic dosage form of Atorvastatin that will be of benefit to Norwegian patients. The Norwegian Appeals Court also found Pfizer Norwegian process patent (No 309,322) relating to a process for manufacturing amorphous Atorvastatin to be invalid. This patent had been earlier revoked by the European Patent Office. The decision will now allow Ranbaxy to market Atorvastatin tablets in Norway |
|
|
|
Chennai - chennai@indiajuris.com Mumbai - mumbai@indiajuris.com Kerala - kerala@indiajuris.com New York - newyork@indiajuris.com |
|
If you do not wish to receive e-newsletter, type 'REMOVE & the E-mail Address to be removed' in the subject and resend it to us. |