Bayer's petition against NACTO Compulsory license dismissed

In a yet another historic legal battle Intellectual Property Appellate Broad has dismissed Bayer's request for a stay order against last year grant of compulsory license by the patent controller to Natco.

The compulsory license issued by patent controller earlier last march allowed Natco to make and sell the generic version of  Multinational pharmaceutical company Bayer's patented drug Nexavar - used for treating liver and kidney cancer, after paying 6% royalty .

As Economic Times reports that, Justice Prabha Sreedevi of IPAB rejected Bayer's petition on the ground that the company did not even make a prima facie for grant of a stay against the order. She considered that a stay to the order will hamper the interests of the public as the company even admits that the drug is intended to improve the quality of life of patients in the later stages of disease.

Bayer was selling the said drug in Indian market for Rs 28,000 for a month's dose while Nacto's version offered to sell them at Rs 8,800 per month which is only 3% of Bayer's rate. Patent controller in his decision found that the medicine was available only to a small percentage of population and does not meet the requirements of the public. 

India's first ever compulsory license and the latest development were viewed with great concern by generic industries in developing countries  as a prospective watershed for affordable access to patentable medicines as well as  developed nations like US who opposes the move. 

India is currently in middle of raging patent battles in pharma industry with Novartis appeal  currently in supreme court and Delhi High court's Judgement on Cipla v Rosch.

Shock in store for Indian pharmaceuticals ???

Hyderabad based Natco Pharmaceuticals may lose its license to manufacture a low cost version of the cancer drug Nexavar for India, originally developed by Bayer AG, a German pharmaceutical major, if, the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB), gives a decision in favour of Bayer Corp.  Bayer Corp had earlier filed an appeal with the IPAB against Natco Pharma and Indian Patent Office against an order of Patent controller granting compulsory license on its cancer curing drug Nexavar.

IPAB on Tuesday concluded its hearing on the appeal this Tuesday and has reserved its order for a further date.

 Compulsory license, first of its kind, was awarded to Natco Pharmaceuticals in February, by the Patent Controller, P H Kurian, for  manufacturing a low cost version of cancer drug, Nexavar.

Natco’s counsel argued that the compulsory license should not be stayed, as it would be against public interest and be detrimental to the 30,000 cancer patients, in India, who are dependent on this drug. Further the counsel argued that Bayer had not fully exploited the drug to its full potential.

It would be interesting to see whether Bayer’s capitalist motives win or the cancer patients in India, win.

Contributed by: Abhishek Kukreti

Sources: www.livemint.com

IPAB orders removal of trademarks

The Hindu on 29th August reported that IPAB has ordered removal of two conflicting  trademarks from  TM register. Fight between two cosmetic giants, Chandrika and Calvin Care Private Limited has  resulted in removal of their potentially conflicting trademarks "Fair ever" and "Chandrika For ever". 

Wipro's Chandrika and Calvin care have been fighting over these trademarks for cosmetic and soap products. Wipro launched Chandrika forever in 2007 and obtained registration for the same in respect of all kinds of soaps, toiletry preparations, shampoos, hand wash and sanitisers. On the contrary Calvin care have been trading since 1998 under their well known trademark "Fairever" in relation to cosmetic products. 

In 2010, Calvin care filed a civil suit seeking permanent injunction to restrain Chandrika from using "Chandrika Forever". As a response to this Chandrika had approached the IPAB seeking removal of Calvin care's trademark "Fair ever".

IPAB now in its orders asks the Registrar to remove both the marks from the register as both marks tends to create confusion among the public and was wrongly entered in the register and hence deserves to be removed

Source:  The Hindu