Mind your language Intellectual property police could be lurking with intent
going by recent developments in the world of intellectual property disputes, it appears that being extremely cautious while dipping into one's lexicographical reservoir will not qualify as a form of litigation-induced paranoia. Consider this seemingly innocuous tableau. You are in the company of friends, say, at India Gate, enjoying a cool, nocturnal respite from a gruelling, incinerating summer day with an ice cream in hand. Being more relaxed than most people, you let slip a short paean of appreciation: "This ice cream,' you say, "is really cool and tasty.' Back home, the first thing you see is a legal notice, possibly slipped in under the door, requiring you to explain in full in an appropriate court of law how you could possibly have taken leave of your senses to the extent of describing company X's ice cream in the manner you did, when it's universally known that anyone who has enough brains to be able to fish his wallet out of his hip pocket should be aware that company Y has a trademark right over "cool and tasty'.
Well, it's not that bad yet, but with Cadila's claim that it has rights over the phrase sugar free