Intellectual Property Act

Download Intellectual Property Act

Post on 15-Jul-2015

101 views

Category:

Law

0 download

Embed Size (px)

TRANSCRIPT

<p>Intellectual Property act</p> <p>INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ACTSubmitted By:Udit JainVanshika GuptaSonakshi GovilShruti MittalSunita SahuSreevatsan NatrajanDefinitionCreations of mind for which exclusive rights are recognized. Exclusive Rights Intangible assets:MusicalLiteraryartistic worksdiscoveries and inventions; wordsphrases symbolsdesignsStated objective Promote progressFinancial IncentiveMutual Benefit</p> <p>an incentive is created for inventors and authors to create and disclose their work. providing a financial incentive for the creation of an investment in intellectual property4IncludesCopyrightTrademarksPatentsLayout of integrated circuit designIndustrial design rightsTrade dressTrade secrets</p> <p>CASE : YAHOO vs. SUPER CASSETTES INDUSTRIES</p> <p>In Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. V Yahoo Inc. the HonorableHigh Court of Delhi On Friday, May 30th 2008 issued notice to Yahoo Inc. and its Indian subsidiary Yahoo Web Services (India) Pvt. Ltd on a suit filed by Super Cassettes Industries Limited (SCIL) owner of the largest Indian music label "T-Series" for infringement of their copyright caused by unlicensed streaming of SCIL's copyright works on Yahoo's portal video.yahoo.com</p> <p>Hima Kohli J. passed an order that the defendantis restrained from reproducing, adapting, distributing or transmitting in any manner on its website, `www.video.yahoo.com or otherwise infringingin any manner, the cinematograph films, sound recordings and/or the underlyingliterary or musical works of the plaintiff, in which the plaintiff claims copyright, without obtaining an appropriate license from the plaintiff. </p> <p>Similar case was filed against Youtube.Com by the plaintiff and injunctive orders were issued by the court.</p> <p>CASE :Oxford University Press , Press Of The Cambridge University, Cambridge University Press IndiaPvt. Ltd, InformaUK Ltd vs. RameshwariPhotocopy Services and The University of Delhi</p> <p>The defendants (i.e.RameshwariPhotocopy shop and Delhi University) are accused by the plaintiffs that they regularly compiles up the data from copyrighted books and make them available to students.</p> <p> Plaintiffs whereas in this case say that publishers are not charity house and questions the system ''why publishers should be giving out their works for freeas they have also paid the authors of the books enough money to sell their written material. </p> <p> Also plaintiffs have asked for money relief that amounts for around Rs.60,01200 for court fees and jurisdiction and Rs.65000 for court fees</p> <p> In October 2012, the court passed a stay order on the production of course pack. In March this year ASEAK was formed to protect the interest of the students. In April this Year (2013), during the hearing, the students pleaded for rejection of the stay order on the sale of course pack as the exams were near. But the judge rejected their plea and the stay order remainedCase: Rogers vs Koons</p> <p>Art Rogers: PhotographerJeff Koons: ArtistPhotographer Art Rogers shot a photograph of a couple holding a line of puppies in a row and sold it for use in greeting cards and similar products. Internationally, renowned artist Jeff Koons in the process of creating an exhibit on the banality of everyday items, ran across Rodgers photograph and used it to create a set of statues based on the image. Koons sold several of these structures, making a significant profit. Upon discovering the copy, Rodgers sued Koons for copyright. Koons responded by claiming fair use by parody.</p> <p>12OutcomeSimilarities between the 2 imagesKoons defence was rejected Koons was forced to pay a monetary settlement to Rodgers.</p> <p>SignificanceCan you build upon anothers work to create your own original piece?It also brought up the issue of photography as art, was photography just a documentation of the world, or is it a creative and artistic product? </p> <p>Case: Don Vs Don2</p> <p>Briefallegations of criminal breach of trust and misappropriation of property levelledby the makers of the 1978 film Don against the makers of the 2011 film 'Don 2'.In 2011, Nariman Films partner Nadir Irani filed complaints against 'Don 2' co-producersRitesh Sidhwani,Farhan AkhtarandShah Rukh Khan. Irani's contention was Nariman Films gave remake rights only for the first instalment of 'Don', which released in 2006. Irani said the agreement expired in 2009 and that the makers had no right to make 'Don 2'.</p> <p>16Director Farhan Akhtar's father Javed, who was a close friend of the Iranis, convinced them to part with the remake rights.Nariman Films filed a civil suit alleging thatDon 2violated copyright laws by adopting the original Don's signature tune, songs, script, characters and music.Ahead of Don 2's release in December 2011,Irani approached the High Court seeking a stay on the film. The court did not grant the stay, saying theatres had already been booked. The company then filed a private complaint against the 'Don 2' production team, seeking the filing of an FIR.Magistrate ask the police to first investigate the case and submit a report.</p> <p>VerdictThe complaint also names Red Chillies, RelianceEntertainment, Baba Arts, Bipin Salva and 10 others.The dispute ended only when the two parties agreed for an out-of-court settlement.</p> <p>The Trade Marks Act,1999</p> <p>Introduction Section 2 (1) (zb) of the Act defines a trade mark as a mark capable of being represented graphically and which is capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one person from those of others and may include shape of goods, their packaging and combination of colours.</p> <p> Section 2 (1) (m) of the Act defines mark as including a device, brand, heading, label, ticket, name, signature, word, letter, numeral, shape of goods, packaging or combination of colours or any combination thereof.</p> <p>Importance Trademarks do not prevent competition in a particular type of product but confer a monopoly in the mark. Competitors are only prevented from using the same or similar mark to identify their product. The importance of trademarks lies in their association with quality and consumer expectations in a product or service. They can be seen as serving four main purposes:First, identifying the product of its origin,Secondly, advertising the product/service and lending it a brand name,Thirdly, protecting the business reputation and goodwill, andFourthly, protecting consumers from deception, that is to prevent the buying public purchasing inferior goods or services in the mistaken belief that they originate from or are provided by another trader.</p> <p>Trade Marks infringement Trademark infringement is a violation of the exclusive rights attached to a trademark without the authorization of the trademark owner or any licensees. Trademark infringement occurs if a person other than the registered proprietor in the course of trade, in relation to the same good or services for which the mark is registered, uses the same mark or a deceptively similar mark. This particularly harms the goodwill of a brand if its trademark is well-known. The laws relating to trade mark infringement are enshrined under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.</p> <p>Pantaloons vs. Shoppers StopShoppers Stop and Lifestyle dragged their rival Pantaloon to court as they were miffed with an advertisement issued by the flagship company of Kishore Biyani owned Future Group that offered 10% extra discount to their loyal customers vide an advertisement issued in The Times of India, New Delhi, dated 28th June, 2008. The complainant retailers had accused Pantaloon of trademark violations and unfair business practices. Pantaloons Central mall at Gurgaon had offered 30% discounts to its customers over the weekend. Loyalty card holders of competing retailers like Shoppers Stop, Lifestyle and Westside, were lured by Pantaloon by offering an additional 10% discount on select brands of apparel. </p> <p>The advertisement asked such customers to present their membership card to avail this offer.The petitioners contended that Pantaloon was luring the formers customers by using their name in an unfair manner. The Honble Delhi High Court issued an injunction restraining Pantaloon from using names of its rivals in the ads until the next hearing.</p> <p>Cadbury vs. NestleNestle SA, challenged a trademark ruling stating that a colour cannot be protected under Section-3(1) (a) of Trade Marks Act, 1994(UK Act)and this colour doesnt have a meaning. Cadbury subsequently filed acounterstatementdenying the grounds of opposition. Cadbury proved to the court that they have been using this colour for a century now.Cadbury was granted trademark for purple (Pantone2685C) colour on20thOctober 2011. The registered mark was to be used for Chocolate in bar and tablet form; eating chocolate; drinking chocolate; preparations for making drinking chocolate</p> <p>According to theBirminghamMail,on1stOctober, 2012Judge ColinBirssin London high court dismissed Nestl's primary case stating that: Since on the evidence the public associates the colour purple itself with Cadburys chocolate, Cadbury is entitled to a registered trade mark for that colour on the relevant goods.</p> <p>However, the ruling does not extend to Cadbury's boxes of chocolates, or dark or white chocolate, as the judge ruled that the colour was not distinctive to chocolate in general.</p> <p>CASE :</p> <p>Tata's Mount Everest vs. Bisleri</p> <p>Mount Everest had dragged the country's largest packaged water firm to the Delhi High Court in 2008 for using the words 'from the Himalayas' on bottles of its packaged natural mineral water brand Bisleri.</p> <p>Mount Everest had claimed that it had registered the words Himalaya, Himalayan, Himalayas as trademarks.</p> <p>Following this, Bisleri had moved the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) to remove the registration of the trade marks Himalaya.</p> <p> The order ends a three-year dispute between Bisleri and Mount Everest in the former's favour and clears way for packaged water companies to use terms such as 'Himalaya' and 'Himalayan' for water sourced from the mountains.</p> <p> In its order, IPAB said, "A condition shall be imposed to the effect that registration does not confer an exclusive right to use of the device of mountain or the word 'Himalayan' and that the word Himalayan shall be used in respect of water sourced from Himalayan mountain.</p> <p> The writ petition is accordingly allowed with costs of Rs.10,000/- to be paid by Respondent No.1 BIPL to the Petitioner within four weeks from today. The application also stands disposed of. </p> <p>HONDA using the trade mark HONDA in India since 19571983- Hero Honda Motors Ltd. permitted to use the mark HERO HONDA1985- Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. permitted to use the mark "SHRIRAM HONDA1997- Honda Siel Cars India, manufacture and sale of motor cars under the house mark HONDA.Registered trade mark HONDA in India in various classes under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958</p> <p>Case (28th November 2002)Application for registration of trade mark HONDA in respect of pressure cookers (non-electric) had been filed in the name of M/s. Steel IndiaThe company opposed the said application by taking out opposition proceedings before the Registrar, Trade Marks1999 - Defendants moving another application for registration of trade mark HONDA in class 21. Still using the trade mark HONDA, a cease and desist notice was served &amp; they did not reply. present suit for permanent injunction, passing off, rendition of accounts and delivery up</p> <p>PlaintiffDefender32Plaintiffs AllegationsUsing the mark HONDA in respect of their goods pressure cookers, are passing off the same as the goods of the plaintiff en-cashing upon the plaintiff's goodwill and reputation attached to its mark HONDA.</p> <p>Defenders ArgumentsGoods of defender are completely different from plaintiffs goodscarrying on the business of manufacturing and marketing of 'pressure cookers' under the trade mark HONDA since the year 1985. the visual presentation of the mark HONDA, under which the defendants' products are being marked, is such that no confusion and deception of any kind can arise. HONDA is common to the trade and is a common surname in Indiaplaintiff has not used the mark HONDA in India independently but is using it with some added matter like Hero-HONDASuit suffers from delays and latches.Proceedingsdefendants placed on record a search report and copies of the invoices, to indicate that they had been using the trade mark HONDA for many years.1st application- SI PRODUCTS overlooked by HONDA &amp; in 2nd removedAffidavit to the effect that the name of charanjits uncle is S. Honda Singh not validUsing Honda separately as Hero and other marks are registered separatelyHonda did not know about the refiling of application by defender thus delays and latches are not prominentConclusion plaintiff's suit is an action for passing offthe reputation and goodwill attached to HONDA is of international reputeused by the defendants for pressure cooker, to acquire the benefit of its goodwill so as to create deception for the public who are likely to buy defendant's product believing the same as coming from the house of HONDA</p> <p>Industrial Design Rights</p> <p>protects the visual design of objects that are not purely utilitarianindustrial design consists of the creation of a shape, configuration or composition of pattern or colour, or combination of pattern and colour in three dimensional form containing aesthetic value.An industrial design can be a two- or three-dimensional pattern used to produce a product, industrial commodity or handicraftIndia's Design Act, 2000Semiconductor Chip Protection Act</p> <p>BROOKTREE CORPORATION VS ADVANCED MICRO DEVICESPlaintiffBrooktree was granted mask work registration for its chips identified as Bt451 and Bt458, combines the functions of a static random access memory (SRAM) and a digital to analog converter (DAC). considered as "color palette", producing the colours in colour video displays having high speed and high resolutionInfringement of mask work registrations in connection with semiconductor chips used in colour video displayscritical component of the Brooktree chips is the core cell, 80% of chip coverage, copied by AMD, thus infringing Brooktree's mask work registrations.Brooktree must show that A.M.D.'s mask works are substantially similar to a material portion of the mask works in Brooktree's chips Defendernon-SRAM portion of its accused chip was not copied, the chips are not "substantially similarInfringement under the statute does not require that all parts of the accused chip be copied.core cell was the product of reverse engineering of the Brooktree chip, and therefore does not constitute infringement under the Semiconductor Chip Protection ActAMD's defense was that its chips were independently designed after the Brooktree chips were subjected to reverse engineering to learn the Brooktree design. AMD pointed to its "paper trail" of its two and a half years of effort at a cost in excess of three million...</p>

Recommended

View more >