SlideShare une entreprise Scribd logo
1  sur  7
Télécharger pour lire hors ligne
Law Assignment




LEGAL ENVIRONMENT OF
       BUSINESS
         CASE ANALYSIS ON

“A CLEAR CASE OF SOFTWARE PIRACY?”

               SUBMITED TO:
            PROF. B.V.RAMANA
            L.E.B. FACULTY, IBS




                 SUBMITTED BY:
        Abhiraj Rathore (08BSHYD0018)
           Tanmayi (08BSHYD0885)
           Neeraja (08BSHYD0963)




              DATE: Dec. 30, 2008




                                                     1
Law Assignment


                  A CLEAR CASE OF SOFTWARE PIRACY?
PLAINTIFF                       MICROSOFT        INDIA     PRIVATE      LTD.     REPRESENTED
                                THROUGH MR. PRAVEEN ANAND
DEFENDANT                       DEEPAK       RAVAL       AND     COMPANY         REPRESENTED
                                THROUGH MEMO
RELATED LAWS                    INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ACT (COPYRIGHT ACT, 1957)
JUDGE                           MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIRKI
CASE NO:                        CS(OS) No. 529/2003
JURISDICTION                    DELHI HIGH COURT



OVERVIEW OF THE CASE:
The case “A Clear Case of Software Piracy” describes about the violation of the Intellectual
Property Rights of Microsoft India Private Ltd.

Summary of the chronological events in the case are as follows:
   a) Microsoft India Private Ltd. was setup in New Delhi, India which is a marketing
      subsidiary of the Microsoft Corporation, USA. The company sells the “computer
      software” and “computer programs”.

   b) The company is the owner of the all the computer program and manual that are
      considered as part of literary work under Indian Copyright Act, 1957 and that are
      prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment according to the
      USA Code (17) under the doctrine “work made for hire”.

   c) Microsoft India Private Ltd. received information about Deepak Raval and his company
      which was carrying the business of selling the intellectual property right of Microsoft
      without the authorship. They were selling computers with pre- loaded software of
      Microsoft.

   d) Microsoft filed a claim in October, 2002 and a suit in a gainst Deepak Raval (first party)
      and his company (second party) and argued in the court that on account of piracy
      (Internet piracy, reproducing software, and misleading the customer to be genuine) the
      company has suffered huge loss to its intellectual property right.



                                                                                               2
Law Assignment

   e) The company sent Ravinder Pawar, an independent investigator to Deepak Raval to
      confirm the infringement. Ravidner bought the computer on 4 th October, 2002 from
      Deepak Raval and company. The computer had the loaded unlicensed software. Sunil
      John, a technical expert confirmed the existence of the unlicensed software on the
      computer.

   f) Microsoft sent a letter to Deepak Raval stating that they had infringed on its intellectual
      property rights and called them for a meeting on 22 nd November, 2002 to settle the issue.
      Neither Deepak Raval nor anybody from the company attended the meeting.

   g) Later, Microsoft filed a suit to protect its Intellectual Property Rights. It filed a list of
      documents stating that it was the copyright owner of certain programs which was
      infringed by the Deepak Raval and company.

   h) Microsoft prayed for a permanent injunction against the company and restraining it from
      further selling of Microsoft‟s software and program. It sought relief against passing off
      and an order for the delivery of all the unlicensed copies, damages, retention of accounts,
      profits earned illegally and costs.

   i) An ex-parte ad interim was granted by the court in favour of Microsoft as even after
      being summoned, Deepak and Company did not appear before the court. Mr. N.
      Krishnamurthy, representative Microsoft and few other witnessed were examined. The
      company claimed damages of Rs. 12,823,200 in addition to damages on goodwill and
      reputation.

   j) The documentary evidence in support of the claim such as notarized copy of the attorney
      in favour of witness, copyright registration, trademarks registration, affidavits of
      Ravinder Pawar, and Sunil Joshi was filed an marked in court.



LEGAL FRAMEWORK:
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ACT
Intellectual property rights are a bundle of exclusive rights over creations of the mind, both
artistic and commercial. These could be in the form of Patents; Trademarks; Geographical
Indications; Industrial Designs. The former is covered by copyright laws, which protect creative
works, such as books, movies, music, paintings, photographs, and software, and gives the
copyright holder exclusive right to control reproduction or adaptation of such works for a certain
period of time. IP is the foundation of knowledge-based economy. It pervades all sectors of
economy and is increasingly becoming important for ensuring competitiveness of the enterprises.

                                                                                                 3
Law Assignment


VARIOUS CATEGORIES OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY:
a) PATENTS - A Patent is an exclusive monopoly granted by the Government to an inventor
over his invention for a limited period of time. It provides an enforceable legal right to prevent
others from exploiting an invention. Patents are protected through The Patents Act, 1970
(amended in 1999, 2002 and 2005)

b) COPYRIGHTS - Copyright is a right given by the law to creators of literary, dramatic,
musical and artistic works and producers of cinematograph films and sound recordings.
Copyright is protected through Copyright Act, 1957, as amended in 1999

c) TRADEMARKS - A trademark is a word, phrase, symbol or design, or combination of
words, phrases, symbols or designs is used in the course of trade which identifies and
distinguishes the source of the goods or services of one enterprise from those of others.

d) GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATORS – It refers to the names and symbols which indicate a
certain geographical origin of the product

e) INDUSTRIAL DESGINS -It refers to the creative activity of achieving a formal or
ornamental appearance for mass product items.

OTHER     INTELLECTUAL                            PROPERTY                LEGISLATIONS
DISCUSSED IN THE CASE:

COPYRIGHT ACT, 1957

The Copyright Act, 1957 came into effect from January 1958. This Act has been amended five
times since then, i.e., in 1983, 1984, 1992, 1994 and 1999, with the amendment of 1994 being
the most substantial.

For the purposes of this Act, quot;copyrightquot; means the exclusive right (Section 7) subject to the
provisions of this Act, to do or authorize the doing of any of the following acts in respect of a
work or any substantial part thereof, namely :-

In the case of a literary, dramatic or musical work not being a computer programme (Section
14):-

          To reproduce the work in any material form including the storing of it in any medium
          by electronic means,
          To issue copies of the work to the public not being copies already in circulation
          To perform the work in public, or communicate it to the public
          To make any cinematograph film or sound recording in resp ect of the work

                                                                                                 4
Law Assignment

          To make any translation of the work
          To make any adaptation of the work

US CODE 17

Under the US CODE 17 the copyright law defines a category of works called “works made for
hire.” If a work is “made for hire,” the employer, and not the emp loyee, is considered the author.
The employer may be a firm, an organization, or an individual.

Copyright law defines a “work made for hire” as:

       A work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment;
       A work specially ordered or commissioned for use as a contribution to a collective
       work, as a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, as a translation, as a
       supplementary work, as a compilation, as an instructional text, as a test, as answer
       material for a test, or as an atlas, if the parties expressly agree in a written instrument
       signed by them that the work shall be considered a work made for hire.


TRADEMARK ACT, 1999

The Indian law of trademarks is enshrined in the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Act seeks to
provide for the registration of trademarks relating to goods and services in India. The rights
granted under the Act, are operative in the whole of India.
The term of a trademark registration is for a period of ten years. The renewal is possible for
further period of 10 years each. Unlike patents, copyrights or industrial design trademark rights
can last indefinitely if the owner continues to use the mark. However, if a registered trademark is
not renewed, it is liable to be removed from the register.

Two types of remedies are available to the owner of a trademark for unauthorized use of his or
her mark or its imitation by a third party. These remedies are: -
       „an action for infringement' in case of a registered trademark and
       „an action for passing off*' in the case of an unregistered trademark.

The basic difference between an infringement action and an action for passing off is that the
former is a statutory remedy and the latter is a common law remedy.

Accordingly, in order to establish infringement with regard to a r egistered trademark, it is
necessary only to establish that the infringing mark is identical or deceptively similar to the
registered mark and no further proof is required.


                                                                                                  5
Law Assignment

In the case of a passing off action, proving that the marks are identical or deceptively similar
alone is not sufficient. The use of the mark should be likely to deceive or cause confusion.

Further, in a passing off action it is necessary to prove that the use of the trademark by the
defendant is likely to cause injury or damage to the plaintiff‟s goodwill, whereas in an
infringement suit, the use of the mark by the defendant need not cause any injury to the plaintiff.

ISSUES

Does the use of the copyrighted work as well as the trade mark without obtaining a license
from the owner amount to counterfeiting and piracy?

Yes, the use of copyrighted work without obtaining a license from the owner amount to piracy. If
there is no license, the copyrighted work can be used for unauthorized reproduction, importing or
distribution either of the whole or of a substantial part of works protected by copyright. In the
copyrighted work, the term quot;counterfeitingquot; is nothing but piracy (Section 51(1)(i) and
Section 51(b)).

The use of trademark without obtaining a license from the owner leads to piracy. This is because
if there is no license, there can be illegal use of signs, names, logos (brands) and business names
that brand manufacturers use to distinguish their products.

Is Microsoft entitled to damages claimed with costs?

Yes, Microsoft is entitled to the damages claimed with costs on accounts of the profits illegally
earned by the defendants by use of the impugned trade mark. The estimated damages are on the
basis of license fee the plaintiff could have earned on the distribution of licensed copies of the
plaintiff's software as the defendants had taken license from the plaintiff to sell the said software.
The party who chooses to not participate in court proceedings and stay away must, thus, suffer
the consequences of damages as stated and set out by the plaintiff.

Further, instead of plaintiff utilizing its energy for expansion of its business and sale of its
products, the resources have to be spread over a number of such litigations to bring to book the
offending traders in the market. In such a case, both compensa tory and punitive damages ought
to be granted apart from the costs incurred by the plaintiff in such litigation.

The company can also claim punitive and exemplary damages of Rs. 5 lacs for the flagrant
infringement of the plaintiff's trade mark and reputation. (CASE: In Hero Honda Motors Ltd. v.
Shree Assuramji Scooters, 2006 (32) PTC 117 (Delhi))




                                                                                                     6
Law Assignment



REFERENCE:

http://www.dipp.nic.in/ipr.htm
http://copyright.gov.in/maincpract.asp
http://ezinearticles.com/?Copyright- in-India:- Law-and-Procedure&id=73309
http://ezinearticles.com/?Patents-in-India:-Law-and-Procedure&id=69217




                                                                                          7

Contenu connexe

Tendances

well-knownmarks ppt, RAJEEV MANDAL (1)
well-knownmarks ppt, RAJEEV MANDAL (1)well-knownmarks ppt, RAJEEV MANDAL (1)
well-knownmarks ppt, RAJEEV MANDAL (1)Rajiv Mandal
 
Concept of passing off sem vi
Concept of passing off   sem viConcept of passing off   sem vi
Concept of passing off sem viatuljaybhaye
 
Chapter 07 Intellectual Property Laws
Chapter 07   Intellectual Property LawsChapter 07   Intellectual Property Laws
Chapter 07 Intellectual Property LawsRobin Kapoor
 
Deceptive similarity under trademark
Deceptive similarity under trademarkDeceptive similarity under trademark
Deceptive similarity under trademarkNipun Paleja
 
Guide for de mystifying law of trade mark litigation in India
Guide for de mystifying law of trade mark litigation in IndiaGuide for de mystifying law of trade mark litigation in India
Guide for de mystifying law of trade mark litigation in IndiaVijay Dalmia
 
Trademark Licensing in India
Trademark Licensing in IndiaTrademark Licensing in India
Trademark Licensing in IndiaManish Kumar
 
Features of the trademarks act
Features of the trademarks actFeatures of the trademarks act
Features of the trademarks actSolubilis
 
Visual and phonetic similarity of trademarks
Visual and phonetic similarity of trademarks Visual and phonetic similarity of trademarks
Visual and phonetic similarity of trademarks Khushboo Panchal
 
Trade mark
Trade markTrade mark
Trade markSachin H
 
Law case study by neetu
Law case study by neetuLaw case study by neetu
Law case study by neetuNeetu Marwah
 
Trademark infringement
Trademark infringementTrademark infringement
Trademark infringementmanishapant10
 

Tendances (20)

Trademark infringement
Trademark infringementTrademark infringement
Trademark infringement
 
well-knownmarks ppt, RAJEEV MANDAL (1)
well-knownmarks ppt, RAJEEV MANDAL (1)well-knownmarks ppt, RAJEEV MANDAL (1)
well-knownmarks ppt, RAJEEV MANDAL (1)
 
Well known marks
Well known marksWell known marks
Well known marks
 
Concept of passing off sem vi
Concept of passing off   sem viConcept of passing off   sem vi
Concept of passing off sem vi
 
Trademark law ppt
Trademark law pptTrademark law ppt
Trademark law ppt
 
Trademarks
TrademarksTrademarks
Trademarks
 
Trademark Intellectual Property Law
Trademark Intellectual Property LawTrademark Intellectual Property Law
Trademark Intellectual Property Law
 
Chapter 07 Intellectual Property Laws
Chapter 07   Intellectual Property LawsChapter 07   Intellectual Property Laws
Chapter 07 Intellectual Property Laws
 
Deceptive similarity under trademark
Deceptive similarity under trademarkDeceptive similarity under trademark
Deceptive similarity under trademark
 
Guide for de mystifying law of trade mark litigation in India
Guide for de mystifying law of trade mark litigation in IndiaGuide for de mystifying law of trade mark litigation in India
Guide for de mystifying law of trade mark litigation in India
 
Trademark Licensing in India
Trademark Licensing in IndiaTrademark Licensing in India
Trademark Licensing in India
 
Features of the trademarks act
Features of the trademarks actFeatures of the trademarks act
Features of the trademarks act
 
Trade mark
Trade markTrade mark
Trade mark
 
Trademark
TrademarkTrademark
Trademark
 
Visual and phonetic similarity of trademarks
Visual and phonetic similarity of trademarks Visual and phonetic similarity of trademarks
Visual and phonetic similarity of trademarks
 
IPR: Introduction to Trademark
IPR: Introduction to TrademarkIPR: Introduction to Trademark
IPR: Introduction to Trademark
 
Trademarks act 1999
Trademarks act 1999Trademarks act 1999
Trademarks act 1999
 
Trade mark
Trade markTrade mark
Trade mark
 
Law case study by neetu
Law case study by neetuLaw case study by neetu
Law case study by neetu
 
Trademark infringement
Trademark infringementTrademark infringement
Trademark infringement
 

En vedette

Dem Natl Conv, Boston I
Dem Natl Conv, Boston IDem Natl Conv, Boston I
Dem Natl Conv, Boston Irriski
 
Relato De La Escuela Secundaria General Ignacio Manuel Altamirano
Relato De La Escuela Secundaria General Ignacio Manuel AltamiranoRelato De La Escuela Secundaria General Ignacio Manuel Altamirano
Relato De La Escuela Secundaria General Ignacio Manuel Altamiranomari v.g
 
Kamermarkt Dec 2008 Eindhoven
Kamermarkt Dec 2008   EindhovenKamermarkt Dec 2008   Eindhoven
Kamermarkt Dec 2008 EindhovenKamernet .nl
 
Condenados A Entenderse
Condenados A EntenderseCondenados A Entenderse
Condenados A EntendersePepe Aranda
 

En vedette (7)

Dem Natl Conv, Boston I
Dem Natl Conv, Boston IDem Natl Conv, Boston I
Dem Natl Conv, Boston I
 
Relato De La Escuela Secundaria General Ignacio Manuel Altamirano
Relato De La Escuela Secundaria General Ignacio Manuel AltamiranoRelato De La Escuela Secundaria General Ignacio Manuel Altamirano
Relato De La Escuela Secundaria General Ignacio Manuel Altamirano
 
Baby
BabyBaby
Baby
 
bagus kog
bagus kogbagus kog
bagus kog
 
Kamermarkt Dec 2008 Eindhoven
Kamermarkt Dec 2008   EindhovenKamermarkt Dec 2008   Eindhoven
Kamermarkt Dec 2008 Eindhoven
 
1999 Annual Report
1999 Annual Report1999 Annual Report
1999 Annual Report
 
Condenados A Entenderse
Condenados A EntenderseCondenados A Entenderse
Condenados A Entenderse
 

Similaire à Law Report Final Final

Intellectual Property Rights - Mauritian Legislation
Intellectual Property Rights - Mauritian LegislationIntellectual Property Rights - Mauritian Legislation
Intellectual Property Rights - Mauritian LegislationAshesh R
 
Intellectual property right case studies
Intellectual property right case studiesIntellectual property right case studies
Intellectual property right case studiesKritiSachita1
 
Overviiew on IPR.ppt
Overviiew on IPR.pptOverviiew on IPR.ppt
Overviiew on IPR.pptAkshayGupte7
 
Copyright Protection
Copyright ProtectionCopyright Protection
Copyright ProtectionGrittyCC
 
Intellectual property ats
Intellectual property atsIntellectual property ats
Intellectual property atsDr.Aravind TS
 
Third week
Third weekThird week
Third week16119843
 
Copyright issues in cyberspace
Copyright issues in cyberspaceCopyright issues in cyberspace
Copyright issues in cyberspaceatuljaybhaye
 
IPR in India MAKE in INDIA
IPR in India MAKE in INDIAIPR in India MAKE in INDIA
IPR in India MAKE in INDIAMarinerz
 
Presentation on intellectual property rights
Presentation on intellectual property rightsPresentation on intellectual property rights
Presentation on intellectual property rightsMedha Shahi
 
Intellectual property rights
Intellectual property rightsIntellectual property rights
Intellectual property rightsKomal Sahu
 
Intellectual Property Rights
Intellectual Property RightsIntellectual Property Rights
Intellectual Property Rightsharshhanu
 

Similaire à Law Report Final Final (20)

Intellectual Property Rights - Mauritian Legislation
Intellectual Property Rights - Mauritian LegislationIntellectual Property Rights - Mauritian Legislation
Intellectual Property Rights - Mauritian Legislation
 
Intellectual property right case studies
Intellectual property right case studiesIntellectual property right case studies
Intellectual property right case studies
 
Etika profesi
Etika profesiEtika profesi
Etika profesi
 
Overviiew on IPR.ppt
Overviiew on IPR.pptOverviiew on IPR.ppt
Overviiew on IPR.ppt
 
Overviiew on IPR.ppt
Overviiew on IPR.pptOverviiew on IPR.ppt
Overviiew on IPR.ppt
 
Copyright Protection
Copyright ProtectionCopyright Protection
Copyright Protection
 
ICT Cybe laws
ICT Cybe lawsICT Cybe laws
ICT Cybe laws
 
Intellectual property ats
Intellectual property atsIntellectual property ats
Intellectual property ats
 
Overviiew on ipr
Overviiew on iprOverviiew on ipr
Overviiew on ipr
 
Intellectual property rights
Intellectual property rightsIntellectual property rights
Intellectual property rights
 
Third week
Third weekThird week
Third week
 
Dvs Ipr
Dvs  IprDvs  Ipr
Dvs Ipr
 
Copyright issues in cyberspace
Copyright issues in cyberspaceCopyright issues in cyberspace
Copyright issues in cyberspace
 
Intellectual Property Rights
Intellectual Property RightsIntellectual Property Rights
Intellectual Property Rights
 
Intellectual Property Rights
Intellectual Property RightsIntellectual Property Rights
Intellectual Property Rights
 
IPR in India MAKE in INDIA
IPR in India MAKE in INDIAIPR in India MAKE in INDIA
IPR in India MAKE in INDIA
 
Ipr
IprIpr
Ipr
 
Presentation on intellectual property rights
Presentation on intellectual property rightsPresentation on intellectual property rights
Presentation on intellectual property rights
 
Intellectual property rights
Intellectual property rightsIntellectual property rights
Intellectual property rights
 
Intellectual Property Rights
Intellectual Property RightsIntellectual Property Rights
Intellectual Property Rights
 

Law Report Final Final

  • 1. Law Assignment LEGAL ENVIRONMENT OF BUSINESS CASE ANALYSIS ON “A CLEAR CASE OF SOFTWARE PIRACY?” SUBMITED TO: PROF. B.V.RAMANA L.E.B. FACULTY, IBS SUBMITTED BY: Abhiraj Rathore (08BSHYD0018) Tanmayi (08BSHYD0885) Neeraja (08BSHYD0963) DATE: Dec. 30, 2008 1
  • 2. Law Assignment A CLEAR CASE OF SOFTWARE PIRACY? PLAINTIFF MICROSOFT INDIA PRIVATE LTD. REPRESENTED THROUGH MR. PRAVEEN ANAND DEFENDANT DEEPAK RAVAL AND COMPANY REPRESENTED THROUGH MEMO RELATED LAWS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ACT (COPYRIGHT ACT, 1957) JUDGE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIRKI CASE NO: CS(OS) No. 529/2003 JURISDICTION DELHI HIGH COURT OVERVIEW OF THE CASE: The case “A Clear Case of Software Piracy” describes about the violation of the Intellectual Property Rights of Microsoft India Private Ltd. Summary of the chronological events in the case are as follows: a) Microsoft India Private Ltd. was setup in New Delhi, India which is a marketing subsidiary of the Microsoft Corporation, USA. The company sells the “computer software” and “computer programs”. b) The company is the owner of the all the computer program and manual that are considered as part of literary work under Indian Copyright Act, 1957 and that are prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment according to the USA Code (17) under the doctrine “work made for hire”. c) Microsoft India Private Ltd. received information about Deepak Raval and his company which was carrying the business of selling the intellectual property right of Microsoft without the authorship. They were selling computers with pre- loaded software of Microsoft. d) Microsoft filed a claim in October, 2002 and a suit in a gainst Deepak Raval (first party) and his company (second party) and argued in the court that on account of piracy (Internet piracy, reproducing software, and misleading the customer to be genuine) the company has suffered huge loss to its intellectual property right. 2
  • 3. Law Assignment e) The company sent Ravinder Pawar, an independent investigator to Deepak Raval to confirm the infringement. Ravidner bought the computer on 4 th October, 2002 from Deepak Raval and company. The computer had the loaded unlicensed software. Sunil John, a technical expert confirmed the existence of the unlicensed software on the computer. f) Microsoft sent a letter to Deepak Raval stating that they had infringed on its intellectual property rights and called them for a meeting on 22 nd November, 2002 to settle the issue. Neither Deepak Raval nor anybody from the company attended the meeting. g) Later, Microsoft filed a suit to protect its Intellectual Property Rights. It filed a list of documents stating that it was the copyright owner of certain programs which was infringed by the Deepak Raval and company. h) Microsoft prayed for a permanent injunction against the company and restraining it from further selling of Microsoft‟s software and program. It sought relief against passing off and an order for the delivery of all the unlicensed copies, damages, retention of accounts, profits earned illegally and costs. i) An ex-parte ad interim was granted by the court in favour of Microsoft as even after being summoned, Deepak and Company did not appear before the court. Mr. N. Krishnamurthy, representative Microsoft and few other witnessed were examined. The company claimed damages of Rs. 12,823,200 in addition to damages on goodwill and reputation. j) The documentary evidence in support of the claim such as notarized copy of the attorney in favour of witness, copyright registration, trademarks registration, affidavits of Ravinder Pawar, and Sunil Joshi was filed an marked in court. LEGAL FRAMEWORK: INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ACT Intellectual property rights are a bundle of exclusive rights over creations of the mind, both artistic and commercial. These could be in the form of Patents; Trademarks; Geographical Indications; Industrial Designs. The former is covered by copyright laws, which protect creative works, such as books, movies, music, paintings, photographs, and software, and gives the copyright holder exclusive right to control reproduction or adaptation of such works for a certain period of time. IP is the foundation of knowledge-based economy. It pervades all sectors of economy and is increasingly becoming important for ensuring competitiveness of the enterprises. 3
  • 4. Law Assignment VARIOUS CATEGORIES OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: a) PATENTS - A Patent is an exclusive monopoly granted by the Government to an inventor over his invention for a limited period of time. It provides an enforceable legal right to prevent others from exploiting an invention. Patents are protected through The Patents Act, 1970 (amended in 1999, 2002 and 2005) b) COPYRIGHTS - Copyright is a right given by the law to creators of literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works and producers of cinematograph films and sound recordings. Copyright is protected through Copyright Act, 1957, as amended in 1999 c) TRADEMARKS - A trademark is a word, phrase, symbol or design, or combination of words, phrases, symbols or designs is used in the course of trade which identifies and distinguishes the source of the goods or services of one enterprise from those of others. d) GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATORS – It refers to the names and symbols which indicate a certain geographical origin of the product e) INDUSTRIAL DESGINS -It refers to the creative activity of achieving a formal or ornamental appearance for mass product items. OTHER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LEGISLATIONS DISCUSSED IN THE CASE: COPYRIGHT ACT, 1957 The Copyright Act, 1957 came into effect from January 1958. This Act has been amended five times since then, i.e., in 1983, 1984, 1992, 1994 and 1999, with the amendment of 1994 being the most substantial. For the purposes of this Act, quot;copyrightquot; means the exclusive right (Section 7) subject to the provisions of this Act, to do or authorize the doing of any of the following acts in respect of a work or any substantial part thereof, namely :- In the case of a literary, dramatic or musical work not being a computer programme (Section 14):- To reproduce the work in any material form including the storing of it in any medium by electronic means, To issue copies of the work to the public not being copies already in circulation To perform the work in public, or communicate it to the public To make any cinematograph film or sound recording in resp ect of the work 4
  • 5. Law Assignment To make any translation of the work To make any adaptation of the work US CODE 17 Under the US CODE 17 the copyright law defines a category of works called “works made for hire.” If a work is “made for hire,” the employer, and not the emp loyee, is considered the author. The employer may be a firm, an organization, or an individual. Copyright law defines a “work made for hire” as: A work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment; A work specially ordered or commissioned for use as a contribution to a collective work, as a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, as a translation, as a supplementary work, as a compilation, as an instructional text, as a test, as answer material for a test, or as an atlas, if the parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a work made for hire. TRADEMARK ACT, 1999 The Indian law of trademarks is enshrined in the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Act seeks to provide for the registration of trademarks relating to goods and services in India. The rights granted under the Act, are operative in the whole of India. The term of a trademark registration is for a period of ten years. The renewal is possible for further period of 10 years each. Unlike patents, copyrights or industrial design trademark rights can last indefinitely if the owner continues to use the mark. However, if a registered trademark is not renewed, it is liable to be removed from the register. Two types of remedies are available to the owner of a trademark for unauthorized use of his or her mark or its imitation by a third party. These remedies are: - „an action for infringement' in case of a registered trademark and „an action for passing off*' in the case of an unregistered trademark. The basic difference between an infringement action and an action for passing off is that the former is a statutory remedy and the latter is a common law remedy. Accordingly, in order to establish infringement with regard to a r egistered trademark, it is necessary only to establish that the infringing mark is identical or deceptively similar to the registered mark and no further proof is required. 5
  • 6. Law Assignment In the case of a passing off action, proving that the marks are identical or deceptively similar alone is not sufficient. The use of the mark should be likely to deceive or cause confusion. Further, in a passing off action it is necessary to prove that the use of the trademark by the defendant is likely to cause injury or damage to the plaintiff‟s goodwill, whereas in an infringement suit, the use of the mark by the defendant need not cause any injury to the plaintiff. ISSUES Does the use of the copyrighted work as well as the trade mark without obtaining a license from the owner amount to counterfeiting and piracy? Yes, the use of copyrighted work without obtaining a license from the owner amount to piracy. If there is no license, the copyrighted work can be used for unauthorized reproduction, importing or distribution either of the whole or of a substantial part of works protected by copyright. In the copyrighted work, the term quot;counterfeitingquot; is nothing but piracy (Section 51(1)(i) and Section 51(b)). The use of trademark without obtaining a license from the owner leads to piracy. This is because if there is no license, there can be illegal use of signs, names, logos (brands) and business names that brand manufacturers use to distinguish their products. Is Microsoft entitled to damages claimed with costs? Yes, Microsoft is entitled to the damages claimed with costs on accounts of the profits illegally earned by the defendants by use of the impugned trade mark. The estimated damages are on the basis of license fee the plaintiff could have earned on the distribution of licensed copies of the plaintiff's software as the defendants had taken license from the plaintiff to sell the said software. The party who chooses to not participate in court proceedings and stay away must, thus, suffer the consequences of damages as stated and set out by the plaintiff. Further, instead of plaintiff utilizing its energy for expansion of its business and sale of its products, the resources have to be spread over a number of such litigations to bring to book the offending traders in the market. In such a case, both compensa tory and punitive damages ought to be granted apart from the costs incurred by the plaintiff in such litigation. The company can also claim punitive and exemplary damages of Rs. 5 lacs for the flagrant infringement of the plaintiff's trade mark and reputation. (CASE: In Hero Honda Motors Ltd. v. Shree Assuramji Scooters, 2006 (32) PTC 117 (Delhi)) 6
  • 7. Law Assignment REFERENCE: http://www.dipp.nic.in/ipr.htm http://copyright.gov.in/maincpract.asp http://ezinearticles.com/?Copyright- in-India:- Law-and-Procedure&id=73309 http://ezinearticles.com/?Patents-in-India:-Law-and-Procedure&id=69217 7