Ipr Enforcement in India.pps

7/24/2019 Ipr Enforcement in India.pps

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ipr-enforcement-in-indiapps 1/32

IPR Enforcement in IndiaByIntellectual Property & Information Technology Laws Division

Vaish Associates Advocates

India



FORMS OF IP RIGHTS

PROTECTED IN INDIA• Laws relating to Trade Marks / Brands (Trade Marks

Act, 1999)

• Laws relating to Copyright (Copyright Act, 195)Artistic !ork, Literary !ork, A"dio #ideo $ecordsand %o&tware

• Laws relating to 'atents (The 'atent Act, 19)



• Laws relating to nd"strial *esigns

(*esigns Act, +)• Laws relating to eographical ndications- The

geographical ndications o& ($egistration and'rotection) Act, 1999

•

Laws relating to nternet, !e. and n&orationTechnology (n&oration Technology Act, +)

• *oain 0aes



Is Registration Of IPRNecessaryNOIn case of

• Trade Mar!

• Co"yrig#t

YES

In case of•

Patents• Ind$stria% Designs

• Geogra"#ica% Indications



RIGHTS CONFERRED BY THE REGISTRATION OF IPR

• Mono"o%y for t#e s"eci&ed "eriod is

created in fa'o$r of t#e Registrant

• In case of %itigation on$s of "roof

s#ifts on t#e o""osite "arty

• Prima facie "res$m"tion is raised in fa'o$r of t#eRegistrant



IP Enforcement(Remedies

– Ci'i%

• Infringement

• Passing o)

– Crimina%

– Administrati'e



Ci'i% Action* Re%iefs

• In+$nctions against f$t$re 'io%ations• Ci'i% raids , Sei-$res• Damages OR Acco$nts of Pro&ts•

De%i'ery $". Disco'ery of infringing materia%. doc$ments• Preser'ation of assets



Interim . Inter%oc$toryIn+$nction• Often t#e rea% remedy///

• O0+ecti'e* To maintain stat$s 1$o

• Time is of essence

• Factors considered in granting * – Prima facie case

– Ba%ance of con'enience

–

Irre"ara0%e in+$ry if in+$nction not grantedGujarat Bottling Company v. Coca Cola 21 IPLR

201



Inter%oc$tory in+$nction( 2andmar!S$"reme Co$rt +$dgments

Midas Hygiene Ind$stries P3 2td3 43 S$d#ir B#atia ,Anr3 567789: SCC ;7

S$"reme Co$rt<

=<in cases of infringement eit#er of trademar! or ofco"yrig#t norma%%y an in+$nction m$st fo%%o>3

Mere de%ay in 0ringing t#e action is not s$?cientto defeat grant of in+$nction in s$c# cases<

t#e grant of in+$nction a%so 0ecomes necessary ifit "rima facie a""ears t#at t#e ado"tion of t#emar! itse%f >as dis#onest@3



2a!s#mi!ant 43 Pate% 's3 C#etan0#atS#a# 5AIR 6776 SC 69

S$"reme Co$rt*

=In an action for "assing o) it is $s$a% rat#eressentia% to see! an in+$nction

tem"orary or ad(interim "roof of act$a% damageis not essentia%<

%i!e%i#ood of damage is s$?cient

an a0so%$te in+$nction can 0e iss$ed restrainingt#e defendant from $sing or carrying on 0$siness$nder t#e P%ainti)s distincti'e trademar!@3



Enforcement( Domain

names• M.s Satyam Info>ay 2td3 43 Sifynet

So%$tions P't3 2td3 567789 SCC 8

SC #as #e%d t#at domain names

are s$0+ect to t#e %ega% normsa""%ica0%e to ot#er inte%%ect$a%

"ro"erties s$c# as trademar!s3

• a#oo Inc3 '3 A!as# Arora

;;; PTC 67SC a""%ied genera% trademar!

%a> to t#e internet3



E Parte Order

• #en t#e matter is etreme%y $rgent

• At a "re%iminary #earing of t#e interim

a""%ication >it#o$t notice to t#e ans>ering

defendant3

• Granted 0efore t#e motion for interim in+$nctionis f$%%y #eard 0$t for a %imited "eriod on%y3

• After grant of e "arte in+$nction t#e Co$rt m$st"roceed >it# dis"osa% of t#e interim in+$nctiona""%ication after t#e defendant #as entereda""earance3



E Parte Orders

• In+$nctionJ

• Disco'ery of doc$mentsJ

• Preser'ing of infringing goods doc$ment ofot#er e'idence re%ated to t#e s$0+ect matter oft#e s$itJ

• Restraining t#e defendant from dis"osing o) #isassets in a manner >#ic# may ad'erse%y a)ectsrig#ts of t#e IP o>ner to c%aim damages costsor ot#er "ec$niary remedies3



Anton Pi%%ar Order

• Anton Pillar v. Manufacturing Proce 5;9 RPC ;

– Simi%ar to e "arte inter%oc$tory order – A co$rt order >#ic# "ro'ides for t#e rig#t to searc#

"remises and sei-e e'idence >it#o$t "rior >arning3

– $sed in order to "re'ent t#e destr$ction of incriminatinge'idence "artic$%ar%y in cases of a%%eged trademar!co"yrig#t or "atent infringements3

– Sensiti'e in nat$re – Pre conditions for grant* – Etreme%y strong "rima facie case – Damage 5"otentia% or act$a%9 'ery serio$s – C%ear e'idence t#at defendants #a'e in t#eir "ossession

incriminating doc$ment. materia% >#ic# t#ey maydestroy3



Ko#n Doe Order

• Co$rt a""ointed commissioners to enter t#e

"remises of any s$s"ected "arty and co%%ecte'idence of infringement3

• S$s"ected "arty may not 0e named in t#e s$it3

• Indian Co$rts #a'e conferred e"anded "o>ers to

commissioners( Ro'ing commissioners• Ar!at" #o$acco Co. Lt!. v. Mr. Munna B"ai % &r.

677;5:;9PTC67L5De%9



Permanent in+$nction

• To ascertain rig#ts of t#e "arties

•

Remedies for Breac# of in+$nction – Po%ice assistance

– Assistance of administrati'e 0odies



Damages . Acco$ntof Pro&ts• T#ese are m$t$a%%y ec%$si'e

a%ternati'e remedies

•

Acco$nt of "ro&ts( An e1$ita0%e re%ief

• Damages( for t#e %osses s$)ered 0y t#e P%ainti)on acco$nt of t#e defendants acts



Damages( recent trends

• Time Inc3 's3 2o!es# Sri'asta'a6775:79PTC:5De%) – P$niti'e damages a>arded for t#e &rst time Rs %a!#s

– Distinction 0et>een com"ensatory damages and"$niti'e damages >as made o$t3

– De%#i Hig# Co$rt*

=T#e a>ard of com"ensatory damages to a "%ainti) is aimedat com"ensating #im for t#e %oss s$)ered 0y #im >#ereas"$niti'e damages are fo$nded on t#e "#i%oso"#y ofcorrecti'e +$stice and as s$c# in a""ro"riate cases t#esem$st 0e a>arded to gi'e a signa% to t#e >rong(doers t#at%a> does not ta!e a 0reac# mere%y as a matter 0et>eenri'a% "arties 0$t fee%s concerned a0o$t t#ose a%so >#o arenot arty to t#e %is 0$t s$)er on acco$nt of t#e 0reac#@



Damages( recent trends

• Microsoft Cor"oration 's3 oges# Pa"at , anr36775:79PTC685De%9

–

Hig#est costs and Damages e'er a>arded for IP infringement 0y Indian Co$rts

– A""roimate%y Rs 67 %a!#s



Crimina% Remedies( TM

• Fa%si&cation of Trademar!s . Infringement ofco"yrig#t is a cogni-a0%e o)ence

• A com"%aint may 0e &%ed 0efore a MagistrateJ OR• Po%ice can register an FIR and "rosec$te direct%yJ

5stat$tory re1$irement to o0tain t#e Registrarsa""ro'a%3• Registration is not a re1$irement3• Im"risonment( mont#s to : years• Fine( Rs 7777 to 6 %a!#s•

En#anced "ena%ty on s$0se1$ent con'ictions3• Sei-$re forfeit$re and destr$ction of

infringing goods. materia% for "%acing0efore t#e Magistrate



Stat$es In'o!edFor Crimina% Action

• Sec3 7: . 78 – Trade Mar!s Act ;;;

• Sec3 : and 8 – Co"yrig#t Act ;

• Sec3 :; – Geogra"#ica% Indication of Goods Act ;;;

• Sec3 867 – India Pena% Code

• Sec3 ;.;: – Code of Crimina% Proced$re

roce $re or ng a



roce $re or ng aCrimina% Com"%aint ,

Process• Crimina% Com"%aint in t#e Co$rt of com"etent +$risdictionJ• Pre s$mmoning E'idence for satisfying t#e co$rt on t#e

0asis of t#e e'idence "%aced on record t#at t#e a%%egations0y com"%ainant are "rima facie maintaina0%eJ

•

Iss$e of Genera%. s"eci&c Searc# and Sei-$re arrantsa%ong >it# directions to "o%iceJ Raid . Searc# , Sei-$re 0yPo%ice

• In'estigation and arrest 5if necessary9 of acc$sed "ersonsJ• Arg$mentsJ• S$mmons . arrants against acc$sed "ersonsJ•

Acc$sed A""ear and see! 0ai%J• Framing of c#arges after notice of a%%egationsJ• Tria%• On$s of "roof is on t#e com"%ainant



Administrati'e Remedies

• Indian C$stoms Act ;6

– Dea%s >it# im"ort. e"ort of goods inc%$ding"rotection of "atents trademar!s andco"yrig#ts3

•

Con&scation of infringing materia% 0y C$stomA$t#orities

• Restrictions against "ara%%e% im"ortation of goods



Oppositions , Cancellationand Rectifcations o IPR

In case t#e registration #as 0een o0tained 0y – Fra$d – Misre"resentation –

rong%y – Against t#e rig#ts of some

ot#er "arty . o""onent – Registered 0y t#e Registrar

erroneo$s%y

– Registration "ro#i0ited $ndersome %a>

– Registration is against

"$0%ic "o%icy or mora%s

#en Registration can 0e



#en Registration can 0ePre'ented or Re'o!ed .

cance%%ed

• D$ring t#e Process of Registration By

&%ing O""osition• After Registration By &%ing Recti&cation

Petition



Protecting Tradesecrets in India

•

No enactment or "o%icy frame>or! for t#e"rotection of trade secrets in India3

• Indian co$rts #a'e tried "$tting t#e trade secrets

of 'ario$s 0$sinesses $nder t#e "$r'ie> of'ario$s ot#er %egis%ations in order to "rotect t#emand a%so t#ey #a'e tried to de&ne >#at a tradesecret is in 'ario$s cases



Cases – Trade Secrets

• Mr3 Ani% G$"ta and Anr3 '3 Mr3 $na% Dasg$"ta and Ors 5;567769 D2T 69 – De%#i Hig# Co$rt #e%d t#at t#e conce"t de'e%o"ed and

e'o%'ed 0y t#e "%ainti) is t#e res$%t of t#e >or! done 0y

t#e "%ainti) $"on materia% >#ic# may 0e a'ai%a0%e fort#e $se of any 0ody 0$t >#at ma!es it con&dentia% ist#e fact t#at t#e "%ainti) #as $sed #is 0rain and t#$s"rod$ced a res$%t in t#e s#a"e of a conce"t3

• American E"ress Ban! 2td3 '3 Ms3 Priya P$ri 56779III 22K875De%9 – De%#i Hig# Co$rt in t#is case de&ned trade secrets as

=< form$%ae tec#nica% !no>(#o> or a "ec$%iar mode ormet#od of 0$siness ado"ted 0y an em"%oyer >#ic# is

$n!no>n to ot#ers3@



Trade Secrets

T#e 0est !e"t secretti%% date



Enforcement of IPRs CaseSt$dies

Vs.

Verdict: Injunction Granted.



Enforcement of IPRs CaseSt$dies


Vs.Vs.



%e"assageindia3comcom

Vs.




!lat "o #$% Indra Pra'ash ( *ara'ham+a ,oad

"ew Delhi $$$ -India)

Phone. /# 0(0#(1%( -Direct)

Phone. /# 0(0#(1(1 23t 1%(

4o+ile .5 #6$$6$7#

!a3. /# (%%($060

Intellectual Property & Information Technology Laws Division

Documents

Ipr Enforcement in India.pps