IPR Enforcement in IndiaBy

Intellectual Property & Information Technology Laws Division

Vaish Associates AdvocatesIndia

FORMS OF IP RIGHTS PROTECTED IN INDIA

• Laws relating to Trade Marks / Brands (Trade Marks Act, 1999)

• Laws relating to Copyright (Copyright Act, 1957) Artistic Work, Literary Work, Audio Video Records and Software

• Laws relating to Patents (The Patent Act, 1970)

• Laws relating to Industrial Designs (Designs Act, 2000)

• Laws relating to Geographical Indications. The geographical Indications of (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999

• Laws relating to Internet, Web and Information Technology (Information Technology Act, 2000)

• Domain Names

Is Regis tra tion Of IPR Necessary?

NO In case of

• Trade Mark

• Copyright

YES

In case of • Pa tents

• Indus tria l Des igns

• Geographica l Indica tions

RIGHTS CONFERRED BY THERIGHTS CONFERRED BY THE REGISTRATION OF IPR REGISTRATION OF IPR

• Monopoly for the specified period is

crea ted in favour of the Regis trant

• In case of litiga tion onus of proof

shifts on the oppos ite party

• Prima facie presumption is ra ised in favour of the Regis trant

IP Enforcement-Remedies

– Civil

• Infringement

• Pass ing off

– Crimina l

– Adminis tra tive

Civil Action: Re lie fs

• Injunctions aga ins t future viola tions• Civil ra ids & Se izures• Damages OR Accounts of Profits• De live ry up/ Discovery of infringing materia l

/ documents • Preserva tion of asse ts

Inte rim / Inte rlocutory Injunction

• Often the rea l remedy!!!

• Objective : To mainta in s ta tus quo

• Time is of essence

• Factors cons idered in granting :– Prima facie case

– Balance of convenience

– Irreparable injury if injunction not granted

G uja ra t Bo ttling Co m p any v . Co c a Co la 2 1 IPLR 2 0 1

Inte rlocutory injunction- Landmark Supreme Court judgments

Midas Hygiene Indus tries P . Ltd. V. Sudhir Bhatia & Anr. (2004)3 SCC 90

Supreme Court…“…in cases of infringement e ithe r of trademark or of

copyright normally an injunction must follow. Mere de lay in bringing the action is not sufficient to

defea t grant of injunction in such cases… the grant of injunction a lso becomes necessary if it prima

facie appears tha t the adoption of the mark itse lf was dishones t”.

Lakshmikant V. Pa te l vs . Che tanbha t Shah (AIR 2002 SC 275)

Supreme Court:

“In an action for pass ing off it is usua l, ra ther essentia l to seek an injunction,

temporary or ad-inte rim proof of actua l damage is not essentia l…

like lihood of damage is sufficient

an absolute injunction can be issued res tra ining the defendant from us ing or carrying on bus iness under the Pla intiff’s dis tinctive trademark”.

Enforcement- Domain names

• M/s Sa tyam Infoway Ltd. V. S ifyne t Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (2004) 6 SCC 145SC has he ld tha t domain namesare subject to the lega l norms applicable to othe r inte llectua l propertie s , such as trademarks .

• Yahoo Inc. v. Akash Arora 1999 PTC 201SC applied genera l trademark law to the inte rne t.

Ex Parte Order

• When the matte r is extremely urgent

• At a pre liminary hearing of the inte rim applica tion without notice to the answering defendant.

• Granted before the motion for inte rim injunction is fully heard but for a limited period only.

• Afte r grant of ex parte injunction, the Court mus t proceed with disposa l of the inte rim injunction applica tion a fte r the defendant has entered appearance .

Ex Parte Orders

• Injunction;

• Discovery of documents ;

• Preserving of infringing goods , document of other evidence re la ted to the subject matte r of the suit;

• Res tra ining the defendant from dispos ing off his asse ts in a manner which may adverse ly a ffects rights of the IP owner to cla im damages , cos ts or other pecuniary remedies .

Anton P illa r Order• Anto n Pilla r v . Ma nufa c turing Pro c e s s (1976) RPC 719

– Simila r to ex pa rte inte rlocutory order – A court orde r which provides for the right to search premises and

se ize evidence without prior warning.– used in orde r to prevent the des truction of incrimina ting

evidence , particula rly in cases of a lleged trademark, copyright or pa tent infringements .

– Sens itive in na ture – Pre conditions for grant:– Extremely s trong prima facie case– Damage (potentia l or actua l) ve ry se rious– Clea r evidence tha t de fendants have in the ir possess ion,

incrimina ting document/ mate ria l which they may des troy.

John Doe Order

• Court appointed commiss ioners to enter the premises of any suspected party and collect evidence of infringement.

• Suspected party may not be named in the suit.

• Indian Courts have conferred expanded powers to commiss ioners - Roving commiss ioners

• Arda th To ba c c o Co . Ltd . vs . Mr. Munna Bha i & O rs . 2009(39)PTC208(Del)

Permanent injunction

• To ascerta in rights of the parties

• Remedies for Breach of injunction

– Police ass is tance

– Ass is tance of adminis tra tive bodies

Damages / Account of Profits• These a re mutua lly exclus ive

a lte rna tive remedies

• Account of profits - An equitable re lie f

• Damages- for the losses suffe red by the P la intiff on account of the defendant’s acts

Damages- recent trends

• Time Inc. vs . Lokesh Srivas tava 2005(30)PTC3(Del) – Punitive damages awarded for the firs t time – Rs 5 lakhs– Dis tinction be tween compensa tory damages and punitive

damages was made out. – Delhi High Court:

“The award of compensa tory damages to a pla intiff is a imed a t compensa ting him for the loss suffe red by him whereas , punitive damages a re founded on the philosophy of corrective jus tice and as such, in appropria te cases these mus t be awarded to give a s igna l to the wrong-doers tha t law does not take a breach mere ly as a ma tte r be tween riva l partie s but fee ls concerned about those a lso who a re not a rty to the lis but suffe r on account of the breach”

Damages- recent trends

• Microsoft Corpora tion vs . Yogesh Papa t & anr. 2005(30)PTC245(Del)

– Highes t cos ts and Damages ever

awarded for IP infringement by Indian Courts

– Approximate ly Rs 20 lakhs

Crimina l Remedies - TM

• Fa ls ifica tion of Trademarks / Infringement of copyright is a cognizable offence

• A compla int may be filed before a Magis tra te ; OR• Police can regis te r an FIR and prosecute directly;

(s ta tutory requirement to obta in the Regis tra r’s approval.• Regis tra tion is not a requirement.• Imprisonment- 6 months to 3 years• Fine- Rs 50,000 to 2 lakhs• Enhanced pena lty on subsequent convictions . • Se izure , forfe iture and des truction of

infringing goods / materia l for placingbefore the Magis tra te

Sta tues Invoked For Crimina l Action

• Sec. 103 / 104– Trade Marks Act, 1999

• Sec. 63 and 64 – Copyright Act, 1957

• Sec. 39 – Geographica l Indica tion of Goods Act, 1999

• Sec. 420 – India Pena l Code

• Sec. 91/93 – Code of Crimina l Procedure

Procedure for Filing a Crimina l Compla int & Process

• Crimina l Compla int in the Court of competent jurisdiction;• Pre summoning Evidence , for sa tis fying the court on the bas is of the

evidence placed on record, tha t the a llega tions by compla inant a re prima facie mainta inable ;

• Is sue of Genera l/ specific Search and Se izure Warrants , a long with directions to police ; Ra id / Sea rch & Se izure by Police

• Inves tiga tion and a rres t (if necessa ry) of accused pe rsons ;• Arguments ;• Summons / Warrants aga ins t accused pe rsons ;• Accused Appear and seek ba il;• Framing of charges , a fte r notice of a llega tions ;• Tria l• Onus of proof is on the compla inant

Adminis tra tive Remedies

• Indian Cus toms Act, 1962

– Deals with import/ export of goods including protection of pa tents , trademarks and copyrights .

• Confisca tion of infringing materia l by Cus tom Authorities

• Res trictions aga ins t para lle l importa tion of goods

Oppositions , Cancellation and Rectifications of IPR

In case the regis tra tion has been obta ined by – Fraud – Misrepresenta tion – Wrongly – Agains t the rights of some

othe r party / opponent – Regis te red by the Regis tra r

e rroneous ly – Regis tra tion prohibited under

some law – Regis tra tion is aga ins t

public policy or mora ls

When Regis tra tion can be Prevented or Revoked / cance lled

• During the Process of Regis tra tion – By filing Oppos ition

• Afte r Regis tra tion – By filing Rectifica tion Pe tition

Protecting Trade secre ts in India

• No enactment or policy framework for the protection of trade secre ts in India .

• Indian courts have tried putting the trade secre ts of va rious bus inesses under the purview of various other legis la tions in order to protect them and a lso they have tried to define what a trade secre t is in various cases

Cases – Trade Secrets

• Mr. Anil Gupta and Anr. v. Mr. Kunal Dasgupta and Ors (97 (2002) DLT 257) – Delhi High Court he ld tha t the concept deve loped and evolved

by the pla intiff is the result of the work done by the pla intiff upon mate ria l which may be ava ilable for the use of any body, but wha t makes it confidentia l is the fact tha t the pla intiff has used his bra in and thus produced a result in the shape of a concept.

• American Express Bank Ltd. v. Ms . Priya Puri (2006)III LLJ 540(Del)– Delhi High Court, in this case de fined trade secre ts a s “…

formulae , technica l know-how or a peculia r mode or me thod of bus iness adopted by an employer which is unknown to others .”

Trade Secre ts

The bes t kept secre t till da te

Enforcement of IPRs – Case S tudies

Vs.

Verdict: Injunction Granted.

Enforcement of IPRs – Case S tudies

Verdict: Injunction Granted.

Vs.

Vs.

lepassage india .com.com

Vs.

Verdict: Injunction Granted.

1st & 11th Floors, Mohan Dev Building, 13 Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi 110001 (India)

Phone: +91 11 42492532 (Direct)Phone: +91 11 42492525 Ext 532

Mobile :- 9810081079email:- vpdalmia@vaishlaw.com

Intellectual Property & Information Technology Laws Division