Ipr Contents

IPR:
1. PROPERTY AND ITS RELATION WITH COPYRIGHT

a. KAMESHWAR PRASAD VS STATE OF BIHAR-K was opposed to Land
reforms in Bihar and said his right to property under A19 was encroached.SC took
an Austinian approach and passed the judgement
2. HISTORY OF COPYRIGHT
S.13RWS2(y), 2(z), S14, s 51- when copyright is infringed and 52 r/w- exceptions 2(m)
of CA
In India registration is mandatory
Sec.40 and 41
Difference b/w copyright and patent
3. DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PUBLICATION AND PRODUCTION

4. DIFFERENT TYPES OF COPYING- direct copying, indirect copying, conscious,
unconscious
5. SECTION 13, 17 OF COPYRIGHT ACT. WHO IS AN AUTHOR. or the first owner
a. UNIVERSITY LONDON PRESS CASE- whether setting of question paper is an
original lit work for the purpose of copyright- S 17
1. Whether the question paper setting is an original lit work
2. Whether UNI had a locus standi in front
3. Whether there was a fair dealing?-FD is an exception to S.52, 1(a)
b. BURROW GILES LITHOGRAPHIC COMPANY VS SARONI
c. FEIST PUBLICATION INC. VS RURAL TELEPHONE SERVICES
COMPANY INC.
d. CAMLIM PVT. LTD. VS NATIONAL PENCIL INDUSTRIES LTD.
e. MACAQUE SELFIE CASE
Who is the first owner of the copyright-s.17
Two theories u s17
i) Contract for work- employee is the first owner

ii) Contract of work- employer will be the copyright holder
6. FAIR DEALING
7. JOINT OWNERSHIP
8. WHETHER CHARACTERS IN A FILM HAVE COPYRIGHT?
a. BT THOMAS VS MALAYALA MANORAMA
S.38-PERFORMER‟S RIGHTS
b. FORTUNE FILMS VS DEV ANAND

9. COPYRIGHT OF DRAMATIC WORKS AND ARTISTIC WORKS
10. DIFFERENCE BETWEEN IDEA AND CONCEPT
a. ANIL GUPTA VS KUNAL DAS GUPTA
11. COPYRIGHT IN COMPUTER GENERATED WORKS, COMPUTER
PROGRAMMING
12. DIFFERNCE BETWEEN MUSIX RECORDING AND VERSION RECORDING
a. SUPER CASSETTES INDUSTRIES LTD. VS BATLA CASSETTES
INDUSTRIAL LTD.
13. ECONOMIC AND MORAL RIGHTS OF THE AUTHOR
a. FIRST OWNER – SECTION 17
b. FAIR DEALING – SECTION 52
c. REPRODUCTION, TRANSLATION AND ADAPTATION OF ANY WORK –
SECTION 14
d. SPECIAL RIGHTS – SECTION 57
e. CASES – MANU BHANDARI VS KALA VIKAS MOTION PICTURES LTD.;
AMARNATH SEHGAL VS UOI
14. JOINT AUTHORSHIP – SECTIONS 2(Z), 17,
a. NAJMA HEPTULLAH VS ORIENT LONGMAN
b. COLLECTIVE WORK AND TENANCY IN COMMON
c. DERIVATIVE WORK AND JOINT AUTHORSHIP
d. MARTIN VS COGAN
15. SECTIONS 13(1)(a), 2(f), 14 (d)
a. STAR INDIA PVT LTD. VS LEO BURNETT
16. COPYRIGHT OF CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS
a. SECTIONS 13 (1) (a), 2(f), 14(d), 13(3), 13(1)(b), 52(1)(y), 2(ff).
b. EPHEMERAL RECORDING – SECTION 52(1)(z)
c. RG ANAND VS DELUX FILMS
d. DHOOM 3 VS YASHRAJ FILMS
17. TERMS OF COPYRIGHT AND SOUND RECORDING – Ss. 2(xx), 2(y), 13(1),
13(2),(3); 13(3)(b), 13(4), 2(m), 31(c), 52(1)(j)
18. TERMS OF COPYRIGHT – CHAPTER V OF THE ACT SECTIONS 23 – 29
ASSIGNMENT
a. RAJ VIDEO VISION LTD. VS K MOHAN KRISHNA
b. VIDEO MASTERS VS NISHI PRODUCTIONS
c. JOGENDRANATH SEN VS STATE
d. AA ASSOCIATIONS VS PREM GOYAL AND ORS.
e. NATIONAL PUBLISHING HOUSE VS AMIT SACHDEVA
19. CHAPTER VI OF THE ACT – DIFFERENCES BETWEEN LICENSES AND
ASSIGNMENT
20. TYPES OF LICENSE –
a. Exclusive license
b. Non exclusive license
c. Co exclusive license
d. Sole license – SUPER CASSETTES PVT. LTD. VS ENTERTAINMENT
NETWORK
21. NEIGHBORING/PERFORMERS RIGHTS
a. INDIAN PERFORMING RIGHT SOCIETY VS EASTERN INDIAN MOTION
PICTURE ASSOCIATION
22. COPYRIGHT OF COMPUTER DATABASE AND COMPUTER PROGRAMMING
– SECTIONS 2(o) of copyright act r/w sections 43, 66 of information technology act;
SECTION 65, 2(ffb), 2(ffc), 52(1)(aa) OF COPYRIGHT ACT
23. BROADCASTING RIGHT – SECTIONS 2(dd) r/w 37; 37€, 14(a)(iii), 14(c)(ii),
14(d), 14(e), 52, 52(1)(a),
24. INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT – CH XI OF THE ACT – SECTIONS 51, 51,
14, 13, 2(m)
a. RG ANAND VS DELUX FILM
b. TYPES OF INFRINGEMENT
c. TESTS OF INFRINGEMENT
d. STAR INDIA PVT LTD VS LEO BURNETT
e. SHREE VENKATESH FILMS PVT LTD VS VIPUL AMRUTLAL SHAH
f. MRF LTD. VS METRO TYRES.
Patent Act
 Raj Prakash v. Mangat Ram Chaudhari

 Gillette industries v Yashwant Brothers
 Sankalp Rehabilitation Trust v. Hoffman
 Bishwanath Prasad Radhashyam v. Hindustan Metal Industries
Is improvement patentable?
“It is important to bear in mind that in order to be patentable an improvement on
something known before or a combination of different matters already known, should be
something more than a mere workshop improvement; and must independently satisfy the
test of invention or an “inventive step”. To be patentable the improvement or the
combination must produce a new result, or a new article or a better or cheaper article than
before”
 Novartis AG v UOI
 Standipack Pvt Ltd. v. M/S Oswal Trading Co. Ltd.

 Ram Pratap v. Bhabha Atomic Research Centre
 Diamond v. Chakravarty
 Lallubhai Chakubhai Zariwala case
A claim in a patent will be invalidated if it has been publicly used before the priority date of
the claim. Secret use of the invention will not be taken into account. The word „secret use‟
has been substituted by the words „personal document or secret trial or secret use‟, by the
Amendment Act of 2002. Public use does not mean use by the public, but use in a public
manner and not secretly. A use of the invention for the purposes of trade may constitute a
public user which invalidates the patent, and it has been held that the prior public sale of the
good or articles treated according to the invention is a public user. But in order for the sale to
constitute sufficient evidence of public user it should be open and in the ordinary way of
business.How far such knowledge anticipates the new invention is a question of fact
depending on the facts and circumstances of the case.
 Cadilla Pharmaceuticals v. Instacare

In the case of Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Instacare Lab. Pvt. Ltd., 15the court held that it
is the process which is protected through patents and not the combinations of drugs as such.
Trademarks Act
 Mr. A D Padamsingh Issac & M/s Aachi Masala v/s Aachi Cargo Channels (P) Ltd.
The submission of the appellants was with respect to being the registered proprietor and
therefore having the exclusive right to use the word Aachi and that the respondents cannot
use the word regardless of being in a completely different service/business.
http://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-1269-courts-take-on-translated-marks-an-
analysis-of-mr-a-d-padamsingh-issac-and-m-s-aachi-masala-v-aachi-cargo-channels-p-ltd-
.html
 Reckitt Colman of India Ltd. v/s Kiwi T.T.K. Ltd.
Whether the product which has been shown as others is a product of the plaintiff or can
make the general public believe that this product belongs to the plaintiff or in any way
can be connected with it?
 Five principles to decide as to whether a party is entitled to an injunction are as under:
 A tradesman is entitled to declare his goods to be best in the words, even though
the declaration is untrue.
 He can also say that my goods are better than his competitors‟, even though such a
statement is untrue.
 For the purpose of saying that his goods are the best in the world or his goods are
better than his competitors‟, he can even compare the advantages of his goods
over the goods of others.
 He, however, cannot while saying his goods are better than his competitors‟, say
that his competitors‟ goods are bad. If he says so, he really slanders the goods of
his competitors. In other words, he defames his competitors and their goods,
which is not permissible.
 If there is no defamation to the goods or to the manufacturer of such goods no

action lies, but if there is such defamation an action lies and if an action lies for
recovery of damages for defamation, then the Court is also competent to grant an
order of injunction restraining repetition of such defamation.
 The settled law on the subject is that a manufacturer is entitled to make a statement
that his goods are the best and also make some statements for puffing of his goods and
the same will not give a cause of action to other traders or manufacturers of similar
goods to institute, proceedings as there is no disparagement or defamation to the
goods of the manufacturer so doing. However, a manufacturer is not entitled to say
that his competitor‟s goods are bad so as to puff and promote his goods
 Sunil Mittal v. Darzi on Call Section 9 and Section 31,section2

a. Whether the word „DARZI‟ is generic/ descriptive word incapable of
being registered as trademark?
b. Whether infringement of only a part of a logo/ label can be challenged?
The court adjudged that DARZI is not a generic or descriptive word for rendering tailoring
services and thus can be registered. The court also decided that the word „DARZI‟ forms an
essential and integral part of the label/logo and its infringement can be challenged
independently of other parts of the logo. Further, the court held that it cannot be expected
from a person to file suit against each and every person who is using his trademark if it does
not affect him.
The court distinguished the use of the word DARZI for an individual (tailor) from using it for
the service rendered by a tailor i.e. tailoring thereby declaring it not to be descriptive /generic
but the distinction is very thin. The court only considered the usage of the word in Delhi
thereby limiting the scope of the judgement only to where the place of business of the
plaintiff is located. The court also took a strong stance against trademark squatting and
pointed out that litigation should not be made into a business.
The court did not consider section 9(1)(c) which clear lays down that for a generic mark there
cannot be registration under the Act.
 Parakh Vanijya Private Limited vs Baroma Agro Product

infringement and passing off special Biryani Rice under the mark “MALABAR GOLD” or
other mark/trade name which is identical with and/or deceptively similar to the appellant‟s
trade mark „MALABAR‟.
The case arises out of an appeal against an order passed by the the High Court of Calcutta
where it was held that the respondent (defendant) is entitled to use the word „MALABAR‟ in
conjunction with the mark „BAROMA‟ for selling its product - Biryani Rice. Appellant
(Plaintiff) claims to have been using the mark „MALABAR‟ or selling Biryani Rice from
2001. The appellant filed the suit for infringement and passing off special Biryani Rice under
the mark “MALABAR GOLD” or other mark/trade name which is identical with and/or
deceptively similar to the appellant‟s trade mark „MALABAR‟.
“Condition & Limitation: REGISTRATION OF THIS TRADE MARK SHALL GIVE NO
RIGHT TO THE EXCLUSIVE USE OF WORD „MALABAR‟ AND ALL OTHER
DESCRIPTIVE MATTERS”
Appellant has no exclusive right over the word MALABAR.
Geographical Indication Act
 Basmati rice case
 Darjeeling Lounge case

 Monsanto case
Protection of plant varieties and farmers rights act
 Pepsico v. Bipin Patel
Biodiversity Act
 Kani Tribes issue

 UT of Pondicherry v. Pepsico
 Divya Pharmacy v. UOI
 Czech Scientists case
 Japanese Nationals case

Ipr Contents

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ipr Contents

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ipr Contents

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IPR:

1. PROPERTY AND ITS RELATION WITH COPYRIGHT

In India registration is mandatory

Difference b/w copyright and patent

3. DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PUBLICATION AND PRODUCTION

Who is the first owner of the copyright-s.17

Two theories u s17

i) Contract for work- employee is the first owner

b. FORTUNE FILMS VS DEV ANAND

 Raj Prakash v. Mangat Ram Chaudhari

 Standipack Pvt Ltd. v. M/S Oswal Trading Co. Ltd.

 Cadilla Pharmaceuticals v. Instacare

 Reckitt Colman of India Ltd. v/s Kiwi T.T.K. Ltd.

 Five principles to decide as to whether a party is entitled to an injunction are as under:

 If there is no defamation to the goods or to the manufacturer of such goods no

 Sunil Mittal v. Darzi on Call Section 9 and Section 31,section2

 Parakh Vanijya Private Limited vs Baroma Agro Product

Geographical Indication Act

 Basmati rice case

 Darjeeling Lounge case

Protection of plant varieties and farmers rights act

 Pepsico v. Bipin Patel

 Kani Tribes issue

You might also like