INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW I

MODULE – 1 : FOUNDATION – 2 cl.hr

• Concept of Property
• Classification of Property
• Intellectual Property
• Need for a separate law for IP
• Sale of Goods Act and Copyright Act
interaction
 MODULE – 2 : BACKGROUND – 2 cl.hr

• Foundational principles of the copyright law

• Objectives of Copyright Protection
• Scope and extent of the copyright law
• Necessary limitations on the Copyright Protection
• Balancing Copyright Protection with accessibility
• What are the subjects that can be brought under
Copyright regime?
MODULE –3 : JUSTIFICATIONS – 2 cl.hr.
• Constitution and Copyright
• Philosophical Justification for Copyright
Protection.
• Copyright and market
MODULE – 4 : INT. TREATIES – 2 cl. hr

• TRIPS - Standards
• Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary
and Artistic Works
• The WIPO Copyright Treaty
• The WIPO Performances and Phonograms
Treaty
• The Rome Convention for the Protection of
Performers.
• Marrakesh Treaty for Visually Impaired
MODULE – 5 : SCHEME OF COPYRIGHT ACT – 4 cl.hr.

• Meaning of copyright
• The administrative and appellate structure
• Procedure
• Ownership of the copyright and the rights
• Infringement of Copyright
• Civil remedies
• Licenses and Assignment
• Copyright Societies
MODULE – 6: NEIGHBOURING RIGHTS & MORAL RIGHT – 6 cl.hr.

• Rights of Broadcasting Organisations

• Performers’ Rights
• Moral Right - -Right to Paternity, Right to
Integrity,
MODULE –7 : IDEA - EXPRESSION – 2 cl. hr

• The Distinction between idea and expression

• Idea – Expression Dichotomy in Copyright Law:
• When do ideas get the protection – the
necessary transformation to the expression
stage.
• Doctrine of Merger
 MODULE – 8 : SUBJECT MATTER – 12 cl.hr
• Literary Work:
• Musical Work:
• Dramatic Works:
• Artistic Work:
• Sound Recording and Cinematograph Film:
MODULE – 8 : REQUIREMENTS – 3 cl.hr
• Fixation:
• Need for Tangible Medium:
• Copyright in Speech:
• Originality
• What are the tests of Originality?
MODULE – 9 : COMP. PROGRAM- 2 cl. hr.

• Copyright for Computer Programs:

• Protection – Literal and Non Literal elements in
the Computer Program
• Distinction between idea and expression in
computer program
• Protection of the object codes and the source
codes
• What amounts to substantial copying in
computer programs
 MODULE – 9 : INFRINGEMENT -4 cl.hr
• Tests for Infringement:
• Indirect Infringement and Secondary Liability:
• Who is an intermediary?
• What are the liabilities of intermediaries?
• What are the other provisions dealing with the
intermediary liability in the domestic law?
• What is Safe Harbour and when can the
protection under Safe Harbour be claimed?
 MODULE – 10 : FAIR USE – 5 cl.hr
• Concept
• Criteria
• Statutory Provisions
• Cases
MODULE – 11: RECENT DEVELOPMENTS – 5
cl.hr
• Orphan works
• John Doe Orders
• Internet streaming
• Database right
• Hot news
• Right to Dub Films
• Freedom of Panorama
 MARKS DISTRIBUTION
PROJECT – 3000 WORDS – 30 MARKS
SUBJECT VIVA – 10 MARKS
END SEM EXAM – 60 MARKS
 What is Intellectual Property?

Intellectual property (IP) refers to

creations of the mind: inventions, literary
and artistic works, and symbols, names,
images, and designs used in commerce.

16
 Creativity (Creation Of The Mind)

Creativity is the ability to

– Think / come up with new idea
– Design new “inventions”
– Produce “works of art”
– Solve problems in new ways, or develop a
new idea based on an “original” knowledge.
– Novel or unconventional approach.
17
 IP Evolution
Property 🡪 Right
INTELLECT – PROPERTY – RIGHT
Idea 🡪 Expression 🡪 COPYRIGHT
Idea 🡪 Innovation 🡪 Invention 🡪 PATENT
Idea 🡪 Quality + Identity 🡪 TRADEMARK
Idea 🡪 Appearance 🡪 DESIGN
Idea 🡪 Keep Confidential
No Disclosure 🡪 TRADE SECRETS

18
 DURATION
• Copyright – Life + 60 years, 60 years
• Patent – 20 years
• Trade Mark – Renewable every 10 years
• Design – 10+ 5 years
• Plant Variety – 18 / 15 years
• G I – 10 years renewable
• Semi conductor – 10 years
Consumer Products
Pharmaceutical Product
Textile & Jewellery
 Spectrum of Distinctiveness & Levels of
Protection
Fanciful

nger Arbitrary
Stro

Suggestive
ke r
e a
W
Descriptive

Generic
Marks Declared Famous
 NOVELTY OR ORIGINALITY
•Design – qualify for registration – new or
original
•New – created first time, hitherto unknown
•Original – new application of existing design,
known design but applied to an article for the
first time
•Original – by definition, originating from the
author.
TEST OF NOVELTY
 WELFARE LEGISLATION
• Delhi High Court has observed in DU
photocopy case that Copyright is a welfare
legislation and interest of authors and owner
have to be balanced with the interest of the
society.
 MYTH OF IPR
• Protection for intellect or investment?
• Thou shall not steal
• Any thing worth copying is worth protecting
• Trade secret or Patent?
• Incremental innovation
• Utility Model Protection in India?
 WHAT DO WE WANT TO ACHIEVE
• “The Court was urged to strike a balance
between the need to promote research and
development in science and technology and to
keep private monopoly (called an ‘aberration’
under our Constitutional scheme) at the
minimum”. – Novartis v. Union of India, SC
2013.
 COST OF MEDICINE
• The cost of the drug for the treatment of this
disease comes to about Rs.1,20,000 per
month in India. At the same time, the generic
versions are available in the country which
cost only Rs.8,000 to Rs.10,000.
 OVERARCHING PUBLIC INTEREST
• “Court was also reminded that an error of
judgment by it will put life-saving drugs
beyond the reach of the multitude of ailing
humanity not only in this country but in many
developing and under-developed countries,
dependent on generic drugs from India”.
 PROPERTY
• Own

• Use

• Sale

• Destroy
 Kinds of Property

• Movable Property -Car, Pen, Furniture, Dress

• Immovable Property - Land, Building

• Intellectual Property - Literary works,

invention
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
 IP – N0N RIVALROUS GOODS
• The Writings of Thomas Jefferson (Derby & Jackson, 1859):
• [The] peculiar character [of an idea] is that no one
possesses the less, because every other possesses the
whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives
instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who
lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening
me.
• A non-rivalrous good, therefore, is something that people
can share at the same time without any single person
having to even temporarily give up part of it. In the words
of Thomas Jefferson, each person “possesses the whole of
it.”
 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
• Art 1 of TRIPs
• Copyright
• Patent
• Trade Mark
• Industrial Design
• Trade Secret
• Geographical Indication
• Layout of Integrated Circuit
 SALE OF GOODS & COPYRIGHT

• Owner – right to use, sell, destroy

• No transfer of copyright
COPYRIGHT NOTICE
 IPR AS HUMAN RIGHT
• Art 27, UDHR – Every one has the right to
freely participate in the cultural life of the
community, to enjoy the arts and to share in
scientific advancement and its benefits.
• Every one has the right to the protection of
moral and material interests resulting from
any scientific, literary or artistic production of
which he is the author.
 NATIONAL IPR POLICY
• IP rights are essentially private rights.
• The primary obligation of protecting IP rights is
on the IPR owners who can seek legal remedies
for enforcement of their rights.
• Along with providing an effective mechanism for
enforcement of IP rights, it is equally important
to balance the rights of the public in a manner
conducive to social and economic welfare and
to prevent misuse or abuse of IP rights.
 NATIONAL IPR POLICY
• There is a need to build respect for IPR among
the general public and to sensitize the
inventors and creators of IP on measures for
protection and enforcement of their rights.
• At the same time, there is also a need to build
the capacity of the enforcement agencies at
various levels, including strengthening of IPR
cells in State police forces.
 PUBLIC GOOD
• Copyright Law –Objectives
• Incentive through exploitation of creative
work
• Access to cultural, educational and scientific
material
• Balance between two objectives
TECHNOLOGICAL CHALLENGES
 OBJECTIVES OF COPYRIGHT LAW
• Statute of Anne 1710 – “An Act for the
encouragement of learning”

• Reward to author,

• Making work available to public

EXAMPLES OF COPYRIGHTED WORK
 TYPES OF WORKS
• Literary work
• Artistic work
• Dramatic work
• Musical work
• Sound Recording
• Cinematograph Films
FEATURES OF COPYRIGHT

• Fixation

• Originality

• Natural Right

• Registration - optional
FUNDAMENTALS OF COPYRIGHT
• Protects Expression and
not Idea
• No Copyright in Events
• No Copyright in Slogan
– YAH DIL MANGE
MORE
COPYRIGHT IN CHARACTER
• Character – to be
created

• Expression of Character

• Ownership

• Exploiting reputation of
Character commercially
 TYPES OF RIGHTS
• To reproduce
• To issue the copies of work to public
• To perform in public
• To communicate to public
• To make cinematograph film
• To make translation
• To make adaptation
 TERM OF COPYRIGHT
• Literary work , Artistic
work, Dramatic work,
Musical Work – Life of
the Author plus 60
years

• Sound Recording,
Cinematograph Work –
60 years from
publication
 AUTHOR - OWNER
• Author - generally first owner of copyright

• Employer - in course of employment & for

consideration - owner of copyright

• Govt. work - Government

 NEW WORKS UNDER COPYRIGHT
• Computer Program

• Database

• Tables

• Fan fictions
 TRANSFER OF COPYRIGHT
• Licensing

• Exclusive Licensing

• Assignment
 MORAL RIGHT
• Right of Paternity

• Right of Integrity
 RELATED RIGHTS
• Broadcast Reproduction
Right

• Performer’s Right
 PULSE OF INDIAN JUDICIARY
PHONOGRAPHIC PERFORMANCE LTD V. UNION
OF INDIA - (DELHI HIGH COURT 2015)

⮚ “ The author should not be made to run from

one court to other court, wherever the
infringement of their copyright takes place,
they should be able to initiate such proceeding
before the District Court where they live”.
 POWER OF POLICE
• Section 64 - Police officers, of the rank of a sub-
inspector and above, to seize without warrant all
infringing copies of works “if he is satisfied” that
an offence of infringement under section 63, “has
been, is being, or is likely to be, committed”.
• Prima facie, this is a very sweeping power since its
exercise is unsupervised by the judiciary and only
depends on the “satisfaction” of a police officer.
 CONSTITUTIONALITY OF POWER OF POLICE
GIRISH GANDHI V. UNION OF INDIA – (RAJASTHAN
HIGH COURT 1997)
⮚ Section 64 - gives arbitrary and naked powers without
any guidelines to the police officer to seize any
material from the shop - likelihood that police officer
shall misuse his powers
⮚ Court upheld the constitutionality of the section -
"satisfaction" to mean that the "police officer will not
act until and unless he has got some type of
information on which information he is satisfied and
his satisfaction shall be objective."
 BALANCING JOB
EVENT AND ENTERTAINMENT MANAGEMENT
ASSOCIATION V. UNION OF INDIA (DELHI HIGH COURT
2011)
⮚ JUSTICE MURALIDHAR observed that merely on the
receipt of the information or a complaint from the
owner of a copyright about the infringement of the
copyrighted work, the Police is not expected to
straightway effect seizure.
⮚ The caution that the Police is required to exercise by
making a preliminary inquiry and satisfying itself that
prima facie there is an infringement of copyright
 JOHN DOE ORDER
• Order against unknown defendants.
• TAJ TELEVISION V. RAJAN MANDAL (DELHI HIGH
COURT, 2003) – For restraining telecast of FIFA
WORLD CUP by various cable networks without
license.
• MASSAN CASE( BOMBAY HIGH COURT, 2015) –
Order to restrain known and unknown film pirates
based on apprehension of breach of copyright
- Order against ISP to block video sharing and
torrent sites.
 JOHN DOE IN FILM INDUSTRY
• JOHN DOE order has been granted in case of following movies –
❑ Happy New Year
❑ Bodyguard
❑ Singham
❑ Bombay Velvet
⮚ THE PIKU CASE - Injunction prohibiting defendant from
communicating, making available, displaying, releasing,
uploading, downloading, playing the movie “PIKU” – MULTI
SCREEN MEDIA LTD V. WWW.VIMEO.COM (DELHI HIGH COURT,
2015)
⮚ The order was also extended to multi system operator / cable
operators who were engaged in unlicensed reproduction and
broadcast in local channels.
 PUNITIVE DAMAGES

• Recent trend in India in copyright enforcement –

to deter a wrong doer and the like minded from
indulging in such unlawful activities – ranging
from INR100,000 to 500,000.
• Punitive damages have been awarded in
following cases –
❑MICROSOFT CORP V. DEEPAK RAVAL, 2006
❑MICROSOFT CORP V. SUSHEEL KUMAR, 2015
❑SAP AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT V. APPSONE, 2015
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
• Police to entertain complaint and register it as FIR.
• Filed by the copyright owner or representative
(needs Power of Attorney)
• Copyright registration is not mandatory and does
not confer any right.
• Sec 55 (2) - Where, in the case of a literary,
dramatic, musical or artistic work, a name
purporting to be that to the author or the
publisher, the person whose name so appears be
presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to be
the author or the publisher of the work.
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
• Sec 52 A - No person shall publish a video film
without name and address of the person who has
made the video film and a declaration by him that
he has obtained the necessary license and the name
and address of the owner of the copyright in such
work.
• Search and seizure as per Criminal Procedure Code.
• Necessary precaution to control interference in
Police work
• Trained experts to accompany.
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
• All proofs are to be collected as evidence.
• Seize authorization letter, supply register,
stock register, rental deeds, license deeds.
• To ensure copyright owner has not given
license to alleged infringer.
• A list of seized materials to be prepared with
signature of witnesses.
• Preparing charge sheet.
 STATE INITIATIVE
• Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra –
included Audio & Video piracy within Goonda
Act – one additional tool to act upon piracy.
• Telengana, Kerala & Andhra Pradesh – created
Anti Piracy Cell to curb audio and video piracy.
• Karnataka – Designated First Track Court for
IPRs.
• West Bengal – WB Prohibition of Audio –
Video Piracy Act 2013
 COPYRIGHT AS HUMAN RIGHT
• Art 27, UDHR – Every one has the right to
freely participate in the cultural life of the
community, to enjoy the arts and to share in
scientific advancement and its benefits.
• Every one has the right to the protection of
moral and material interests resulting from
any scientific, literary or artistic production of
which he is the author.
 PUBLIC GOOD
• Copyright Law –Objectives
• Incentive through exploitation of creative
work
• Access to cultural, educational and scientific
material
• Balance between two objectives
 ROBUST PUBLIC DOMAIN
• Limited monopoly
• Ideas not protected
• No prohibition in use of material
• Fair use – exception
• Compulsory license
• More and more work must be created
• Copyrighted material must fall in public
domain
 SALE OF GOODS & COPYRIGHT
• Owner – right to use, sell, gift, destroy
• No transfer of copyright
• Transfer of copyright – no sale of goods
• What is copyright?
• Objective – reward to author, making work
available to public
 WALTER V. LANE , (1900) AC 539
• Taking note of a speech through shorthand
gave birth to a copyrighted work
• Need felt of originality standard
 CONCEPT OF COPYRIGHT

• Statutory right
• Limited monopoly right
• Negative right
• Bundle of rights
• Originality – Eastern Book Co. v. Navin Desai –
copyright in law reports
• Protects expression not idea – Barbara Taylor v.
Sahara – Women of Substance - Karishma
• Duration - life + 60 years
 ORIGINALITY
• University London Press v. University Tutorial
Press , (1916) 2 Ch 601
• Original means originating from author
• Need not to be new or said for the first time
• Must not be copied from others
• Not Novelty of Patent law.
 EVOLUTION OF ORIGINALITY STANDARD
• Sweat of the Brow
• Govindan v. Gopalkrishnan AIR 1955 Mad 391
• Potential to monopolise data itself.
• Feist Publication 499 US 340 (1991) – modicum of
creativity
• Too high standard – more like novelty of Patent
• CCH V. Law Society of Upper Canada 2004 SCC 13 –
investment of skill and judgment which is non
trivial and non mechanical
• EBC V. D B Modak – (2008) 1 SCC 1 –
transformative work
 Associated Publishers (Madras) Ltd. v.
K. Bashyam
AIR 1961 MADRAS 114
• Portrait of Mahatma Gandhi in a sitting posture
• Original artistic work – entitled to copyright
• Portrait - most popular and common portrait of
Mahatma – in public domain
• Mahatma was sitting with his right leg folded
inside and left leg outside which was an unusual
posture

77
Associated Publishers (Madras) Ltd. v. K.
Bashyam
• Portrait was made by compounding from two
photographs of Mahatma Gandhi, the body
was taken from one and the head from other.
• Labour and skill required by the Plaintiff to
make the combination, was enough to call his
portrait as original.
• Result of compounding was different from
previous one, so original.

78
 FUNDAMENTALS
• No copyright in event
• Slogan – yeh dil mange more – de minimis
• Character – V.T. Thomas v. Malayam
Manorama
• Software – source code , object code
 Anil Gupta v. Kunal Dasgupta
2002 (25) PTC 1
• Plaintiff conceived idea of producing a reality
television program containing the process of
match making
• Registered it after developing the concept as a
literary work
• Gave defendant one page concept note
• Gave a detailed presentation to defendant
• Defendant announced a similar program

80
 Anil Gupta v. Kunal Dasgupta
2002 (25) PTC 1
• Plaintiff claimed breach of confidentiality
against defendant
• Plaintiff contended misappropriation of
copyrighted literary work
• Defendant contended TV program format –
just a theme, no copyright protection
• Reality show on match making theme – in
public domain – defendant’s work is equally
original – no infringement

81
 Anil Gupta v. Kunal Dasgupta
2002 (25) PTC 1
• Defendant is restrained to launch its program
for four months
• To stop robbing off plaintiff’s work
• TV program based on reality show is
dependent on uniqueness of its concept
• First concept writer ought to be protected by
giving a time gap to offer head start
• After that , it will be open competition and
market will decide
82
 TYPES OF WORKS
• Literary work
• Artistic work
• Dramatic work
• Musical work
• Sound Recording
• Cinematograph Films
 TYPES OF RIGHTS
• To reproduce
• To issue the copies of work to public
• To perform in public
• To communicate to public
• To make cinematograph film
• To make translation
• To make adaptation
 AUTHOR - OWNER
• Author - generally owner of copyright
• Employer - in course of employment & for
consideration - owner of copyright
• Govt. work - Government
• Assignment - mode of transfer - in writing
• Term - Cinematograph, sound recording, Govt
work - 60 years from publication
 ENGINE DOCTRINE
• Eldred v. Ashcroft –
• Online platform to make public domain
material accessible
• Copyright Term Extension Act
• Copyright to promote free speech
• No conflict – supplement
• Engine of free speech.
 IDEA - EXPRESSION
• Copyright protects only expression and not
ideas
• No monopoly over idea, scientific principles,
historical facts, themes, subject matter.
• Barbara Taylor Bradford v. Sahara Media and
Ent. Ltd, 2004 (28) PTC 474 – Struggle of
Woman is a theme which can not be
monopolized. There can be one novel and
one television serial on same theme.
 IDEA – EXPRESSION MERGER
• Mattel v. Jayant Agarwalla 2008 (38) PTC 416
– No copyright over SCRABBLES board as there
are few ways of expressing ideas – protecting
expression is as good as protecting idea.
 HOT NEWS
• News having momentarily commercial value
• Akuate Internet Service Ltd v. Star India Ltd
MIPR 2013 (3) 1.
• No protection over hot news as it will affect
free speech.
 R. G. Anand v. M/s Delux Films
AIR 1978 SC 1613
• Plaintiff, a playwright, wrote a play “Hum
Hindusthani”
• Defendant was interested to make it a film
• The play was narrated to the defendant
• Defendant did not make commitment
• Later on announces a film “New Delhi”
• Both based on common theme –provincialism
• Film was different in content, spirit & climax
90
 R. G. Anand v. M/s Delux Films
AIR 1978 SC 1613
1. No copyright in idea, theme, plot
2. Idea developed from common source might
have similarities
3. Reader, viewer must get unmistakable
impression that later one is copy of the former
4. Same theme, treated differently, constitute
independent copyrightable work
5. Broad dissimilarities negate infringement claim
91
 OTHER RIGHTS
• Compulsory licensing
• Moral right of author
• Copyright Society - IPRS
• Performers’ right
• Broadcast Reproduction right
• Registration of copyright - evidence
• Fair use
• Copyright in Internet
 EXCEPTION
• Statute makes them exception to infringement
– Sec 52
• Personal use
• Research
• Educational use
• News reporting
• Review or criticism
 UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD V. RAMESHWARI
PHOTOCOPY SERVICE
DELHI HIGH COURT 2016
• Infringement issue against photocopied
material in Delhi University

• Sec 52 (1) (i)

- the reproduction of any work- (i) by a teacher or a pupil in the
course of instruction

• Justified purpose and not unnecessary prejudice legitimate interest of author.

• No restriction by legislature,
 Manu Bhandari v. Kala Vikas Kendra
AIR 1987 DELHI 13
• Manu Bhandari’s Novel was made into a film
by Kala Vikas
• Licensing agreement allows to make changes
for successful adaptation
• Author’s right to protect work from mutilation
v. director’s freedom to make successful
adaptation
• Sec 57 overrides contractual rights
• Permission to make changes for adaptation –
in consultation with author
95
 Manu Bhandari v. Kala Vikas Kendra
AIR 1987 DELHI 13
• Modification simplicitor allowed
• Modification to the extent perversion of
original not allowed
• Contractual terms can not restrict scope of Sec
57
• End part of film to be deleted as too much of
departure from novel
• No reference be made about the novel

96
Burlington Home Shopping Pvt. Ltd. v.
Rajnish Chibber
1995 PTC (15) 278 1995 PTC (15) 278
• Plaintiff – mail order service co – publishes
mail order catalogue – contains clients list
• Defendant – ex employee of plaintiff – started
same business in competition with plaintiff –
copied plaintiff’s client’s list
• Defendant’s floppies were seized and found
substantial portion of client’s list of plaintiff –
word by word, space by space
97
Burlington Home Shopping Pvt. Ltd. v.
Rajnish Chibber
1995 PTC (15) 278 1995 PTC (15) 278
• Punctuation marks were same
• Spelling mistakes were same
• Allowing defendant would cause injury to
plaintiff
• Compilation derived from common source –
literary work – deserves copyright
• Colourable imitation – question of fact
• Slavish copy - infringement 98
 OFFENCES
• Offences – infringement of copyright, using
infringing copy of computer program, possessing
plates for making infringing copies, making false
entry
• Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Metropolitan Magistrate
shall try these offences
• Sub inspector and superior officer can seize infringing
copies and plates without warrant and to submit
them before Magistrate as soon as possible
• Non bailable offence
 COPYRIGHT IN DNA SEQUENCE
Emergent Genetics India P
vt. Ltd. v. Shailendra Shiva
m and Ors.

It found that D2’s seed varieties were genotypically

similar to its own seed varieties having subjected the
latter’s seeds to a DNA Fingerprinting Test (a test
whereby the genetic makeup of two seeds is
compared). It therefore sought a permanent injunction
from the court restraining the defendants from
manufacturing, selling or offering to sell their seeds.
 COPYRIGHT IN DNA SEQUENCE
• Sequences obtained from nature cannot be
considered to be original. The scientist involved in
gene sequencing ‘discovers’ facts and does not
independently create them. These sequences are
merely copied from nature that contains codes for
proteins. The minimum creativity threshold is not
satisfied. However the court does not address the
contention of the Plaintiffs that the sequences can
be original since they came into existence as a
result of the hybridization process used by the
Plaintiff.
 REMEDIES
• Injunction – interlocutory , permanent
• Mareva Injunction – to prevent disposing of
infringing goods
• Anton Pillar order – to enter and inspect with
permission of defendant
• Compensation
• Account of profit
 JUDGMENTS
• Microsoft Corporation v. Indus Valley
Partners ( India ) Pvt. Ltd. 2014 (60) PTC 15 –
Delhi High Court granted permanent
injunction for infringing copyright in computer
program.
• Rajeev Kumar v. Microsoft Corporation 2014
(59) PTC 195 – Delhi High Court granted Anton
Piller Order by appointing Ex Parte Local
Commissioner.
 JUDGMENTS
• Reliance Big Entertainment v. Multivision
Network CS(OS) No. 1724 of 2011 – Delhi High Court
granted John Doe Order to prevent potential online
piracy.
• SAP Aktiengesellschaft v. Sadiq Pasha Proprietor
2011 (46) PTC 335 – Delhi High Court awarded
punitive damages for using pirated software.
• Time Incorporated v. Lokesh Srivastava 2005 (50)
PTC 316 – Delhi High Court granted compensatory
and exemplary damages for copyright infringement.
 JUDGMENTS
• Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. V. Onkar Singh
2014 (57) PTC 460 – Delhi High Court directed
to deliver up infringing materials.
 JOHN DOE ORDER
• Order against unknown defendants.
• TAJ TELEVISION V. RAJAN MANDAL (DELHI HIGH
COURT, 2003) – For restraining telecast of FIFA
WORLD CUP by various cable networks without
license.
• MASSAN CASE( BOMBAY HIGH COURT, 2015) –
Order to restrain known and unknown film pirates
based on apprehension of breach of copyright
- Order against ISP to block video sharing and
torrent sites.
 JOHN DOE IN FILM INDUSTRY
• JOHN DOE order has been granted in case of following movies –
❑ Happy New Year
❑ Bodyguard
❑ Singham
❑ Bombay Velvet
⮚ THE PIKU CASE - Injunction prohibiting defendant from
communicating, making available, displaying, releasing,
uploading, downloading, playing the movie “PIKU” – MULTI
SCREEN MEDIA LTD V. WWW.VIMEO.COM (DELHI HIGH COURT,
2015)
⮚ The order was also extended to multi system operator / cable
operators who were engaged in unlicensed reproduction and
broadcast in local channels.
 PUNITIVE DAMAGES

• Recent trend in India in copyright enforcement –

to deter a wrong doer and the like minded from
indulging in such unlawful activities – ranging
from INR100,000 to 500,000.
• Punitive damages have been awarded in
following cases –
❑MICROSOFT CORP V. DEEPAK RAVAL, 2006
❑MICROSOFT CORP V. SUSHEEL KUMAR, 2015
❑SAP AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT V. APPSONE, 2015
 FAIR USE DOCTRINE
• HARPER & ROW TEST – determining factors
• (1) the purpose and character of the use;
• (2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
• (3) the substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted
work as a whole;
• (4) the effect on the potential market for or value of the copyrighted
work
• Referred in the case THE CHANCELLOR MASTERS & SCHOLARS OF
THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD v. NARENDERA PUBLISHING HOUSE
(DELHI HIGH COURT, 2008)
• Article 13 TRIPs. - Limitations and Exceptions
Members shall confine limitations or exceptions to exclusive rights to
certain special cases which do not conflict with a normal exploitation
of the work and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests
of the right holder.
 MORAL RIGHT IN MURAL
• Amar Nath Sehgal v. Union of India – Mural
created by Amar Nath Sehgal for Union of
India.
• Mural was placed before Vigyan Bhavan. Govt
decided to dismantle it for renovation and
kept in storehouse. Some portions of the
mural was broken while shifting.
• Court held Sehgal’s moral right was violated
and was awarded compensation and was
handed over to Amar Nath Sehgal.
 COPYRIGHT CASE AGAINST GOOGLE

• Delhi High Court granted ex parte injunction

against You Tube (Google) in an infringement
suit filed by T – Series.
• Copyright infringed materials of T- Series were
available in You Tube’s site.
• Issue of copyright infringement in Internet.
• Right Management Information – 2012
amendment
 CONCLUDING REMARKS

• STATUTE OF ANNE – ACT FOR

ENCOURAGEMENT OF LEARNING

• ELDRED V. ASHCROFT – PURPOSE OF

COPYRIGHT LAW IS TO FECILITATE
FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION
Strict enforcement of
excellent legislation

thank you