•Intellectual property is the creation of human mind, the humanintellect and hence called intellectual property.•By acquiring a legal right over the property, the creator of theintellectual property seeks to ensure that he has exclusive rightsover it and that property can be put to use by others only with hiscontent.•Common types of intellectual property rights include :• Copyrights• Trademarks• Patents• Industrial design rights• Trade secrets.
IPRs are key elements needed to maintain the competitive edge of any industry. Impart success to the business by creating and preserving exclusive markets. Increasing costs of R&D in developing new products and processes. To provide incentives to inventors for further research and investment in R&D.
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTYINDUSTRIAL COPYRIGHT AND EMERGINGPROPERTY NEIGHBOURING FORMS LAW•Patents •Writings •Domain Names(Inventions) •Musical Works •Digital•Trademark •Audiovisual Works Copyrights (Goods & •Painting & •GeographicalServices) Drawings Indications•Industrial •BroadcastsDesigns •Architectural Works •Performances •Sound Recordings
TATA SONS v/s BODACIOUS TATAs Trade mark violations through meta-tags. The defendants had hyperlinks to pornographic sites. The moment a user queried for TATAs, the defendants web site would show up in the search results right at the top. The Delhi High Court restrained the use of the famous trade mark “TATA” not only as a domain name and as a trade mark but also as a meta-tag.
Tata Sons Limited v/s Manu Kosuri The trade mark “TATA” had been copied in various forms by the domain name registrant, namely as jrdtata.com, ratantata.com, tatayodogawa.com, tatahoneywell.com, etc. The case was filed against in the Delhi High Court. The Delhi High Court found similarity between the trade mark TATA and each of these domain names. The domain names were put on hold by NSI. NSI filed a declaration in court stating that they would abide by the orders of the Delhi High Court in respect of these domain names.
Puneet Industrial Controls Pvt. Ltd. v/s. Classic Electronics: The plaintiff was engaged in the manufacturing and selling broad range of electric goods. The plaintiff alleged that his relative, misusing the trade secret and confidential information, had started his own manufacturing unit and started imitating the products. The court held that plaintiff had copyright over the information and restrained the defendants from imitating the products of the plaintiff.
BCCI v/s REDIFF.COM: Issued a notice against Rediff.com on a petition from the BCCI. To restrain the web portal from using the domain name “indianfantasyleague.com” in an online cricket game. Also to restrain the respondent using logo depicting a batsman playing a shot in the game, as they were deceptively similar to BCCIs Indian Premier League (IPL) trademark and the logo. Sought a direction to Rediff.com to render a true and faithful account of all profits earned by them by using the impugned trademark "IFL" as well as the logo. Claimed damages to the tune of Rs 10 lakhs.
BASMATI RICE ISSUE In September 1997, a Texas company called RiceTec won a patent on "basmati rice lines and grains”. RiceTec, owned by Prince Hans-Adam of Liechtenstein, faced international outrage over allegations of biopiracy. India threatened to take the matter to WTO as a violation of TRIPS which could have resulted in a major embarrassment for the United States. Both voluntarily and due to review decisions by the United States Patent Office, RiceTec has lost most of the claims of the patent, including, most importantly, the right to call their rice lines "basmati”. Huge victory for Indian farmers who could have faced
VIRGIN ATLANTIC v/s JET AIRWAYS “Virgin Atlantic” introduced an inward-facing herringbone layout, and holds a patent and design rights in several countries, including the UK. In 2007 Virgin Atlantic initiated legal proceedings against Premium Aircraft Interiors UK Ltd, known as Contour, the firm that designed the airline’s flatbed seats for selling copies of the design to rivals, including Jet Airways.
CONTD…. Virgin was unsuccessful at the first instance in Jan’09.But in Oct’09, the previous decision was overturned and ruled in favor of Virgin, holding the Patent to be valid and infringed. Virgin has filed an infringement suit against Jet Airways in the UK. The pre-grant opposition to the Indian Patent application is pending at the Chennai Patent Office and is presently at hearing stage. Jet Airways, if unsuccessful will incur huge loss (money and time), and subsequent patent infringement suits if Virgin is successful in obtaining a patent in India.