This document provides an overview of legal cases and remedies related to intellectual property rights enforcement in India. It discusses several key points: 1) Civil litigation is commonly used to seek compensation/profits and injunctions against infringement. Interim injunctions are important to maintain the status quo. 2) Criminal remedies can also be used for trademark or copyright violations, with penalties including imprisonment and fines. 3) Courts have recognized trans-border reputation in trademark cases and applied laws to new areas like domain names and design rights. 4) Remedies include permanent/interim injunctions, damages, account of profits, and Anton Pillar/John Doe orders in extreme cases. Landmarks set standards for proof

1. CASE STUDIES IN LEGAL
PURVIEW
CUSTOMS AND CROSS-BORDER
MEASURES

2. IP Enforcement-Remedies
 Civil
 Infringement
 Passing off
 Criminal
 Administrative
 Technological measures

3. Civil Litigation- Objective
 To provide compensation to the
right holder
 To prohibit future infringement
 Appropriate disposal of infringing
material and all tools/ plates / dyes
used for manufacturing the same.

4. Civil Action: Reliefs
 Injunctions against violations
 Raids & Seizures
 Damages OR Accounts of Profits
 Delivery up/ Discovery of infringing material /
documents
 Preservation of assets
 Copyright owner- Infringing material is deemed
to be his property.

5. Interim / Interlocutory Injunction
 Often the real remedy
 Objective: To maintain status quo
 Time is of essence
 Factors considered in granting :
 Prima facie case
 Balance of convenience
 Irreparable injury if injunction not granted
Gujarat Bottling Company v. Coca Cola 21 IPLR 201

6. Interlocutory injunction
 Statutory recognition
 Importance is also recognized by the judiciary
 Landmark Supreme Court judgments

7. Wander Ltd. & anr. vs. Antox India P.
Ltd.(1990 (2) ARBLR 399 SC, 1990 Supp (1) SCC
727)
Supreme Court on interlocutory injunctions:
“Usually, the prayer for grant of an interlocutory
injunction is at a stage when the existence of a
legal right asserted by the plaintiff & its alleged
violation are both contested… The object is to
protect the Plaintiff against injury by violation
of his rights for which he could NOT
adequately be compensated in damages
recoverable in the action if the uncertainty were
resolved in his favour at the trial.

8. Wander Ltd. & anr. vs. Antox India P.
Ltd. 1990 (2) ARBLR 399 SC, 1990 Supp (1) SCC
727
Supreme Court on Balance of Convenience:
“The need for such protection must be weighed
against the corresponding need for the
defendant to be protected against injury
resulting from his having been prevented from
exercising his own legal rights for which he
could not be adequately be compensated. The
Court must weigh one need against another
and determine where the balance of
convenience lies.”

9. Midas Hygiene Industries P. Ltd. V. Sudhir
Bhatia & Anr.(2004 (73) DRJ 647, 2004 (28) PTC
121 SC)
Supreme Court…
“…in cases of infringement either of trademark
or of copyright normally an injunction must
follow. Mere delay in bringing the action is not
sufficient to defeat grant of injunction in such
cases…the grant of injunction also becomes
necessary if if it prima facie appears that the
adoption of the mark itself was dishonest”.

10. Lakshmikant V. Patel vs. Chetanbhat
Shah(December, 2001)
Supreme Court:
“In an action for passing off it is usual, rather
essential to seek an injunction, temporary or
ad-interim”
“proof of actual damage is not essential…
likelihood of damage is sufficient”
“an absolute injunction can be issued
restraining the defendant from using or
carrying on business under the Plaintiff’s
distinctive trademark”.

11. Enforcement of IPRs -
Trademarks
 Indian Courts have applied and expanded
principles of trans-border reputation even if:
 The Plaintiff has no presence in India
 The goods of the defendant are entirely dissimilar
(dilution principle recognized)
 Provided knowledge of the mark acquired through various
sources of trans-border reputation

12. Enforcement- Domain names
 M/s Satyam Infoway Ltd. V. Sifynet Solutions Pvt.
Ltd. (2004) 6 SCC 145
 SC has held that domain names are subject to the
legal norms applicable to other intellectual
properties, such as trademarks.
 Yahoo Inc. v. Akash Arora 1999 PTC 201
 SC applied general trademark law to the internet.

13. Ex Parte Order
 When the matter is extremely urgent
 At a preliminary hearing of the interim
application without notice to the answering
defendant.
 Granted before the motion for interim
injunction is fully heard but for a limited period
only.
 After grant of ex parte injunction, the Court
must proceed with disposal of the interim
injunction application after the defendant has

14. Ex Parte Orders
 Injunction;
 Discovery of documents;
 Preserving of infringing goods, document of other
evidence related to the subject matter of the suit;
 Restraining the defendant from disposing off his
assets in a manner which may adversely affects
rights of the IP owner to claim damages, costs or
other pecuniary remedies.

15. Anton Pillar Order
 Anton Pillar v. Manufacturing Process (1976) RPC
719
 Similar to ex parte interlocutory order
 After a hearing, Court authorizes plaintiff to
inspect premises of defendant and take inventory
of the offending material

16. Anton Pillar Orders
 Sensitive in nature
 Pre conditions for grant:
 Extremely strong prima facie case
 Damage (potential or actual) very serious
 Clear evidence that defendants have in their
possession, incriminating document/ material
which they may destroy.

17. John Doe Order
 Court appointed commissioners 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
commissioners- Roving commissioners
 Ardath Tobacco Co. Ltd. vs. Mr. Munna Bhai & Ors.

18. Mareva Injunction
 Freezing order
 Prevents the infringer / offender from removing /
disposing of assets in which the gains from
infringement have been invested.
 Aim- unjust enrichment of the defendant and to
ensure payment of damages to Plaintiff

19. Final injunction
 To ascertain rights of the parties
 Remedies for Breach of injunction
 Police assistance
 Assistance of administrative bodies
 Contempt proceedings

20. Damages / Account of Profits
 These are mutually exclusive alternative
remedies
 Account of profits- An equitable relief
 Plaintiff adopts defendant’s acts as his own.
 Damages- for the losses suffered by the Plaintiff
on account of the defendant’s acts

21. Damages- recent trends
 Time Inc. vs. Lokesh Srivastava
 Punitive damages awarded for the first time – Rs 5
lakhs
 Distinction between compensatory damages and
punitive damages was made out.

22. Time Incorporated vs. Lokesh
Srivastava
Delhi High Court:
“The award of compensatory damages to a
plaintiff is aimed at compensating him for the
loss suffered by him whereas, punitive
damages are founded on the philosophy of
corrective justice and as such, in appropriate
cases these must be awarded to give a signal
to the wrong-doers that law does not take a
breach merely as a matter between rival
parties but feels concerned about those also
who are not party to this but suffer on account

23. Damages- recent trends
 Microsoft Corporation vs. Yogesh Papat & anr.
2005 (1) CTMR 424
 Highest costs and Damages ever awarded for IP
infringement by Indian Courts
 Approximately Rs 20 lakhs

24. Criminal Remedies- TM
 Falsification of Trademarks / Infringement of
copyright is a criminal offence
 A complaint may be filed before a Magistrate; OR
 Police can register an FIR and prosecute
directly; (statutory requirement to obtain the
Registrar’s approval.
 Registration is not a requirement.

25. Criminal Remedies- TM/ CR
 Cognizable offence
 Imprisonment- 6 months to 3 years
 Fine- Rs 50,000 to 2 lakhs
 Enhanced penalty on subsequent convictions.
 Seizure, forfeiture and destruction of infringing
goods/ material for placing before the
Magistrate.

26. Civil vs. Criminal
 Less hassle for the plaintiff
 Jurisdictional advantage
 Interlocutory Injunctions
 Damages
 Possibility of settlement
However…
 No deterrence
 No fear factor- no arrest
 Expensive & lengthy

27. Administrative Remedies
 Indian Customs Act, 1962
 Deals with import/ export of goods including
protection of patents, trademarks and
copyrights.
 Confiscation of infringing material by Excise
Authorities
 Restrictions against parallel importation of
goods

28. Technological measures
 Holograms
 Electronic devices
 Encryption
 Anti-copy devices

29. Enforcement of IPRs – TM Case
Studies.
 M/S HITACHI VS AJAY KR. AGGARWAl 1996
PTC(16) (DB)
HITACHI=HITAISHI.
 AMRUTANJAN LTD. VS AMARCHAND
SOBACHAND PTC(Suppl.) (1) 230(Mad)-
AMRUTANJAN PAIN BALM= AMAR’S PAIN
BALM.
 RUSTON & HORNBY LTD. VS ZAMINDARA
ENGINEERING CO. AIR 1970 SC 1649
RUSTON= RUSTAM INDIA.

30. CONTD.
 K.R. CHINNA KRISHNA CHETTIAR VS SRI
AMBAL & CO. AIR 1970 SC 146- SRI ANDAL =
SRI AMBAL.
 M/S PIDILITE IND. PVT.LTD. VS MITTEES
CORP. AIR 1989 DELHI 157- FEVICOL=
TREVICOL.
 COLGATE PALMOLIVE CO. VS SUNDEEP
ENTERPRISES 1995-PTC-10.
HARRISON= HARICON.
 LAKME LTD. VS SUBHASH TRADING 1996
PTC(16) 567
LAKME= LIKEME.

31. IMITATION DOES NOT MEAN
DUPLICATION-DESIGN
JUDGEMENT
 The landmark CASTROL VS TIDEWATER found the
Indian courts uphold a major design justiciablity that
mere duplication does not really amount to
duplication.
 HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA Suit No. 415 of 1993
Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction Castrol India
Ltd...............Petitioner Versus Tide Water Oil Co. (I)
Ltd................Respondents Ruma Pal, J. Decided on :
August 26, 1994 •
 The sequence of the obligation of the court in
considering an application for infringement of a design
is first to consider whether protection is claimed in
respect of a design or of the mode of manufacture.
The first is protected by the Design Act 1911 and the
second by the law of patents.

32. INFRINGEMENT BY SUBSEQUENT
PATENT??
 In the famous landmark case of HINDUSTAN
UNILEVER LTD VS LALIT WADHWA 200735
PTC DEL, its was held by the court that the
RIGHT OF PATENTEE IS ONLY AN
EXCLUSIONARY RIGHT.
 The court also held under the ambit of sec.64 of
Patents Act, that whenever a subsequent
patentee brings a suit for infringement then every
ground on which it may be revokes under sec
64, all of them shall be availaible as grounds for
defence. This means that when a subsequent
patentee brings a suit for infringement against an
earlierpatent holder, then the earlier patent holder
can claim priority date as a valid defence.

33. COPYRIGHT- IDEA VS.
EXPRESSION DICHOTOMY
 R.G. ANAND V. DELUX FILMS (1978)
 There can be no copyright in an idea, subject
matter, themes, plots, or historical or legendary facts
and violation of copyright in such cases is confined to
form, manner, and arrangement and expression of
idea by the author of copyrighted work.
 One of the safest and surest test to determine
whether or not there has been a violation of copyright
is to see if the reader, spectator or the viewer after
having read or seen both works is clearly of the
unmistakable opinion and gets the impression that
subsequent work appears to be a copy of original.
 As a violation of copyright amounts to an act of piracy
it must be proved by clear and cogent evidence after
applying the tests of equity.

34. CONTD.
MR. ANIL GUPTA AND ANR. V. MR. KUNAL DASGUPTA AND ORS [97(2002) DLT 257]
 Court held that the concept developed and evolved by the plaintiff was a the result of the work
done by the plaintiff upon the material which may be available in the public domain.
However, what made the concept confidential was the fact that the plaintiff had used his brain
and thus produced a unique result applying the concept. The Court granted an injunction.
KING FEATURES SYNDICATE INC VS SUNIL AGNIHOTRI & ORS ( 1997 PTC (17)
 In this case there was a dispute on use of BETAAL & PHANTOM wherein the court refused
the injunction on the grounds that there is no copyright in an idea/title- defendant inspired only
by idea but expression is original.
RAJA POCKET BOOKS VS RADHA POCKET BOOKS( 1997 PTC (17)
 NAGRAJ –NAGESH – DISPUTE ON SIMILARITY OF COMIC CHARACTERS.
HINDUSTAN PENCIL PVT LTD VS UNIVERSAL TRADING COMPANY(1999PTC(19)
This case law establishes the test of copyright infringement wherein it has been established that in
case there are very minor differences between two works and the get-up and colour
combination are copied per se then it shall amount to copyright infringement.

35. REGISTRATION NOT MANDATORY
FOR PROTECTION OF
COPYRIGHT
 GLAXO OPERATIONS UK LTD. VS-
SAMRAT PHARMACEUTICALS,. AIR
1984 Delhi 265!
 THIS IS A LANDMARK JUDGEMENT
WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED
BY WAY OF ADJUDICATION THAT
REGISTRATION OF COPYRIGHT IS NOT
MANDATORY FOR SEEEKING REMEDY
FOR INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT.
 REMEDY PERTINENT TO COPYRIGHT
IS AVAILAIBLE EVEN WOTHOUT
REGISTRATION AMBITS.

36. NEED FOR CUSTOMS LAWS IN
THE FIRST PLACE
 Customs is an authority or agency in a country
responsible for collecting and safeguarding
customs duties and for controlling the flow of
goods including animals, transports, personal
effects and hazardous items in and out of a
country. Depending on local legislation and
regulations, the import or export of some goods
may be restricted or forbidden, and the customs
agency enforces these rules.
 In India, the basic law for levy and collection of
customs duty is Customs Act, 1962. It provides
for levy and collection of duty on imports and
exports, import/export procedures, prohibitions on
36 importation and exportation of
goods, penalties, offences, etc.

37. CUSTOMS PROVISIONS TO
CONTROL COUNTERFEIT MENACE
 Customs Act, 1962 prohibits import of goods that
infringe intellectual property. Section 11 of the Act
empowers the Central Government, for the purposes
specified in subsection 11(2), to prohibit import or
export of goods of any description by issuing a
notification.
37

38. EFFICACY OF 2007 RULES IN GOOD
LEGAL MEASURE
Cases of suspension of goods by Indian Customs
 The Customs department, in July 2008, ordered absolute
confiscation of counterfeit goods in the matter concerning the
importer M/s. Womens World Jewels Pvt. Ltd., and M/s. Impac
Enterprises who imported consignment containing cosmetics,
gift items etc., bearing registered trademarks „Nivea‟, „Dove‟,
„Sunsilk‟ and „L‟Oreal‟. Commissioner of Customs noting that
the act of importing into India and/or market these goods in
India without having any authorization from the manufacturers,
amounted to infringement of rights of right holders and thus
prohibited the importer from importing the goods.
38

39. Contd.
 Another order was passed in 2008 against M/s P.S.
Grover and Sons for importing cosmetic and toiletries
products of registered trademark „L‟Oreal‟ and
„Garnier‟ for importing without first having obtained
authorization from registered trademark owners M/s
L‟Oreal and M/s Laboratoire Garnier & CIE. The
Customs Department not only ordered confiscation of
imported goods but also imposed huge penalty of Rs
25,000/- on importer and also Rs 5,000/- on partner of
importer.
39

40. ISSUES RAISED BY
IMPLEMENTATION OF RULES
The Ram Kumar Patent Saga
 This litigation involves a patent granted to Mr. Soma Sundaram Ram Kumar on
a “Mobile telephone with a plurality of SIM cards allocated to different
communication networks”. Mr. Ram Kumar sought to enforce the patent rights
against a number of multinational and national importers including Hansum
India, Samsung and Micromax.
 Mr. Ram Kumar filed an application in the Chennai Patent office on March
4, 2002 containing 4 claims and 12 drawings and was allotted Patent
Application No. 161/MAS/2002 which was granted in 2008. Mr. Ram
Kumar, then filed an application under Rule 3 of the Intellectual Property
Rights Intellectual Property Rights (Imported Goods) Enforcement
Rules, 2007. Mr. Ram Kumar filed an application on December 8, 2008 with
the Officer of Commissioner of Customs under the Customs Notification No.
47/2000 read with Circular No. 41/2007 Customs Circular dated 29.10.2007
called the Instructions for Implementation of Intellectual Property (Imported
Goods) Enforcement Rules, 2007.
40

41. CONTD.
 The first course of litigation before the Indian Courts was with respect
to the constitutionality of the Rules. In this petition, Samsung raised the
issue of lack of expertise of the Customs authorities. However, the
petition had to be subsequently withdrawn for the lack of territorial
jurisdiction.
 The second course of litigation was before the Madras High
Court, wherein Mr. Ram Kumar sought a restraining order against
manufacturers such as Samsung, Micro Electronics and Spice
Mobile, restraining them from manufacturing and selling multiple SIM
holding mobile phones.
 The third course of litigation was before the customs authorities and
highlights the concerns on behalf of the importers. The claims related to
dual SIM which allowed simultaneous communication multiple
headsets
41

42. CONTD.
 The Chennai customs authority upheld the contentions of Hansum India Ltd.
Holding that the claim 1 of Mr. Ram Kumar patent had limited scope. The
claims, therefore, were held not to be infringed by the cell phones
manufactured by Hansum since these cell phones used a single
headphone/earphone jack. Similarly, the New Delhi customs authority, in an
order dated 8th June, 2009, by J.P. Kundu, the Assistant Commissioner of
Customs, found that claim made by Mr. Ram Kumar was vexatious and the
impugned goods were covered by the prior art declared by him.
 Against the orders of customs authorities, Mr. Ram Kumar filed writ petition in
the Madras High Court, dismissing the petition, held that the proper forum for
the redressal was the Customs Appellate Tribunal, an authority envisaged as the
appellate authority under the Customs Act, 1962. Therefore, at present, the
orders of the Customs administration allowing the clearance of the goods from
the Mumbai, Chennai and Delhi ports stand affirmed and, the stand of the
importers has been upheld.
42

43. FAMOUS CISCO ADJUDICATION
 The case involving parallel imports and trademarks in
India, Cisco Technology Vs Shrikant (2005 PTC 538
DEL.) the plaintiff‟s employed sec. 29(6) (c) of custom
act read with sec 140 defense and were successful in
getting an exparte order directing the customs
authorities to notify all ports to bar imports of
defendant goods and also appointing a local
commissioner to seize all goods bearing the mark in
issue and inventory the same.
43

44. PARALLEL IMPORTS- A TRADE
MENACE
 A parallel import is a non
counterfeit product imported from another country
without the permission of the intellectual
property owner. Parallel imports are often referred
to as grey product, and are implicated in issues
of international trade, and intellectual property.
 Parallel importation infringes the right of the right
holder who has the exclusive right to trade in
such goods under the trade mark in a particular
area.
44

45. OLD SAMSUNG CASE(2006)
 In the Judgement of the Delhi High Court in Samsung
Electronics Company Ltd. & Anr. vs G.Choudhary & Anr((
MANU/DE/3161/2006) defendants, who were the parallel
importers were held liable for infringement of Trademark.
The registered owner of the Trademark “Samsung” filed a
suit against the defendants for importing from China and
selling in cartridges and toners branded “Samsung”
manufactured by the plaintiff itself in China. The plaintiff
argued that although the products are genuine, they were
not meant for Indian markets. The reasons by the plaintiff
included that the descriptions that accompanied the
products were in Chinese, there was no warranty offered
and that the use of these products were likely to constitute a
breach of warranty of other legally purchased machinery.
45

46. THE NEW SAMSUNG
CASE(2012)
 In FEB 2012, the Delhi High Court, in the famous
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS VS KAPIL WADHWA
AND ORS CASE, ruled that selling genuine imported
products in India without the rights holder‟s consent
constitutes infringement. If the Division Bench of the
Court upholds that decision – in favour of Samsung –
brand owners should find it easier to stop grey goods
reaching the Indian market. IP owners and lawyers
have welcomed this ingenuous ruling.
 The 1st plaintiff in the case, was Samsung
Electronics Company Limited, Korea and the 2nd
plaintiff was its Indian subsidiary and exclusive
licensee in India. The 1st plaintiff produced records to
show 7 registrations for the mark “SAMSUNG” across
46 classes 7, 9 and 11.

47. CASE HIGHLIGHTS & KEY LAW
FACTS
 The questions primarily arising were:
 1. Does sale of imported, genuine products
without consent of the right holder in
India, constitute infringement under section 29(1)
read with 29(6)?
 2. Does section 30(3) recognise national
exhaustion or international exhaustion?
 3. Does meta tagging and deep hyperlinking of a
registered trademark constitute infringement?
47

48. Law facts
 In answering the first question, the Court held that
any importer who is not a registered proprietor or
permissive right holder, even if importing genuine
products, is culpable of infringement. There is
also an interesting observation that had the
legislative intent been to facilitate free movement
of goods, section 29(6) would have not existed at
all. These fetters on the right of importation of
genuine goods, is justified on the basis of section
29(1), which does not provide any distinction
between genuine and non-genuine goods. In the
absence of any legislative provision or exception
for genuine imported goods, such importation is
48
deemed to be an act of infringement.

49. Exhaustion theory
 In answering the second question, the Court held that section 30(3)
recognizes only national exhaustion in India. The section is interpreted
to mean that once goods are acquired by a person from the registered
proprietor within the same market, the registered proprietor cannot turn
around and state that there in an infringement of his trademark on the
count that there is change of ownership by way of an assignment
between the registered proprietor and some other person and seek
prohibition on the dealings of the goods. This cannot subsume in favour
of a person acquiring goods from a foreign market. The implication and
effect of section 30(3) is stated to be limited to acquisitions within the
domestic market. Section 30(3) permits an exception only on those
goods which bear registered trademarks, and are acquired lawfully, and
the word “lawfully” is to include the trademark law in force. The only
“market” for the purpose of section 30(3) is deemed to be the Indian
market. The Court unequivocally held that section 30(3) does not
recognize any concept of international exhaustion, and the section
operates only within the market where the registration of the mark
extends. There is also considerable discussion on the UK, EU and
American concepts of exhaustion. The Xerox case is distinguished on
the basis that it dealt with second hand imported goods and is on a
different set of facts and circumstances.
49

50. HYPERLINKING AND META-
TAGGING
 On the issue of meta tagging and deep hyper
linking of registered trademarks, the Court held
that the promotion on the basis of the same in
order to take advantage of the plaintiff‟s
registered trademark cannot in any manner be
categorized as fair use, and would tantamount to
an act of infringement.
50

51. WARNER CASE
 In another landmark case, the Delhi High
Court, in the Time
Warner Inc. vs Lokesh Srivastava & Another(2005
(30) PTC 3 (Del.).), awarded punitive and
exemplary damages, in addition to compensatory
damages for flagrant infringement of trademarks
and copyrights. This stringent action was taken by
the court to highlight the fact that the breach of
IPRs was a wrong done not only to the plaintiff
but also to the society at large and the consumers
who suffer on account of that deception.

52. DELL CASE- CONJURING
CONTROVERSY
 Recently, it has been reported that the
Commissioner of Customs has not only allowed
the parallel imports of Dell computers into the
country but also ordered Dell to pay demurrage &
warehousing charges to the importers whose
goods had been seized for over two months due
to a complaint made by Dell.
 The DELL order has whipped up controversy
wherein the Customs Commissioner has allowed
the parallel import of Dell computers into India on
the grounds that the Trade Mark Act, 1999 did not
forbid such imports.

53. DELL CASE FACTS
 The basic facts of the case are simple. Three
Indian importers, by the names of Venktron
Digital Systems Pvt. Ltd., M/s Sapphire Micro
System & Momentum Technologies Inc. Pvt. Ltd.
were in the process of importing approximately
450-500 Dell laptop computers into India. During
the process of clearing the consignment at
Customs, an alert was registered under the IPR
Import Rules for possible trademark
infringement, due to a prior registration, under the
IPR Import Rules, 2007 for the mark „Dell‟, by Dell
India Pvt. Ltd.

54. CONTD.
 After the clearance of the consignment was suspended
under the IPR (Imported Goods) Enforcement
Rules, 2007, a representative of Dell India was allowed to
inspect the consignment to confirm possible infringement
after which a formal hearing was held where both, the
importers and Dell India were afforded an opportunity to be
heard.
 During the course of the hearing before the Customs
Commissioner, the Delhi High Court pronounced its order
in the Samsung case prohibiting parallel imports under the
Trade Marks Act, 1999. Apart from the Samsung order, the
„rights holder‟, Dell, also brought to the attention of the
Court several other judgements from Indian and foreign
courts on the subject of parallel imports being barred under
Indian law. The Defendants for their part discussed several
case law- including the new Samsung case, supporting
their defence that Section 30(3) of the Trade Marks
Act, 1999 allowed for parallel imports.

55. ISSUE OF CONCERN
 The major issue however with the Delhi High
Court‟s Samsung order was that it had been
appealed and the Division Bench hearing the
appeal had passed a series of orders during the
course of the appeal, which by the way is still
pending final arguments. While the importers tried
to argue that the Samsung order had been stayed
by the Division Bench, the „rights-holder‟ tried to
argue that the Division Bench had not yet stayed
the operative part of the Samsung order.

56. DELL ORDER

57. INTERNATIONAL FOCUS ON
CUSTOM IMPORT RULES
 Various countries in the world have of late been
focusing on formulation and implementation of
stringent rules in order to control counterfeit
trade.
 International organisations like the World
Intellectual
Property Organisation (WIPO), the WCO and the
International Criminal Police Organisation
(INTERPOL),
along with the business community, are toiling hard
multilaterally to determine new strategies to fight
against

58. Principle Socio-economic Effects of
Counterfeiting
INNOVATION & GROWTH Reduction in incentives to
innovative
- Possible negative effects
on medium
and long term growth rates
CRIMINAL ACTIVITY Increase in flow of financial
resources
to criminal networks, thereby
increasing their influence in
economies
ENVIRONMENT Sub-standard infringing
products can
have negative environmental
effects
EMPLOYMENT Shift of employment from
rights
holders to infringing firms.
Child labour

59. CHINA MILK CONTROVERSY-
HEALTH HAZARD OF
COUNTERFEITANCE
 The 2008 Chinese milk scandal was a food
safety incident in the People's Republic of
China, involving milk and infant formula, and
other food materials and components, adulterated
with melamine.
 By November 2008, China reported an estimated
300,000 victims, with six infants dying from kidney
stones and other kidney damage, and a further
860 babies hospitalised.The chemical appeared
to have been added to milk to cause it to appear
to have a higher protein content. This is clearly an
incident of poor quality additives to ,milk causing
huge health damages.

60. IMPACT OF
COUNTERFEITANCE
 The major effects of counterfeiting and piracy on
governments are foregone tax revenues in the form of
Sales Tax, Excise Tax, Income Tax and Customs Duty
and so on.
 Tax revenue losses are particularly high in certain
sectors like tobacco and alcoholic beverages where
excise taxes are high. The ASSOCHAM found that
counterfeiting and piracy has robbed the Indian
government of US$31.25bn in lost tax revenue.
 Also, supplementary expenses are linked with fighting
counterfeiting wherein huge amount of costs are
spent with customs and related law enforcement
agencies and related judicial proceedings.
Besides, significant costs are incurred while handling
seized goods.

61. WTO ON COUNTERFEITING
 The World Trade Organisation (WTO) Trade Related
Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs)
Agreement incorporates provisions intended to
address the problem of counterfeit goods in
international trade. The preamble of the TRIPs
Agreement indicates that members recognise the
need for a multilateral framework of principles, rules
and disciplines dealing with international trade in
counterfeit goods.
 In fact, Article 51, footnote 14 of TRIPs, defines the
term counterfeit trademark goods as any
goods, including packaging, bearing without
authorisation a trademark which is identical to the
trademark validly registered in respect of such goods
or which cannot be distinguished in its essential
aspects from such a trademark and which thereby
infringes the rights of the owner of the trademark in
question under the law of the country of importation.

62. AIM BEHING ANTI-COUNTERFEIT
DRIVE
 To raise awareness on the problems associated
with counterfeiting and piracy;
 Promote better legislation and enforcement;
 Enhance cooperation and co-ordination; build
capacity; and
 Promote solutions, particularly in the key focus
area of health and safety risks related to
counterfeit products.