Tag: invention

Categories
Blog Intellectual Property Law

The Conundrum of Priority Disputes: Isaac Newton versus Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz

By: Rushika M 

“It is most useful that the true origins of memorable inventions be known, especially of those that were conceived not by accident but by an effort of meditation. The use of this is not merely that history may give everyone his due and others be spurred by the expectation of similar praise, but also that the art of discovery may be promoted and its method become known through brilliant examples.”[1]

-Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz

One of the oldest and most controversial intellectual property disputes in the world is the peculiar case of Sir Isaac Newton and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. As rightly described by Jason Socrates Bardi in the title of his book ‘Calculus Wars’, the dispute between Newton and Leibniz is the ‘greatest mathematical clash of all time’.[2]

The dispute between Newton and Leibniz was not an uncommon one, especially in the 17th century which has been described by the American science historian D. Meli as the “golden age of the mud-slinging priority disputes.”[3] Both men being great mathematical minds and accomplished intellectuals, claimed priority over the invention of Calculus. For those unaware, Calculus is the branch of mathematics that deals with the finding and properties of derivatives and integrals of functions, by methods originally based on the summation of infinitesimal differences.[4] In short, it is the study of continuous change.[5] Presently, the use of calculus is indispensable in many fields of science and mathematics such as physics, computer science, engineering, statistics, economics, medicine, and demography to name a few. Both, Newton and Leibniz sought to establish the same as their own invention. However, the distinguishing quality of their case is not only the nature and subject-matter of dispute but also the manner in which each sought to establish their priority.

Learn more about Intellectual Property Rights with Enhelion’s Online Law firm certified Master Course! 

A brief description of the dispute is as follows. Infinitesimal calculus may be expressed in one of the two forms: (i) as a notation of fluxions or (ii) as a notation of differentials. Newton employed fluxions in his research which can be dated back to as early as 1666. However, he did not publish his work until the year 1693. On the other hand, Leibniz employed the method of using differentials and formulated his own notation which can be dated back to as early as 1675.[6] He also referenced the same in his letter addressed to Newton in the year 1677 and included it in his memoir of 1684.[7] The dispute between the two men arose when Newton claimed that Leibniz was made aware of Newton’s research long before he arrived at his own notation and hence, Newton was the first inventor of calculus, while Leibniz had only formulated another notation based on the principles and work of Newton.[8] Since the prevalent method of establishing priority in the 17th century was not in the form of first publication or registration as it is in the present era and the usual mechanisms were in the form of anagrams, sealed envelopes, correspondences or a private message exchanged between peers, etc., the dispute between Newton and Leibniz could not be effectively resolved on the basis of first publication.

Learn more about Intellectual Property Rights with Enhelion’s Online Law firm certified Master Course! 

Primarily, evidence lies in favour of Leibniz’s claim of a notation independent of Newton’s for three reasons: (i) Leibniz, who is presumed to have acted in good faith, always alluded to his discovery being his original work and this claim was undisputed for a few years; (ii) his work was published long before Newton published his method of fluxions; and (iii) in his private papers, Leibniz demonstrated the originality of his derivations and their independence from Newton’s work. However, those contesting Leibniz’s claims questioned his good faith and believed that he had been acquainted with Newton’s work in or before 1675, the reason being that Leibniz frequently corresponded with a Mr. John Collins, who was not only well-acquainted with Newton’s work, but had also received copies of the same from Newtons mentor Isaac Barrow.[9] When, in 1849, C. I. Gerhardt found copies of Newton’s work in Leibniz’s manuscripts, the claims were further substantiated. However, since it is inconclusive as to when Leibniz obtained the copies, the same cannot be considered conclusive evidence in the matter. Doubts were also cast on Leibniz’s testimony when he anonymously published a slanderous review of Newton’s tract on quadrature implying that Newton had borrowed the idea of the fluxional calculus from Leibniz and when he deliberately altered or added to important documents before publishing them, and falsified a date on a manuscript.[10] In any event, the entire dispute was also tainted by a bias favouring Newton who, while serving as the President of the Royal Society, found favour in the committee report of the Society that presided over the dispute. Although the matter came to a temporary end with the death of Leibniz and the modern consensus is that both Newton and Leibniz developed their ideas independently, debates between the supporters of the two persist to this day.

Learn more about Intellectual Property Rights with Enhelion’s Online Law firm certified Master Course! 

Upon a brief analysis of the above dispute, two things are evident: (i) that much of the dispute between Newton and Leibniz was caused by assumptions which were often unsubstantiated; and (ii) the evidence presented by the gentlemen was mostly testimonial or by way of hearsay. It was perhaps due to this reason that the dispute remains unresolved to this day. Or perhaps it was the nature of the dispute resolution mechanism at the time that is to blame. Irrespective of the same, what remains consistent to this day is the topical nature of priority disputes, may it be in the field of science and mathematics, or literature, or any other domain, thus resulting in the substantial growth and relevance of intellectual property laws and jurisprudence.

At present, in India, the Indian Patents Act, 1970 is the one comprehensive law that safeguards the interests of inventors or patent holders in India. The Patents Act, 1977 would be the legal authority in the European Union, including the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. A priority dispute today would be resolved under the dispute resolution mechanisms of these laws and such being the case, the standard of evidence required to prove the claims of either party would be far greater than those evidenced by Newton and Leibniz during the 17th century. It is likely that the dispute would not even have persisted for as long as it did at the time. Regardless, the case of Sir Isaac Newton and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz is a memorable one and one of immense significance not only to academicians and scientists, but also to legal practitioners in the field of intellectual property law.

Learn more about Intellectual Property Rights with Enhelion’s Online Law firm certified Master Course! 

[1] G. W. Leibniz, The Early Mathematical Manuscripts of Leibniz; Translated and with an Introduction by J. M. Child, The Open Court Publishing Company, 1920. (Reprinted by Dover Publications, 2005.)

[2] BARDI, J. S. (2006). The calculus wars: Newton, Leibniz, and the greatest mathematical clash of all time. New York, Thunder’s Mouth Press.

[3] Hans Gaab and Pierre Leich Simon Marius and His Research, Springer, 2019.

[4] Oxford Languages, Calculus.

https://www.google.com/search?q=calculus+meaning&rlz=1C1CHBF_enIN859IN859&oq=calculus+&aqs=chrome.3.69i59l2j69i57j0i433j46j69i60j69i61j69i60.4602j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

[5] Cambridge English Dictionary, Calculus. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/calculus

[6] Norma B. Goethe, Philip Beeley and David Rabouin, The Interrelations Between Mathematics and Philosophy in Leibniz’s Thought,  http://ndl.ethernet.edu.et/bitstream/123456789/57413/1/19.pdf.pdf#page=119

[7] Blank, B. E. 2009 Review of J. S. Bardi: The Calculus wars. Notices of the AMS 56:602–610.

[8] Sir Isaac Newton, The Correspondence of Isaac Newton, 7 v., edited by H. W. Turnbull, J. F. Scott, A. Rupert Hall, and Laura Tilling, Cambridge University Press, 1959–1977.

[9] Supra, 6.

[10] Ibid.

Categories
Blog Cyber Laws

Landmark Cyber Law cases in India

By:-Muskan Sharma

Introduction

Cyber Law, as the name suggests, deals with statutory provisions that regulate Cyberspace. With the advent of digitalization and AI (Artificial Intelligence), there is a significant rise in Cyber Crimes being registered. Around 44, 546 cases were registered under the Cyber Crime head in 2019 as compared to 27, 248 cases in 2018. Therefore, a spike of 63.5% was observed in Cyber Crimes[1].

The legislative framework concerning Cyber Law in India comprises the Information Technology Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the “IT Act”) and the Rules made thereunder. The IT Act is the parent legislation that provides for various forms of Cyber Crimes, punishments to be inflicted thereby, compliances for intermediaries, and so on.

Learn more about Cyber Laws Courses with Enhelion’s Online Law Course! 

However, the IT Act is not exhaustive of the Cyber Law regime that exists in India. There are some judgments that have evolved the Cyber Law regime in India to a great extent. To fully understand the scope of the Cyber Law regime, it is pertinent to refer to the following landmark Cyber Law cases in India:

  1. Shreya Singhal v. UOI[2]

In the instant case, the validity of Section 66A of the IT Act was challenged before the Supreme Court.

Facts: Two women were arrested under Section 66A of the IT Act after they posted allegedly offensive and objectionable comments on Facebook concerning the complete shutdown of Mumbai after the demise of a political leader. Section 66A of the IT Act provides punishment if any person using a computer resource or communication, such information which is offensive, false, or causes annoyance, inconvenience, danger, insult, hatred, injury, or ill will.

The women, in response to the arrest, filed a petition challenging the constitutionality of Section 66A of the IT Act on the ground that it is violative of the freedom of speech and expression.

Decision: The Supreme Court based its decision on three concepts namely: discussion, advocacy, and incitement. It observed that mere discussion or even advocacy of a cause, no matter how unpopular, is at the heart of the freedom of speech and expression. It was found that Section 66A was capable of restricting all forms of communication and it contained no distinction between mere advocacy or discussion on a particular cause which is offensive to some and incitement by such words leading to a causal connection to public disorder, security, health, and so on.

Learn more about Cyber Laws with Enhelion’s Online Law firm certified Course! 

In response to the question of whether Section 66A attempts to protect individuals from defamation, the Court said that Section 66A condemns offensive statements that may be annoying to an individual but not affecting his reputation.

However, the Court also noted that Section 66A of the IT Act is not violative of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution because there existed an intelligible difference between information communicated through the internet and through other forms of speech. Also, the Apex Court did not even address the challenge of procedural unreasonableness because it is unconstitutional on substantive grounds.

  1. Shamsher Singh Verma v. State of Haryana[3]

In this case, the accused preferred an appeal before the Supreme Court after the High Court rejected the application of the accused to exhibit the Compact Disc filed in defence and to get it proved from the Forensic Science Laboratory.

Learn more about Cyber Laws with Enhelion’s Online Law firm certified Course! 

The Supreme Court held that a Compact Disc is also a document. It further observed that it is not necessary to obtain admission or denial concerning a document under Section 294 (1) of CrPC personally from the accused, the complainant, or the witness.

  1. Syed Asifuddin and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr.[4]

Facts: The subscriber purchased a Reliance handset and Reliance mobile services together under the Dhirubhai Ambani Pioneer Scheme. The subscriber was attracted by better tariff plans of other service providers and hence, wanted to shift to other service providers. The petitioners (staff members of TATA Indicom) hacked the Electronic Serial Number (hereinafter referred to as “ESN”). The Mobile Identification Number (MIN) of Reliance handsets were irreversibly integrated with ESN, the reprogramming of ESN made the device would be validated by Petitioner’s service provider and not by Reliance Infocomm.

Questions before the Court: i) Whether a telephone handset is a “Computer” under Section 2(1)(i) of the IT Act?

  1. ii) Whether manipulation of ESN programmed into a mobile handset amounts to an alteration of source code under Section 65 of the IT Act?

Decision: (i) Section 2(1)(i) of the IT Act provides that a “computer” means any electronic, magnetic, optical, or other high-speed data processing device or system which performs logical, arithmetic, and memory functions by manipulations of electronic, magnetic, or optical impulses, and includes all input, output, processing, storage, computer software or communication facilities which are connected or related to the computer in a computer system or computer network. Hence, a telephone handset is covered under the ambit of “computer” as defined under Section 2(1)(i) of the IT Act.

Learn more about Cyber Laws with Enhelion’s Online Law firm certified Course! 

(ii)  Alteration of ESN makes exclusively used handsets usable by other service providers like TATA Indicomm. Therefore, alteration of ESN is an offence under Section 65 of the IT Act because every service provider has to maintain its own SID code and give its customers a specific number to each instrument used to avail the services provided. Therefore, the offence registered against the petitioners cannot be quashed with regard to Section 65 of the IT Act.

  1. Shankar v. State Rep[5]

Facts: The petitioner approached the Court under Section 482, CrPC to quash the charge sheet filed against him. The petitioner secured unauthorized access to the protected system of the Legal Advisor of Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) and was charged under Sections 66, 70, and 72 of the IT Act.

Decision: The Court observed that the charge sheet filed against the petitioner cannot be quashed with respect to the law concerning non-granting of sanction of prosecution under Section 72 of the IT Act.

  1. Christian Louboutin SAS v. Nakul Bajaj & Ors.[6]

Facts: The Complainant, a Luxury shoes manufacturer filed a suit seeking an injunction against an e-commerce portal www.darveys.com for indulging in a Trademark violation with the seller of spurious goods.

The question before the Court was whether the defendant’s use of the plaintiff’s mark, logos, and image are protected under Section 79 of the IT Act.

Decision: The Court observed that the defendant is more than an intermediary on the ground that the website has full control over the products being sold via its platform. It first identifies and then promotes third parties to sell their products. The Court further said that active participation by an e-commerce platform would exempt it from the rights provided to intermediaries under Section 79 of the IT Act.

  1. Avnish Bajaj v. State (NCT) of Delhi[7]

Facts: Avnish Bajaj, the CEO of Bazee.com was arrested under Section 67 of the IT Act for the broadcasting of cyber pornography. Someone else had sold copies of a CD containing pornographic material through the bazee.com website.

Learn more about Cyber Laws with Enhelion’s Online Law firm certified Course! 

Decision: The Court noted that Mr. Bajaj was nowhere involved in the broadcasting of pornographic material. Also, the pornographic material could not be viewed on the Bazee.com website. But Bazee.com receives a commission from the sales and earns revenue for advertisements carried on via its web pages.

The Court further observed that the evidence collected indicates that the offence of cyber pornography cannot be attributed to Bazee.com but to some other person. The Court granted bail to Mr. Bajaj subject to the furnishing of 2 sureties Rs. 1 lakh each. However, the burden lies on the accused that he was merely the service provider and does not provide content.

  1. State of Tamil Nadu v. Suhas Katti[8]

The instant case is a landmark case in the Cyber Law regime for its efficient handling made the conviction possible within 7 months from the date of filing the FIR.

Facts: The accused was a family friend of the victim and wanted to marry her but she married another man which resulted in a Divorce. After her divorce, the accused persuaded her again and on her reluctance to marrying him, he took the course of harassment through the Internet. The accused opened a false e-mail account in the name of the victim and posted defamatory, obscene, and annoying information about the victim.

A charge-sheet was filed against the accused person under Section 67 of the IT Act and Section 469 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Decision: The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore convicted the accused person under Section 469 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 67 of the IT Act. The accused was subjected to the Rigorous Imprisonment of 2 years along with a fine of Rs. 500 under Section 469 of the IPC, Simple Imprisonment of 1 year along with a fine of Rs. 500 under Section 509 of the IPC, and Rigorous Imprisonment of 2 years along with a fine of Rs. 4,000 under Section 67 of the IT Act.

Learn more about Cyber Laws with Enhelion’s Online Law firm certified Course! 

  1. CBI v. Arif Azim (Sony Sambandh case)

A website called www.sony-sambandh.com enabled NRIs to send Sony products to their Indian friends and relatives after online payment for the same.

In May 2002, someone logged into the website under the name of Barbara Campa and ordered a Sony Colour TV set along with a cordless telephone for one Arif Azim in Noida. She paid through her credit card and the said order was delivered to Arif Azim. However, the credit card agency informed the company that it was an unauthorized payment as the real owner denied any such purchase.

A complaint was therefore lodged with CBI and further, a case under Sections 418, 419, and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered. The investigations concluded that Arif Azim while working at a call center in Noida, got access to the credit card details of Barbara Campa which he misused.

The Court convicted Arif Azim but being a young boy and a first-time convict, the Court’s approach was lenient towards him. The Court released the convicted person on probation for 1 year. This was one among the landmark cases of Cyber Law because it displayed that the Indian Penal Code, 1860 can be an effective legislation to rely on when the IT Act is not exhaustive.

Learn more about Cyber Laws with Enhelion’s Online Law firm certified Course! 

  1. Pune Citibank Mphasis Call Center Fraud

Facts: In 2005, US $ 3,50,000 were dishonestly transferred from the Citibank accounts of four US customers through the internet to few bogus accounts. The employees gained the confidence of the customer and obtained their PINs under the impression that they would be a helping hand to those customers to deal with difficult situations. They were not decoding encrypted software or breathing through firewalls, instead, they identified loopholes in the MphasiS system.

Decision: The Court observed that the accused in this case are the ex-employees of the MphasiS call center. The employees there are checked whenever they enter or exit. Therefore, it is clear that the employees must have memorized the numbers. The service that was used to transfer the funds was SWIFT i.e. society for worldwide interbank financial telecommunication. The crime was committed using unauthorized access to the electronic accounts of the customers. Therefore this case falls within the domain of ‘cyber crimes”. The IT Act is broad enough to accommodate these aspects of crimes and any offense under the IPC with the use of electronic documents can be put at the same level as the crimes with written documents.

The court held that section 43(a) of the IT Act, 2000 is applicable because of the presence of the nature of unauthorized access that is involved to commit transactions. The accused were also charged under section 66 of the IT Act, 2000 and section 420 i.e. cheating, 465,467 and 471 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860.

  1. SMC Pneumatics (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Jogesh Kwatra[9]

Facts: In this case, Defendant Jogesh Kwatra was an employee of the plaintiff’s company. He started sending derogatory, defamatory, vulgar, abusive, and filthy emails to his employers and to different subsidiaries of the said company all over the world to defame the company and its Managing Director Mr. R K Malhotra. In the investigations, it was found that the email originated from a Cyber Cafe in New Delhi. The Cybercafé attendant identified the defendant during the enquiry. On 11 May 2011, Defendant was terminated of the services by the plaintiff.

Decision: The plaintiffs are not entitled to relief of perpetual injunction as prayed because the court did not qualify as certified evidence under section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. Due to the absence of direct evidence that it was the defendant who was sending these emails, the court was not in a position to accept even the strongest evidence. The court also restrained the defendant from publishing, transmitting any information in the Cyberspace which is derogatory or abusive of the plaintiffs.

Conclusion

The Cyber Law regime is governed by the IT Act and the Rules made thereunder. Also, one may take recourse to the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 when the IT Act is unable to provide for any specific type of offence or if it does not contain exhaustive provisions with respect to an offence.

However, the Cyber Law regime is still not competent enough to deal with all sorts of Cyber Crimes that exist at this moment. With the country moving towards the ‘Digital India’ movement, the Cyber Crimes are evolving constantly and new kinds of Cyber Crimes enter the Cyber Law regime each day. The Cyber Law regime in India is weaker than what exists in other nations.

Learn more about Cyber Laws with Enhelion’s Online Law firm certified Course! 

Hence, the Cyber Law regime in India needs extensive reforms to deal with the huge spike of Cyber Crimes each year.

[1] “Crime in India – 2019” Snapshots (States/UTs), NCRB, available at: https://ncrb.gov.in/sites/default/files/CII%202019%20SNAPSHOTS%20STATES.pdf (Last visited on 25th Feb; 2021)

[2] (2013) 12 SCC 73

[3] 2015 SCC OnLine SC 1242

[4] 2005 CriLJ 4314

[5] Crl. O.P. No. 6628 of 2010

[6] (2018) 253 DLT 728

[7] (2008) 150 DLT 769

[8] CC No. 4680 of 2004

[9] CM APPL. No. 33474 of 2016

Categories
Blog Intellectual Property Law

Theories of Intellectual Property Rights

By: Vallabhi Rastogi

INTRODUCTION

With the introduction and implementation of ‘Digital India’, major segment of the Indian population has shifted to undertaking online transactions and availing the services offered over the internet. This shift is also because the Government has offered additional benefits for online transactions so as to promote digitization. This increased use of internet has largely exposed Intellectual Property to several risks since it has made “illegitimate copying and reproducing quite easier.”[1] According to World Intellectual Property Organization, “Intellectual Property (IP) refers to creations of the mind, such as inventions; literary and artistic works; designs; and symbols, names and images used in commerce”. Intellectual property being intangible needs to be protected by law in the same sense as corporeal property and therefore, copyright, patent, trademark, trade secrets are some mechanisms under intellectual property rights (IPR) that protect novel innovation from being imitated without permission.

IPR is not a recent concept rather it has evolved a lot subsequent to the industrial revolution in Europe when industrial advancement was at its peak. However, codification of laws relating to intellectual property started in the 19th century. Since then, “IPR have been instilling confidence among creators that their intellectual property is protected, thereby encouraging further innovations.”[2]

Learn more about Intellectual Property Rights with Enhelion’s Online Law firm certified Master Course! 

IPR has played a significant role in keeping original ideas and technical productions safe from being illegally copied and manipulated and has fostered creativity and innovations. In order to safeguard such intangible property, many industries across the globe have resorted to IP rights. Sports, Information Technology, Fashion industry, Entertainment, Biotechnology, Pharmaceutical industry are some of those sectors that have readily adapted IPR with the view of legally “safeguarding ownership, thereby, providing distinct identity”[3] and encouraging innovators to conceive and create more ideas.

Intellectual Property Rights acts as a motivation by instilling a sense of trust and ownership in the creators as their creations are safe even when available over the internet. Considering the technological advancement and innovative creations in the current times, it has become a necessity to legally protect them and therefore, enforcement of intellectual property rights backs such inventions and artworks.

Learn more about Intellectual Property Rights with Enhelion’s Online Law firm certified Master Course! 

 

THEORIES OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS

Intellectual Property and the importance of IPR traces its origin back to and relevance from the theories of renowned philosophers such as John Locke, Immanuel Kant, John Stuart Mill, Jeremy Bentham, Georg Hegel, etc. The ideologies and theories propounded by them act as the supporting pillar of the jurisprudential aspect of intellectual property rights. The theories of IPR that this paper will talk about are

  1. The Natural Rights Theory
  2. Ethic and Reward Theory
  3. Utilitarian or Incentive Theory
  4. Personhood Theory

 

THE NATURAL RIGHTS THEORY

This theory is fundamentally based on John Locke’s concept that an owner possesses a natural right over the things that he produces with the help of his own labor and efforts, either physical or intellectual. Therefore, ownership arises from the labor and innovation of person creating it. Locke believed that “individuals are entitled to control the fruits of their own labor. In his perspective, a person, who cultivates crops by using his own labor or creates a new invention by putting his efforts, naturally obtains property rights,”[4] merely by the virtue of adding his own labor. Similarly, the natural rights theory of intellectual property reflects that an individual naturally acquires ownership of the artwork that he creates or literary work that he authors because he added his own intellectual labor in it.

Locke based his theory on the idea that when a person puts his labor in an unowned object, his labor gets amalgamated with the new object that is then created, which cannot be separated without causing damage to the novel creation thus made. The creator then acquires natural rights over the object in which he applied his intellectual labor. Once the person acquires the property right, his original creation is protected from being used, transferred or manipulated by another person. Any such breach of the intellectual property right of the creator / owner would be against the law.

Learn more about Intellectual Property Rights with Enhelion’s Online Law firm certified Master Course! 

ETHIC AND REWARD THEORY

An owner or creator is legally protected under IPR for his novel creations by granting him exclusive rights over the work he produces. These exclusive rights include the right to enjoy the property, exclude others from enjoying it and to dispose the property in any manner he likes. The creator is rewarded for contributing to the welfare of the society by producing his work, however, when an ethical or moral perspective is involved while rewarding it falls under this theory of intellectual property rights. This theory emanates from the concept that granting exclusive rights on an original work are “an expression of gratitude to an author for doing more than the society expects or feels that they are obliged to do.”[5] It implies that other than the profit or remuneration for his production, if any, the individual should also be granted exclusive legal rights over the property so produced since he contributed for the betterment of community.

Ethic and Reward Theory suggests that for producing the original work, the creator might have been given some reward in form of royalty or otherwise, and then the creator should be rewarded again with exclusive legal rights over his novel production since he contributed something for ‘social utility’ that would benefit the society at large. The thinkers supporting this theory believe that the individual who put his intellectual labor for social good must be fairly compensated with his contribution being respected and this can be done by granting him exclusive rights. These exclusive rights act as moral and ethical rewards since the creator would be legally protected under IPR.

Critiques against this theory have contended that just like a person is not punished twice for doing something offensive that causes displeasure to the people similarly, a person who has contributed to the society should also not be rewarded twice.

Learn more about Intellectual Property Rights with Enhelion’s Online Law firm certified Master Course! 

UTILITARIAN OR INCENTIVE THEORY

Utilitarianism is “greatest good for the greatest number” which basically implies happiness of the maximum number of people. Therefore, the conduct which causes happiness of a large number of people should be appreciated and promoted whereas the conduct which causes displeasure to the society should be avoided or discouraged. Propounded by Jeremy Bentham and John S. Mill, the concept of utilitarianism helps in socio-cultural and economical progress. Likewise, while inferring it in intellectual property utilitarian concept plays a significant role.

As and when a person creates a product or there is technological innovation within a community, the society benefits from the advancement and progress. Since this progress benefits and causes happiness of the society at large, such innovation and creations are to be promoted and encouraged.  Such encouragement can be done by granting exclusive rights to the creator as he has worked hard to empower the society and cause pleasure to the maximum number of people. This will not only create a sense of motivation to put in more efforts but would also make him believe that he and his work are rightfully respected and recognized. Therefore, the authorities or administration are expected to grant such rights and recognize their efforts.

However, while creating and designing the work, the cost of production might be too high. So, the incentive given to the creator might not be sufficient enough to cover the costs incurred. This might discourage the creator as well, thus, preventing him to further experiment and produce.

Learn more about Intellectual Property Rights with Enhelion’s Online Law firm certified Master Course! 

PERSONHOOD THEORY

This jurisprudential theory was propounded by famous thinkers like Immanuel Kant and Georg Hegel. Personhood theory of intellectual property rights states that while applying labor to produce some work, a person also incorporates some part of his personality in the creation. An “individual’s personality growth is inherent”[6] and thereby, constitutes an integral part of the creative works. Since exclusive property rights are granted over the creative works and original productions, the creator also gains rights over the personality that is developed during the process. This right to “protect the development of personality extends to material things”[7] as well.

These rights emphasize more on preserving and safeguarding interests related to personality rather than merely protecting the monetary interests. Other than the right to fiscal advantage, the maker should also be given the right to safeguard his personality infused with the creation. Intellectual Property Rights should include protection of both creativity and every other thing incorporated in it.

There exists a loophole in this theory if we consider the fact that once the original work is produced, it is distinct from the creator. As the work becomes available to the public, it is up to them as how they receive and treat it. Therefore, it is not dependent on the person creating it.

Learn more about Intellectual Property Rights with Enhelion’s Online Law firm certified Master Course! 

CONCLUSION

It is a well-established fact that Intellectual Property Rights have been quite effective and successful in protecting the novel creations that have facilitated in the upliftment and growth of any nation. They have bolstered and encouraged the society to produce more. It is quite evident that in this age of technological development and increased creation of artworks, competitiveness has found its way. As a result, people might indulge in unfair practices to manipulate or copy other’s creations or use them illegitimately to create something new. To mitigate such incidences, intellectual property rights through patents, trademarks, copyrights and trade secrets have found a permanent place. It ensures that there is no unhealthy competition or any kind of unfair practices. Intellectual Property rights acts as incentives to the individuals who are in the field of research and experimentation. Such encouragements give them a feeling of recognition. These rights not only provide ownership right but also recognize and reward them for their efforts and labor. It protects the economic interests of creators as well.

Each theory has its own approach and perspective of inferring intellectual property rights. There is no specific right or wrong with regards to a theory. Different individuals might relate and favor different theories.

Learn more about Intellectual Property Rights with Enhelion’s Online Law firm certified Master Course! 

There has been a recent surge in the requirement and use of IPR laws in India. Indian Courts of Law have been reasonably strict in regulating intellectual property rights and awarding punitive damages to deter further infringement. “Prioritizing IPR has become necessary for socio-economic development.”[8]

Based on these theories there are some loopholes and incongruities which need to be looked into. Moreover, with changing times and continuous advancement, there can be several challenges which the existing IPR laws might have to cope with. The coming years would be very essential to evaluate the progress and improvisation of domestic IPR laws in comparison with the international ones. It would be interesting to see how IPR laws unfold in the upcoming years.

[1] The Effects of the Internet on Intellectual Property Rights, SACRAMENTO INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW BLOG (Mar 27, 2017). https://www.petersonwatts.com/blog/2017/03/the-effects-of-the-internet-on-intellectual-propertyrights/#:~:text=Patents%2C%20trademarks%20and%20copyrights%20are,protected%20to %20the%20fullest%20extent.

[2] Varun Sharma & Gautam Kumar, Patent Litigation – Trend and Development, CHAMBERS AND PARTNERS, (2020).https://practiceguides.chambers.com/practice-guides/patent-litigation-2020/india/trends-and-developments.

[3]Singh and Associates, India: Role of IPR in Sports, MONDAQ (May 22, 2019). https://www.mondaq.com/india/sport/808132/role-of-ipr-in-sports

[4] Adam Moore & Ken Himma, Intellectual Property, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Oct 10, 2018) https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/intellectual-property/.

[5] L. BENTLY & B. SHERMAN, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW 36 (3RD ED. 2008).

[6] Jane Secker, Considering Theories of Intellectual Property on World IP Day, UK COPYRIGHT LITERACY, (2018), https://copyrightliteracy.org/2018/04/26/considering-theories-of-intellectual-property-on-world-ip-day/.

[7] Mikhalien du Bois, Justificatory Theories for Intellectual Property Viewed Through the Constitutional Prism, PER/PELJ (2018). http://www.scielo.org.za/pdf/pelj/v21n1/19.pdf.

[8] Varun Sharma & Gautam Kumar, Patent Litigation – Trend and Development, CHAMBERS AND PARTNERS, (2020).https://practiceguides.chambers.com/practice-guides/patent-litigation-2020/india/trends-and-developments.

Categories
Criminal Law

Plea Bargaining in India and USA -A Comparative Study

By: Muskan Sharma

Concept of Plea Bargaining

Plea Bargaining is a process where the accused is asked to plead guilty in exchange of the judge acting lenient while awarding punishment or considering the seriousness of the offence. It is derived from the Latin phrase ‘Nolo Contendere’ which means ‘I do not wish to contend’ i.e. a plea of ‘No contest’. Plea Bargaining is a situation where the accused admits that the charges levelled against him are true and that he will not contend a query to the Court to decide over his guilt.

The concept of Plea Bargaining was not originally introduced into the Indian legal system but into USA. However, the Law Commission’s efforts promoted the insertion of the provisions concerning Plea Bargaining via its 142nd, 154th, and 177th reports. A new chapter on ‘Plea Bargaining’ was introduced into the Criminal Procedure Code based on the recommendations of the Law Commission for certain offences.

There are three types of Plea Bargaining namely, Sentence Bargaining, Charge Bargaining, and Fact Bargaining.

The concept of ‘Plea Bargaining’ is operative in both India and USA but the practice is not identical. However, it is pertinent to know about the concept of Plea Bargaining and landmark cases associated to it in both legal systems separately for a fruitful comparison between the two.

Learn more about Criminal Laws with Enhelion’s Online Law firm certified Master Course! 

Plea Bargaining in USA

In USA, the accused can put forward one of the three pleas i.e. Guilty, Not Guilty, and Nolo Contendere. Under the doctrine of Nolo Contendere, the plea is treated as an implied confession of guilt or that the Court will decide on the point of his guilt.

However, the Court is not bound to accept such a plea of the accused. It is the discretionary power of the Court to either accept or reject such plea, considering the facts and circumstances of each case presented to it. The Court is supposed to ensure that the plea should be put forward voluntarily by the accused and absence of duress and coercion. The accused must receive the protection of secrecy. Plea Bargaining gained momentum due to the overcrowding in prisons of USA.

Landmark Cases in USA

  • State exrel Clark Adams[1]

In the instant case, the Court explained the doctrine of ‘Nolo Contendere’. The Court held that the plea of ‘Nolo Contendere’ also known as ‘Plea of Nolvut’ means the accused does not wish to contend.

  • United States Risfield[2]

The Court observed that in a criminal action in which an application for Plea Bargaining has been made, the adjudication by the Court in relation to the plea of guilty is not necessary. However, the Court may impose sentence on the accused person immediately.

  • Lott United States[3]

The Court held that the plea being tantamount to an admission of guilt, is not conviction but merely a determination of guilt.

  • Bordenkircher Haynes[4]

In this case, the US Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Plea Bargaining while awarding life imprisonment to the accused person who rejected to plead guilty for imprisonment for a term of five years. The Supreme Court observed a slight possibility that the accused person may be coerced to choose among the lesser of the two punishments.

The Supreme Court further observed that there is no probability of coercion or duress if the accused person is free to either accept or reject the offer made by the prosecutor during the negotiation process for Plea Bargaining.

  • Brady United States[5]

In the instant case, the Supreme Court held that the consensus reached out of fear that the trial will result into death penalty will not make the process of Plea Bargaining illegitimate. If the process of Plea Bargaining has been properly conducted and controlled, it is legitimate.

Learn more about Criminal Laws with Enhelion’s Online Law firm certified Master Course! 

Plea Bargaining in India

Section 265A to 265L (Chapter XXI A) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “CrPC”) contain provisions concerning ‘Plea Bargaining’.

Section 265A of CrPC provides who is eligible to take benefit of Plea Bargaining. According to the provisions of Section 265A, any accused may take the course of Plea Bargaining except the accused charged with offences that are punishable with death or life imprisonment or imprisonment for a term more than seven years. Also, an accused charged with an offence against a woman or a child below fourteen years of age or affecting the socio-economic conditions of the country, is also not allowed to take the course of Plea Bargaining.

Section 265B provides for the procedure to file an application for Plea Bargaining. The application must contain all details of the case accompanied by a sworn affidavit. Afterwards, the Court may examine the accused to satisfy itself of the fact that the accused has filed such application voluntarily. If the accused satisfies the Court of the voluntariness, the Court provides some time for the mutual satisfactory disposition of the case. If in case, the accused fails to satisfy the Court that he has filed the application voluntarily or that he has been convicted with the same offence previously, the Court may proceed from the stage the application has been filed before it.

Section 265C contains guidelines for mutually satisfactory disposition of the case. It states that the Court shall issue notice to the public prosecutor, if the case instituted on a police report, the accused, and the victim to participate in a meeting to reach at a satisfactory disposition of the case. However, the Court must ensure that the process be completed voluntarily and the accused may participate with his pleader, if he desires so.

Section 265D to Section 265I contain provisions concerning the report of mutually satisfactory disposition, disposal of the case, judgment of the Court, finality of the judgment, power of the Court in plea bargaining, and period of detention already undergone by the accused be set off against the sentence of imprisonment.

Landmark Cases in India

  • Murlidhar Meghraj Loya State of Maharashtra[6]

In the instant case, J. Krishna Iyer criticized the practice of Plea Bargaining. He observed that the Trial Magistrate is burdened with cases and hence, approves the secret dealings of Plea Bargaining. He further observed, “The businessman culprit, confronted by a sure prospect of the agony and ignominy of tenancy of a prison cell, ‘trades out‘ of the situation, the bargain being a plea of guilt, coupled with a promise of ‘no jail‘. These advance arrangements please everyone except the distant victim, the silent society…”

  • Kachhia Patel Shantilal Koderlal State of Gujarat and Anr.[7]

In this case as well, the Supreme Court criticized the concept of Plea Bargaining. The Court held that Plea Bargaining is an unconstitutional process as it encourages corruption and pollutes the concept of justice.

  • State of Uttar Pradesh Chandrika[8]

The Supreme Court held that it is a settled law that a criminal case cannot be disposed off merely on the basis of Plea Bargaining. It was further observed that it is the constitutional duty of the Court to consider the merits of the case and award appropriate sentence despite the confession of the guilt by the accused person.  Mere confession of the guilt by the accused person cannot be a reason for awarding lesser punishment.

However, there has been a shift in the judicial thinking with the passage of time.

Learn more about Criminal Laws with Enhelion’s Online Law firm certified Master Course! 

  • State of Gujarat Natwar Harchandji Thakor[9]

In the instant case, the Gujarat High Court favoured the process of Plea Bargaining and held that the object is to provide easy, cheap, and expeditious resolution of disputes including the trial in criminal cases and that it prevents the pendency and delay in disposal of the administration of justice.

  • Vijay Moses Das CBI[10]

In the instant case, a person was accused of supplying of sub-standardized material to ONGC at a wrong port and thereby, causing ONGC to suffer huge losses. CBI completed the investigation and started prosecution against the accused person under Section 420, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The accused person took the course of Plea Bargaining. But the Trial Court rejected the application of Plea Bargaining on the ground that it was not accompanied by an affidavit as stipulated under Section 265B and no compensation was fixed. However, the Uttarakhand High Court directed the Trial Court to accept the application of Plea Bargaining.

  • Thippaswamy State of Karnataka[11]

In the instant case, the Supreme Court held that inducing an accused person to plead guilty under any assurance or promise is unconstitutional for being violative of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. It further observed that in such cases, the Court must set aside the conviction and direct the case to the Trial Court to give accused person the right to defend himself and if found guilty, the Trial Court may award appropriate punishment to him.

Plea Bargaining in India and USA: Comparative Analysis

Though the concept of ‘Plea Bargaining’ as adopted into the Indian legal system has been borrowed from USA, it is still distinguishable from the operation of ‘Plea Bargaining’ in USA. Following are some of the major differences that exist between the concept of ‘Plea Bargaining’ as operative in India and USA:

Learn more about Criminal Laws with Enhelion’s Online Law firm certified Master Course! 

  1. Nature of Offence

In USA, there is no provision as to the prohibition on plea bargaining in certain offences. An accused person charged with any offence may take the course of Plea Bargaining. However, in India, there are exceptions as contained in Section 265A. Following categories of accused persons cannot take the course of Plea Bargaining in India:

  1. Accused person charged with an offence punishable with death
  2. Accused person charged with an offence punishable with life imprisonment
  3. Accused person charged with an offence punishable with imprisonment of more than seven years
  4. Accused person charged with an offence against women
  5. Accused person charged with an offence against a child below fourteen years of age
  6. Accused person charged with an offence that affects socio-economic conditions of the country
  7. Role of Victim in Proceedings

In Indian Law, the victim has an important role in the proceedings of Plea Bargaining. The victim has the power to refuse or veto if unable to reach a mutually satisfactory disposition. However, in USA, the victim does not have an active role to play in the proceedings of Plea Bargaining.

  1. Mechanisms available for enforceability

In USA, an application for Plea Bargaining is filed only after the negotiation process between the accused person and the prosecutor is complete. However, in India, the negotiation process with the accused person does not even start before the filing of the application of the Plea Bargaining to ensure that the application of Plea Bargaining is filed voluntarily by the accused. Therefore, there is less chance of the accused being coerced or secret dealings for filing an application for Plea Bargaining.

Learn more about Criminal Laws with Enhelion’s Online Law firm certified Master Course! 

  1. Discretion of the Judge

In USA, the judge does not exercise discretionary power while accepting an application for Plea Bargaining. However, in Indian legal system, the judge has discretionary powers to either reject or accept an application for Plea Bargaining filed by the accused person.

  1. Finality

Under the Indian legal system, if the Court thinks the punishment awarded in any case of Plea Bargaining is insufficient or is guarded by unfair circumstances, it may be set aside either by an SLP under Article 136 or a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Indian Constitution. However, in USA, it reaches its finality.

 

Conclusion

The conviction rate via Plea Bargaining in the USA is as high as nearly 90% whereas in India, it is not even close to 10% of the criminal cases. This disparity exists due to the differences that exist between the concept of Plea Bargaining as practiced in USA and India.

Though the conviction rate in India is way too low as compared to the conviction rate in USA, it is effective in ensuring that the application of Plea Bargaining has been filed voluntarily. Justice may be delayed but must not be denied. In India, an accused person does not take the course of Plea Bargaining to choose the lesser among the punishments but is a voluntary action. Hence, it is high probability that an innocent person will not be awarded punishment in India by way of Plea Bargaining.

However, speedy disposal of cases is the need of the hour. Hence, the legislature must go for reforms and provide adequate infrastructure to the judiciary to reduce the number of undertrial prisoners.

Learn more about Criminal Laws with Enhelion’s Online Law firm certified Master Course! 

[1] 363 US 807

[2] 340 US 914

[3] 367 US 421

[4] 434 US 357 (1978)

[5] 397 US 742 (1970)

[6] AIR 1976 SC 1929

[7] 1980 Cr LJ 553

[8] 2000 Cr LJ 384

[9] (2005) Cr LJ 2957

[10] Crl. (Misc.) Application No. 1037/2006

[11] (1983) 1 SCC 194

Categories
Online legal courses

Employment Contracts

By: Arundathi Mandyam 

In India, there is not much light thrown on the agreements which bind the Employer-Employee relationship. There have always been issues regarding the relationship between the Employer and the Employee, to which resolve is found only through legal discussions. The laws hold within themselves various areas in their scope which not only discusses the contractual relation of an Employer and his Employee but also other various clauses. In this article we will discuss all the contracts an employer and employee are bound by and the various other clauses that are covered under.

Contract as defined in the Indian Contract Act, 1872 is a contract of employment for the exchange of remuneration for a period of time. Employment contract is a form of contract recognized by court as the social relationship of the employer and employee as opposed to other contracts.

Like any other contract in India, Employment contract too contains Offer, Acceptance, Consideration, Competent Parties, Legal Object and Free Consent as the essentials of the contract.

As the complexities increase in the field of employment, the various matters such as breach of fiduciary responsibilities, corporate law non-compliance, corporate defamation took distinction between White Collar jobs (deals with the administration and board) and the Blue Collar Jobs (which deal with the manual labor.)

Learn more about Contracts and Drafting with Enhelion’s Online Law firm certified Master Course! 

The employment related issues can be grouped as under,

  1. Pre-Hire
  2. During Employment
  • Termination
  1. Post- Termination
  • PRE-HIRE

As the title suggests, any dispute which arises before the hiring of the employee amounts to Pre-Hire disputes between the Employer and the Employee. This kind of disputes arises when an employee falsely represents himself and fraudulently tries to win a position in the employment. When the employer learns about the fraud of the employee he loses trust and there will not be a friendly relation between the employer and the employee hence giving rise to dispute. This dispute can only be resolved through litigation and not through any other medium.

From the employer’s end the dispute arises when the employer takes back the notice of offer from the employee before the employer starts his employment.

Learn more about Contracts and Drafting with Enhelion’s Online Law firm certified Master Course! 

  • DURING EMPLOYMENT

The dispute arising out of the misconduct of the employee or dissatisfactory performance in the employment is the dispute during the employment. These disputes are classified under two heads, they are:  (a) Employment Related Disputes and (b) Disputes Relating to Restrictive Covenants during Employment.

Employment related Disputes cover under them the misconduct of the employees, disciplinary actions of the employees to guard the interest of the organization, under performance, breach of terms, insider trading, and criminal indulgence and so on.

Restrictive Covenants during Employment which are non-compete result dispute between the employer and employee whereas Restrictive Covenants during Employment which are non-disclosure do not.

  • TERMINATION

Basically there are two types of Termination- Voluntary Termination and Involuntary Termination.

There are lesser chances of disputes when in case of termination (in the form of resignation or retirement) by the employee. Dispute arises when an employer involuntarily terminates the contract of employment with the employee on the basis of the misconduct or indiscipline of the employee. In such cases, the matters shall be resolved in the courts and the burden of proof to prove the misconduct of the employee and evidence for his termination of the employee lies on the employer.

  • POST-TERMINATION

Modern day employment contracts give place to restrictive covenants restraining employees from joining new employment even after the termination of the previous employment. This gives rise to the dispute between the employer and the employee post the termination.

These disputes too shall resort in the courts and nowhere else.

Learn more about Contracts and Drafting with Enhelion’s Online Law firm certified Master Course! 

STATUS OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS IN INDIA

In India, the employment contract of restrictive covenants which is operative post the termination of the employee is unenforceable and void. It is against the public policy since it is prohibited by the law of the Indian Courts.

In Pepsi food Ltd and Ors Vs. Bharat Coca-Cola Holdings Pvt. Ltd and Ors[1] (1991) it has been held that, “post termination restraint on an employee is in violation of Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. A contract containing such a clause is unenforceable, void and against public policy and since it is prohibited by law it cannot be allowed by the Courts injunction. If such injunction was to be granted, it would directly curtail the freedom of employees for improving their future prospects by changing their employment and such a right cannot be restricted by an injunction. It would almost be a situation of “economic terrorism creating a situation alike to that of bonded labor”.

POSSIBLE WAYS TO ENFORCE RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS[2]

  1. Serving the employee with a legal notice.
  2. Seeking enforcement of undertaking or encashment of cheque based on clauses of the agreement.
  3. Initiating civil suit seeking injunction or specific performance of contract as well as damages.
  4. While damages are a remedy that an employer may seek for the breach of confidential agreements, the same requires trial and evidence. Therefore the employer would only require injunction under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 at the interim stage or initial if they apprehend that premature departure of an employee could cause injury to the employer.
  5. Filing suit for declaration that the acts of the employee amount to tortious interference in the business of the employer and injunction therefrom.

Learn more about Contracts and Drafting with Enhelion’s Online Law firm certified Master Course! 

MISCELENEOUS

MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS

Employment Contracts in India are generally considered to be of unlimited term contracts, I.e. the Contracts that are valid until the termination or superannuation unless specifically specified as a fixed term contract. While Labour legislations do not need agreements in writing it is a predominant market practice to have all terms and conditions of the employment agreed and signed by both the employer and the employee.

FIXED TERM CONTRACTS

Until recently government of India, Had not given a go to all the sectors of the government to make permanent employees. Only the apparel manufacturing sector had the advantage of making their employees permanent workers.

TRIAL PERIODS

It is permitted by Indian law to place new employees on a trial or probation period. The Industrial Employment Standing Order envisages a 3 month to 6 month probation period which is also followed by other sectors which do not fall under the IESO Act. This Probation works best in the Industrial and Technology oriented sectors in India.

NOTICE PERIODS

In terms of labor legislation in India, “workmen” who have undertaken the least of 1 year of employment of continuous service are entitled to a notice period of 1 month or equivalent wages in lieu thereof. In addition, the employer is required to pay retrenchment compensation to the workmen. However no retrenchment or notice period is required if the employee is being dismissed for misconduct from the employee end.

CONCLUSION

The concept of Employment contract is like any other Contract. The Comprehensive Employment contract provides for the key duties and responsibilities of the employee that help him understand his job better. The main objective of an Employee Contract is to prevent disclosure of information, non-solicitation, non-competition, as well as protection of confidential information so it is always advisable to have an executed written form of Employment Contract. In practice, the employer signs the letter of appointment with the proposed employee prior entering into the contract. An appointment letter is executed in order to cover the probation period of the said employee till that employee is made permanent in the employment.

Learn more about Contracts and Drafting with Enhelion’s Online Law firm certified Master Course! 

[1] Suneeth Katharki and Mini Kapoor, India: Employment contracts- Enforcement of Restrictive Covenants under Various Jurisdictions, INDUS LAW (April 26,2016) https://www.mondaq.com/india/employee-rights-labour-relations/486496/employment-contracts–enforcement-of-restrictive-covenants-under-various-jurisdictions#:~:text=In%20India%2C%20an%20employment%20contract%20containing%20restrictive%20covenants,it%20cannot%20be%20allowed%20by%20the%20Indian%20courts.

[2] Archita Mohapatra, Preetha Soman, Ajay Singh Solanki and Vikram Shroff, Employment Contracts in India- Enforceability of Restrictive Covenants, Pg.No 14 (2019)

Categories
Blog

Trademark and Competition Law

By: Ishika Gautam

COMPETITION LAW
The Indian Government in pursuit of increasing the economic efficiency of our country acknowledged the Liberalization, Privatization, and globalization era by liberalizing the country’s economy and reducing governmental control. Currently, the Indian economy is facing aggressive competition in every field. Fair competition has proven to be an effective mechanism which enhances the efficiency of the economy. Therefore the primary purpose of implementing the competition law was to control monopolies and encourage competition.
The objective behind the formulation of competition law, Intellectual property laws is to protect the research and development inventions which are carried out by the inventor firm from being used by other companies producing the same kind of products and making a profit from the same. Therefore, on the one hand, IP laws work towards creating monopolistic rights, whereas, on the other hand, competition law battles with it. From this, there seems to be a clash between the objectives of both these laws.
The competition laws involve the formulation of policies that promote competition in the local markets and aim to prevent anti-competitive business practices and unwanted interference of Government. The competition law seeks to eliminate monopolization of the production process so that new firms can enter the market. The maximization of consumer welfare and increased production value are a few primary objectives of competition law. On the other hand, IP Laws are monopolistic legal rights granted to owners resulting from human intellectual creativity.

Learn more about Intellectual Property with Enhelion’s Online Law firm certified Master Course! 

Case law-
Arun Chopra v. Kaka-Ka Dhaba Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.
The famous restaurant named Kake Da Hotel has now attained it’s secured rights in its name and trademarks against another Nashik-based food outlets namely ‘Kaka-ka Dhaba’, ‘Kaka-Ka Restaurant ‘Kaka-Ka Garden’. The Court has observed that even though there isn’t a doubt that the user is long and extensive. The question arises whether the word ‘Kaka’ or ‘Kake’ can be a monopoly of any party and could be adjudicated on trial. Till now, the interim order is granted in favour of the plaintiff and the defendants are prohibited from using words ‘Kaka-ka’ with any new outlet during the period, it has allowed that the defendants can continue to use the names Kaka-ka Dhaba’, ‘Kaka-Ka Restaurant’ and ‘Kaka-Ka Garden’.

Under the Competition law of IPR, the market’s unavailability can establish some dominance in markets. Similarly, the comparison of market shares between a dominant firm and its competitors is advantageous in determining the power and monopoly. It seems complicated to decide on the minimum percentage of market share that could attain dominance or monopoly of a particular firm in the market. Various judgments dominance cannot establish a minimum rate that points to the firm’s authority.

Learn more about Intellectual Property with Enhelion’s Online Law firm certified Master Course! 

The anti-competition laws to tackle the monopolies of IPR often include two measures: compulsory licensing and parallel imports. The compulsory license is when the state has authorized an IPR holder to surrender their exclusive rights over intellectual property, under article 31 of Trade-Related aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. The compulsory licenses are granted only under specific circumstance such as the interest of public health, in national emergencies, in nil or inadequate exploitation of any patent in any country, and also for the overall national interest. On the other hand, Parallel imports include all goods brought in the country without authorization of an appropriate IP holder and are placed legitimately into the market.

In addition to all these provisions, provisions like Section 3 of the new Competition Act, 2002, deals with more anti-competitive agreements that cannot be used by the IPR holders as they conflict with competition policies. Firstly, the patent pooling is a restrictive practice where the firms of particular manufacturing industry decide, to pool their patents and then agree to not grant the licenses to third parties, then simultaneously fix quotas and prices. Secondly, one more clause that restricts the competition concerning research and development or prohibits a licensee from using other rival technology is considered to be anti-competitive under this law. Thirdly, the licensor under this law is not permitted to fix the price at which the licensee would sell his goods.

Learn more about Intellectual Property with Enhelion’s Online Law firm certified Master Course! 

The above examples are not exhaustive, but a few examples demonstrate the anti-competitive provisions applicable to the IPR under this Act. Moreover, under Section 27 of this Act, India’s Competition Commission had the authority to penalize the IPR holders who abuse their dominant position. Furthermore, under Section 4 of this Act, the Commission is authorized to punish the parties of an anti-competitive agreement, it is in the contradiction of this section.

TRADEMARK LAW
Search
To search for a mark before filling the application is the most fundamental part of applying for a trademark. Even though it is not a procedural pre-requisite for the application, it finds its utmost importance in the fact that acceptance of a mark for registration as a trade mark relies on the vividness of the mark. It is a crucial step to carry a detailed search in the Trade Marks Registry, to check for the mark’s uniqueness and deduct all possibilities of duplication. It also needs to be checked that the proposed mark is not the same or even similar to any other existing mark registered or pending for registration. A detailed prior search is also a proof of honesty and good faith in accepting the mark, during opposition and the infringement proceedings.

Classification
The application for the trademark needs to be specified by the appropriate class or classes of the goods or services, concerning which the application is filed. The applicant for trademark needs to be extremely careful in ascertaining the type of goods or services in their application as the tester needs to be convinced about the proper use of goods and services from a particular class or across all classes to the application, and a broad declaration can also prolong the process of the examination.

Learn more about Intellectual Property with Enhelion’s Online Law firm certified Master Course! 

Selection
The selection of a mark is an important part of any application. The mark selected needs to meet the qualifications that are enlisted in the Trade Mark Act, and it has to fall within the parameters of its presence as a device, brand, a heading, label, a ticket, name, signature, word, letter, a numeral, shape of goods, packaging or any combination of colours, or any combination of these distinct elements that are capable of being ‘graphically represented’ and indicates a trade connection with the proprietor. Now, it essentially needs to have a proper distinctive character capable of constructively distinguishing all the applicant’s goods and services from others. The denial of the presence of uniqueness of the mark may result in the refusal of the application.

Filing of Application
The application for the mark can be filed by a person or his respective IP Lawyer or any other person who is authorized in this respect at the designated Head office (at Mumbai) or any branch offices (at Ahmedabad, Chennai, Delhi, Kolkata) of Registry by a delivery at the front office either personally or by post, it can also be submitted electronically through the gateway being provided at ipindia.nic.in. The application for this has to be generally filed at the office which is within the territorial jurisdiction of the principal place of business of that applicant in India is situated. There are many applications which need to be filed directly at Head Office.
Special care needs to be taken of the fees, and as non-payment results in regarding the application as not-filed.

Numbering and Examination of Application
On receipt of the application, it is appropriately dated and numbered. A copy of it is returned to the applicant/attorney—a number assigned to the mark, which is the registration number post-registration. The proprietor is only allowed to use the trademark symbol after their application has been completed and numbered. The application is adequately examined for accuracy of the class in which the mark has been filed, all the necessary documents that need to be attached depending on the type of application- registration of the mark for goods or services being included in one class/different classes/with priority claim etc., details of the applicant and the proprietor.

Learn more about Intellectual Property with Enhelion’s Online Law firm certified Master Course! 

Hearing
After the proper completion of the examination, the Trademarks Registry sends an “Official Examination Report” to that applicant. The applicant may sometimes be required to reply to the objections raised by the Examiner under Section 9 and Section 11 of Trade Marks Act and the clarifications regarding the content of the application. The reply being insufficient to satisfy the Examiner, the applicant is then granted a hearing to overcome his objections.

Publication in the Trade Mark Journal
The mark’s application is then published in the “Trade Marks Journal,” after a proper post-examination hearing with the applicant. The journal is also published by the Trademarks Registry and is a publication by the Government of India. The application is then granted registration if it stands being unopposed after the proper publication in the journal for a stipulated period of four months.
If the publication is challenged in any case, then the opposition proceedings commence, and the registration is granted freely only if the proceedings conclude in favour of the applicant.

Opposition Proceedings
Anyone can file a notice of opposition against any application published in the journal, within that period of four months from the date of that mark being published in the journal. Any supporting evidence can accompany the notice for the opposition.
An application can then be opposed to the primary grounds that are provided in the Trade Mark Act. This is the Registrar’s task to serve a copy of the opposition to the applicant, inside two months of receipt of resistance. The applicant must then reply within two months; failure to do so will result in the applicant’s application being treated as abandoned. The counter-statement is given to the opponent, and usually, the parties are being heard along with the consideration of proper evidence provided by both parties.
The Registrar is given the authority to decide the acceptance of trademark application based on the hearing’s judgment. The aggrieved party is given the right to challenge the ruling by filing an appeal in front of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board.

Registration
The mark’s application is registered if it has been accepted and not opposed, or opposed but has been decided in favour of the applicant. The applicant is also issued the Certificate of Registration and is further allowed to use the symbol R and the registered trademark. The registered trademark given is valid for the next ten years from the date of that application is received for the mark.

Learn more about Intellectual Property with Enhelion’s Online Law firm certified Master Course! 

Renewal
A registered trademark can be renewed after every ten years for an unlimited period on payment of that particular renewal fee. The renewal request should ideally be filed in the Trade Marks Registry within only six months before the expiry of the trademark. The application can also be filed up to six months after the trademark expiry, with the payment of the late renewal fees being prescribed.

Litigation
1) To obtain John Doe Orders and ex parte injunctions.
2) To accept search and seizure orders.
3) To conduct market raids.
4) To check for the accounts of the infringer.
5) To medicate for amicable settlement of disputes.
6) Do Arbitration and also Conciliation.

Enforcement through constructions
The Customs Act of 1962, enables Commissioner of Customs, on behalf of Central Government, prohibits importing the goods on absolute or conditional terms, used for the protection of patents, trademarks, and copyrights. In contrast to this, the authorities came up with Intellectual Property Rights (Imported Goods) Enforcement Rules in 2007 which correctly specifies the process of protection of these intellectual property rights (Copyright, Trade Mark, Patent, Design and Geographical Indication) from getting violated in the course of these import into the country.

Licensing of Trademarks
The trademark’s license is an agreement between a registered proprietor of the trademark (licenser) and another person (licensee), giving authority to the licensee to use the trademark in the course of trade, against a particular payment of royalty to the licenser. The word here used “license” is not mentioned anywhere in the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Act says about the words “registered user” and “permitted use.”

Revocation of Trade Mark
An application for the cancellation or rectification of a trademark registration can be made only by the aggrieved person. Such type of application must be filed with Registrar of Trade Marks or the Appellate Board.
Some of the grounds on which the registration can be removed or cancelled:
The trademark being registered was done without any bona fide intention, and there was no bona fide use of the trademark for the time up to date of three months before the date of the application for removal.
Three months before the application for removal, a regular period of five years from the date on which the trademark has entered on the register or longer has elapsed during which brand was registered and in which no bona fide use.
Trademark was registered without any sufficient cause.

 

Learn more about Intellectual Property with Enhelion’s Online Law firm certified Master Course!