Copyright HELD “…. the power to grant ad hoc compulsory licence, cannot be implied. No such detriment is demonstrated. In the absence of an express statutory grant, I would not imply the power to grant an ad hoc compulsory licence by way of interim order by the Copyright Board.” October 5, 2020October 5, 2020 Indian IPR
Copyright HELD A conjoint reading of Section 11 of the Copyright Act and Section 83 of the Trade Marks Act clearly indicates that the Appellate Board as constituted under Section 83 of the Trade Marks Act would also have the jurisdiction to perform the functions under the Copyright Act as well. October 5, 2020October 5, 2020 Indian IPR
Copyright Copyright Board fixes royalty rate at 2% of the net advertisement revenues of the radio organizations from radio business, charged on pro-rata basis. October 5, 2020 Indian IPR
IPAB Section 31D of the Copyright Act, 1957, which was added by the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012, empowers the Appellate Board to fix royalty rates for performances or radio or television broadcasts of literary and musical work and sound recordings. IPAB has passed an interim order maintaining status quo of the royalty rate for radio broadcasts under statutory licensing @ 2% royalty rate on net ad revenues October 5, 2020 Indian IPR
Patent Court rejected an argument that the right given to a patentee under Section 48 of the Patents Act, 1970 would not cover manufacture undertaken solely for the purposes of export and held that the protection provided under the said provision could not be whittled down to cover only domestic manufacture and sale. September 20, 2020September 20, 2020 Indian IPR
Trade Marks While considering an application for stay of proceedings under Section 124 of the Trademarks Act, 1999 (‘Trademarks Act’), the Court held that there was no illegality in the filing of a rectification application before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (‘IPAB’) by a party before the said party approached the Court seeking stay of suit proceedings under Section 124 and observed that the jurisdiction of the IPAB to entertain the application would always be subject to the decision by the Court in the application for stay. September 20, 2020 Indian IPR
Plant Variety Held that prior to obtaining registration under the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001, the plaintiff cannot maintain a suit to restrain the defendants from infringing the rights which are yet to be conferred on the plaintiff upon potential grant of registration. September 20, 2020 Indian IPR
Copyright Relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Indian Performing Rites Society vs. Sanjay Dalia wherein the jurisdiction for institution of suits was clarified by the Supreme Court after referring to Section 62 of the Copyright Act, 1957 and Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the Court inter alia held that a suit can be filed at a place where the plaintiff has a principal place of office and not a subordinate office. September 20, 2020September 20, 2020 Indian IPR
Trade Marks While reiterating that registration of assignment is mandatory in terms of Section 45 of the Trade Marks Act (‘Trademarks Act’), the Court however observed that when the plaintiff had admittedly applied for recording the assignment at the earliest and there was a huge delay on the part of the Trade Marks Registry, this delay could not prejudice the plaintiff, which had every right to protect its right in the concerned trademark. The Court further held that there was no bar in law for a partner initiating litigation to protect the intellectual property rights of the partnership firm. September 20, 2020September 20, 2020 Indian IPR
Trade Marks Court held that an abbreviation of descriptive words cannot be used as a trademark if it is a generic term with generic connotations, unless the abbreviation itself could be demonstrated to have acquired a secondary meaning. September 20, 2020September 20, 2020 Indian IPR
