The Unseen Author: Advocating for Directors' Rights in Indian Cinema

Cinema is culture; it enlightens, educates and entertains. It enthrals, creates mystique, and allows a reality beyond reality. What is colloquially called ‘movie magic’ is a moving machinery, intricate in its functioning and deceptively simple in its perception. It is a story, brought to vivid life by several interlocked systems and people working together to produce a product. The director of a movie often acts as the glue, creating a cohesive vision for the final product while guiding everyone’s creative contributions – the actors, the musicians, the writers – towards creating movie magic.

A cinematograph film is primarily protected under the Copyright law. As a culmination of multiple forms of creativity, each department receives separate copyright protection for its contribution – the writer is considered the author of the screenplay and the musical composer is considered the author of the musical work. However, the law’s understanding of the creative owners of the various creative aspects of cinema does not appear to sufficiently recognise the creative contributions of one – the director. Presumably shaped by the largely capitalist evolution of copyright protection, copyright law has essentially treated the film financier as the Author. This article attempts to critique the lacunae and proposes that the director ought to be considered a joint author of a cinematograph film along with the producer.

Copyright Protection for Directors: The Copyright (Amendment) Bill, 2010

India, much like the U.S.A., has not accorded any statutory protection to the director of a cinematograph film, defining an “author” of a film to be the producer who provides valuable consideration for its creation.[1] Unlike the U.S.A., India defines an author as the producer, although fundamentally, these countries use financing as the yardstick for authorship in a cinematographic film.

India, in the past, has considered the possibility of granting some form of ownership to the principal director. In 2010, the Copyright (Amendment) Bill, 2010, was introduced in the Rajya Sabha. Amongst the various proposals, a suggestion was also advanced towards adding the principal director as a joint owner of the cinematograph film, along with the producers. The amendment further called for an amendment to Section 17(5) relating to the first owner of a copyright, under which the producer and principal director were deemed to be jointly the first owner of the copyright.

Rajya Sabha MP and former Union Minister Kapil Sibal, who proposed the amendment, stated the following during the Rajya Sabha debates:

“The director has an enormous role to play in the making of a film. In fact, he is, according to me, perhaps, the principal creator. I very much wanted that the principal Director should actually share in the profits.”[2]

The Standing Committee would eventually reject this proposal, stating that this new remedy was “worse than the problem” (of the director having no right whatsoever). Interestingly, the Standing Committee observed that the inclusion of the proposal was “opposed in very strong terms by all stakeholders appearing before the Committee”[3]. The stakeholders named by the Standing Committee in its report were all stakeholders which essentially constituted producers, such as Film and Television Producers Guild of India, Indian Motion Pictures Producers Association, South Indian Film Chamber of Commerce (primarily constituting producers, exhibitors and distributers), Indian Broadcasting Foundation (with broadcasting corporates such as ABP Network, 9XM Media Private Limited as members). There was no director’s union at the time to put forth the submissions on behalf of the director.

The Standing Committee’s observations and reasons for refusal towards amending the definition of author in relation to cinematograph films were notable. The reasons were: i) most jurisdictions, like the USA, did not provide for authorship for the director; ii) international treaties, “namely WCT and WPPT or even Rome Convention,” did not even stipulate such a concept; iii) the producer is the “kingpin who invests substantive money”. This has even been echoed by the courts later, such as the Bombay High Court in Ramesh Sippy v. Shaan Ranjeet Uttamsingh and Ors., observing that: “it is a well known fact that a producer is a person who spends on the making of the film, owns the film and the copyright therein and is the author of the film”[4]; iv) no clear definition of ‘principal director’ in the cine industry; v) the proposed amendment will create a lot “of uncalled for and unnecessary problems in the Indian cinema,” and may result in further directors not being allowed to work in that capacity, being pushed down as assistant directors.[5]

The Standing Committee notably referred to the US jurisdiction twice, once in reference to most jurisdictions not providing for authorship of the director and again in terms of the payment system between producers and directors, where a sure profit is shared with no equal partnership between the director and the producer.[6] The comparison is notable because the US Copyright Law does not have any definition of an ‘author’, instead vesting copyright in ‘works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression’[7]. It only necessitates ownership of the producer by virtue of deeming it the first owner through the work-for-hire doctrine. This, of course, does not appear to pose many obstacles in practice, as the US Copyright Law does not provide for moral rights that are inherently vested in the author of a work, irrespective of their economic ownership of the copyright in the work – a right available to authors in India.

Similarly, the Berne Convention is also ambiguous in its definition of authorship, simply naming it to be the person who claims to be the author by putting their name on the work. The Rome Convention, WPPT and WCT were all treaties pertaining to performers’ rights and digital protection of copyrighted works. Therefore, the Standing Committee, by focusing solely on the amendment’s financial repercussions and benefits, failed to consider the unique protections afforded to authors in this country. In fact, in the European Union, another jurisdiction where moral rights are upheld, the principal director has largely been considered an author or a joint author.[8] In a 2002 report, the Commission of European Communities, in fact, specifically allayed fears of “uncalled for and unnecessary problems” by stating –

“there is no evidence that the partial harmonisation of the notion of authorship would have caused difficulties in the exploitation of works or in the efficient tackling of unauthorised use of works. In practice, potential difficulties in exploitation of the works that arise due to the fact that there may be more than one author, are overcome by contractual arrangements. These contractual arrangements provide the necessary means for the exploitation of works. Examples include provisions in the contracts permitting the adaptation of the pre-existing works, contracts by which persons undertake to participate in the film production, licence agreements and other agreements concerning the film production.”[9]

The Report further notes that as per some directives, such as Directive 92/100/EEC titled ‘Directive on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright’, Member States may provide that an author shall be presumed, subject to contractual clauses to the contrary, to have transferred his rental right to the film producer when he concludes a contract concerning film production with a film producer, individually or collectively. This possibility to provide for a presumption rule should be read together with Article 4 of the Directive, which states that, where an author has assigned his rental right, he would retain the remuneration right, which cannot be waived.

Creativity and Authorship

There is no specific definition of what an author means in general in the Copyright Act, 1957, nor has there ever been a concrete definition laid down by the Courts.[10] Statutory definitions of author in the Copyright Act, 1957, have only ever been made in relation to the work. Therefore, Indian copyright law defines the role of an author as follows: the writer is the author of literary works, the composer is the author of musical works, the lyricist and screenwriter are the authors of lyrics and scripts, respectively, and the producer is the author of a cinematograph film. Notably, apart from cinematograph films, authors of other works are entities that provide discernible creative contributions towards the creation of the work.  

It is, after all, the creative force that the legislature wants to protect through copyright law. In the Rajya Sabha Debate, dated May 15, 1957, pertaining to the Copyright Bill 1955, Mr P.N. Sabru – a member of the Rajya Sabha – had stated in relation to the Copyright Bill:

“… I would certainly like our society and social laws to give encouragement in every possible way  to what may be called the creative instinct in life. I think that the writer, when he is writing some great work… is only expressing his own unique personality…”[11]

He further went on to state: “but the publisher, when he publishes a book is now expressing and he should not be in a position to exploit the urge which someone feels to do creative work.”[12]

A reading of the ‘Handbook of Copyright Law’[13], indicates that the very purpose of copyright is to ensure minimum safeguards of the rights of authors, thereby protecting and rewarding creativity.[14] Therefore, a reading of the Rajya Sabha Debates and the Handbook suggests that the purpose of copyright is to protect creativity, i.e. an expression of one’s unique personality, and not merely the financial or administrative labour and exploitation of various individuals to bring about a product.

Indian courts have also largely agreed, albeit only in passing, that intellectual contribution is a necessary requisite. For instance, in Najma Heptulla v. Orient Longman Ltd. & Ors., which was a judgment commenting upon joint authorship of a work, the court stated “if there is an intellectual contribution (emphasis applied) by two or more persons pursuant to a reconverted joint design, to the composition of a literary work then those persons have to be regarded as joint authors.”[15] In other decisions, like MRF v. Metro Tyres[16] and Yash Raj Films,[17] the courts have agreed on the fact that a movie is an ‘original work of authorship’. The definition of ‘originality’ in a work, as has been crystallised by the Supreme Court in the Eastern Book Publishing case,[18] is when such work is a product of an exercise in skill and judgment. Notably, the Copyright Act, 1957 does not use the term ‘original’ before sound recordings and cinematograph films, instead only restricting the requirement of originality to literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works.

The Director as a Joint Author

In the late 1940s, a group of cinephiles began looking at cinema through the literary prism of authorship.[19] This new school of thought celebrated the director as an auteur – an artist whose personality or personal creative vision could be read, thematically and stylistically, across their body of work.[20] In contemporary understanding as well, the film director is considered the one who manages the creative aspects of production.

Therefore, deeming the director as the author of a film would be in line with the widely accepted Auteur Theory, which recognises the director as the author of a movie by virtue of exercising choice over fundamental visual elements such as camera placement, blocking, lighting, and scene length, rather than plot line, to convey the message of the film.[21] The Parliamentary Standing Committee’s fear of a lack of definition for a “principal director”, which resulted in its initial rejection in 2010, can also be assuaged by definitions followed by some of these other director-friendly jurisdictions. For instance, the UK’s Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, defines a director as the person named in cinematograph films that are released bearing a public statement of a named person as the “principal director”. It is, of course, entirely possible that there might be multiple directors, much like actors. Therefore, taking inspiration from Australia’s Copyright Act, 1968, there could be multiple directors in a film, and each can be referred to as a maker of the film.[22]

This could provide crucial benefits to directors, such as having a certain amount of control over their creations, the ability to seek compensation for works created as derivatives of their own creations, and being able to enforce their moral rights.

Many of the jurisdictions that allow the principal director to be an author also name the producer as a co-author. Furthermore, a producer’s role is also considered much more than a financier, often being described as “a hands-on, immersive role, which includes identifying ideas to working with writers in the development of scripts, assembling commercially viable packages, raising finance, and looking at all aspects of pre-production, filming/shooting, post-production, as well as marketing, and distribution.”[23] Hence, the most appropriate remedy would, in fact, be for joint authorship of a work between the director and the producer. In fact, Section 17(c) provides that the first owner of a work-for-hire work is the one on whose instance the work was created. Such a method will continue to ensure that the producer continues to enjoy the fruits of the financial investment while ensuring important considerations are provided to authors as envisioned under the Indian Copyright Act, 1957.

Conclusion

It is perhaps time for a renewed consideration in respect of granting authorship to the director of the movie. The Parliamentary Standing Committee fear that the producer might use power and hierarchy to not engage with directors, which can be tackled with other arrangements, including a director’s union, as opposed to allowing for a director’s union and other arrangements to protect the rights of a director from a disadvantaged position, wherein no rights are inherently allowed to them. India has historically been the jurisdiction that attempts, its very hardest, to protect authors and creative contributors. In fact, the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012, exemplified India’s conscious attempt to rebalance the scales between the creator and the financier. It is perhaps high time India continues to uphold its commitment to creativity.

References:

[1] The Copyright Act No. 14 of 1957, § 2(d)(v) (India)

[2] “The Copyright (Amendment) Bill, 2010, Government Bill – Consideration & Passing/Return/Withdrawal”, Rajya Sabha Official Debates, pp – 446, 17 May 2012, https://rsdebate.nic.in/handle/123456789/603476?viewItem=browse 

[3] Id.

[4] Ramesh Sippy v. Shaan Ranjeet Uttamsingh and Ors, Suit No. 166 Of 2013, Dt- April 1, 2013

[5] Rajya Sabha, Department-Related Parliamentary Standing Comm. On Hum. Res. Dev., Two Hundred Twenty-Seventh Report On The Copyright (Amendment) Bill, 2010, At 13 (Nov. 2010)

[6] Id. at pg 13

[7] S. 102(a), The Copyright Act of 1976, United States of America

[8] Stockholm Intellectual Property Law Review Volume 4, Issue 2, December 2021 at 64

[9] Commission Of The European Communities, Report From The Commission To The Council, The European Parliament And The Economic And Social Committee On The Question Of Authorship Of Cinematographic Or Audiovisual Works In The Community, Com(2002) 691 Final (Dec. 6, 2002) At 6.

[10] Vyas, Lokesh and Agrawal, Akshat, ‘Director’s Authorship under Indian Copyright Law: An (Un)Indian Approach?’ (January 18, 2021). Journal of IP Studies, NLU Jodhpur, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3768248

[11] Rajya Sabha Debate on the Copyright Bill, 1955, at 194 (May 15, 1957)

[12] Id.

[13] ‘The Hand Book of Copyright’, Government of India, available at: <https://copyright.gov.in/documents/handbook.html>, (downloaded on January 12, 2025)

[14] Supra

[15] Najma Heptulla v. Orient Longman Ltd. & Ors., 63 AIR 1989 (Del.) (India).

[16] MRF Ltd.v. Metro Tyres Ltd., 79 PTC (Del.) 368 (2019) (India).

[17] Yash Raj Films Pvt. Ltd. v. Sri Sai Ganesh Productions &Ors., 80 PTC (Del.) 200 (2019) (India).

[18] Eastern Book Company & Ors. v. D. B. Modak and Anr. [Civil Appeal No. 6472 of 2004], Supreme Court of India

[19] Kuhn & Westwell, Authorship (Auteur Theory, La Politique des Auteurs), Film Studies Research Guides, Dartmouth College, https://researchguides.dartmouth.edu/filmstudies/auteurship (last visited Nov. 30, 2025).

[20] Id.

[21] Auteur Theory, Encyclopaedia Britannica (Jan. 16, 2025), https://www.britannica.com/art/auteur-theory

[22] Copyright Amendment (Film Directors’ Rights) Act 2005, <https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2005A00130/latest/text>

[23] The Role of a Film Producer: Their Responsibilities in Filmmaking, New York Film Academy, available at: <https://www.nyfa.edu/student-resources/role-of-a-film-producer/>

Image Credits:

Photo by @nisara-tangtrakul on Canva

It is perhaps time for a renewed consideration in respect of granting authorship to the director of the movie. The Parliamentary Standing Committee fear that the producer might use power and hierarchy to not engage with directors, which can be tackled with other arrangements, including a director’s union, as opposed to allowing for a director’s union and other arrangements to protect the rights of a director from a disadvantaged position, wherein no rights are inherently allowed to them. India has historically been the jurisdiction that attempts, its very hardest, to protect authors and creative contributors. In fact, the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012, exemplified India’s conscious attempt to rebalance the scales between the creator and the financier. It is perhaps high time India continues to uphold its commitment to creativity.

Related Posts

POST A COMMENT

Tough Times Ahead for Digital Video Game Resellers: French Supreme Court Ruling in UFC Que Choisir v. Valve

The French Supreme Court recently delivered a landmark decision in UFC Que Choisir v. Valve [1], definitively ruling against the resale of dematerialized (digital) video games distributed online. This judgment not only settles a long-standing dispute between consumer rights advocates and the gaming industry but also delineates the scope of the doctrine of copyright exhaustion within the digital marketplace.

 

The Doctrine of Copyright Exhaustion

The doctrine of exhaustion, also known as the first sale doctrine, is a cornerstone of copyright law. It provides that once a copyright owner has sold a copy of a work, their right to control its distribution is “exhausted,” and the purchaser is free to resell, rent, or lend that specific copy.

  • Under EU Law: The InfoSoc Directive [2] governs copyright for works in general, limiting exhaustion to tangible copies.
  • Under Software Directive [3]: This directive allows exhaustion for both tangible and intangible copies of the software, as ruled in the CJEU case of UsedSoft v. Oracle [4].

The central issue in this case was whether digital video games, as “complex works,” fall under the InfoSoc Directive or the Software Directive, and whether the principle of exhaustion can be extended to dematerialized copies.

 

Background of the Case

In 2015, the French consumer rights group UFC Que Choisir challenged Valve Corporation, the operator of the Steam video game platform, arguing that Valve’s Subscriber Agreement, which prohibits the resale of purchased video games, violated the principle of copyright exhaustion. UFC sought recognition of the right for consumers to resell digital games, just as they can with physical copies. In 2019, the Paris Court of First Instance ruled in favour of UFC Que Choisir [5], holding that the doctrine of exhaustion applies to digital copies, allowing Steam subscribers to resell their games. The court relied on UsedSoft, which extended exhaustion to software licenses, whether delivered physically or digitally. In 2022, the Paris Court of Appeal overturned the lower court’s decision, distinguishing video games from software. It ruled that digital copies of video games are governed by the InfoSoc Directive, which limits exhaustion to tangible goods, and not by the Software Directive, which applies exclusively to software.

 

The Supreme Court’s Judgment

On October 23, 2024, the French Supreme Court (Cour de cassation) upheld the appellate court’s ruling, solidifying the legal stance against second-hand markets for dematerialized video games. The court held that the InfoSoc Directive governs digital video games as they are “complex works” that combine software with other creative elements, such as graphics, music, and storyline. Unlike the Software Directive, the InfoSoc Directive explicitly limits the principle of exhaustion to tangible goods and excludes dematerialized works from its scope. This distinction was reinforced by the CJEU’s Tom Kabinet case [6], which clarified that digital books, like video games, do not qualify for the exhaustion principle under the InfoSoc Directive.

 

Drawing from the Nintendo case [7], the court reiterated that video games are protected as unified works rather than as mere software. Since the Software Directive’s provisions apply only to standalone software, video games are instead governed by the broader copyright rules of the InfoSoc Directive. The court acknowledged concerns raised in the Tom Kabinet ruling that allowing resale of digital goods could harm the copyright holders. Unlike tangible goods, digital goods do not deteriorate over time, making them perfect substitutes for the original, thereby eroding market exclusivity and profitability. The court emphasized that preserving the economic rights of creators and publishers is paramount to ensuring continued innovation and production in the gaming industry. The French Supreme Court declined to refer the matter to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) for a preliminary ruling, stating that the correct application of EU law left no reasonable doubt.

 

Implications of the Judgment

 

The decision consolidates the position of publishers like Valve, allowing them to enforce contractual clauses prohibiting the resale of dematerialized video games. This ensures greater control over pricing and distribution channels. Consumers lose the ability to resell their digital games, reinforcing the notion that purchasing digital content often resembles a license agreement rather than outright ownership. The ruling establishes a clear distinction between tangible and digital goods in the context of copyright exhaustion. It could influence similar disputes across the EU and potentially affect other sectors dealing with dematerialized content, such as e-books and music. By drawing a line between the InfoSoc Directive and the Software Directive, the judgment underscores the limitations of current EU copyright frameworks in adapting to digital economies.

Conclusion

The French Supreme Court’s ruling in UFC Que Choisir v. Valve marks a definitive end to the debate over second-hand markets for digital video games in France. By prioritizing the economic rights of rightsholders and distinguishing between tangible and dematerialized goods, the court aligns itself with recent EU case law, particularly the Tom Kabinet decision. This judgment not only strengthens the legal protections for publishers but also sets a precedent for future disputes involving digital content in the EU. However, it raises questions about consumer rights in the digital age, highlighting the need for updated regulations that balance the interests of creators, publishers, and consumers in a rapidly evolving marketplace.

References:

[1] French Supreme Court (Cour de cassation), UFC Que Choisir v. Valve Corporation, October 23, 2024.

[2] Directive 2001/29/EC, European Parliament and Council of the European Union, Information Society Directive (InfoSoc Directive), May 22, 2001.

[3] Directive 2009/24/EC, European Parliament and Council of the European Union, Software Directive, April 23, 2009.

[4] Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), UsedSoft GmbH v. Oracle International Corp., Case C-128/11, July 3, 2012.

[5] Paris Court of First Instance, UFC Que Choisir v. Valve Corporation, September 2019.

[6] CJEU, Tom Kabinet BV, Case C-263/18, December 19, 2019.

[7] CJEU, Nintendo Co. Ltd. v. PC Box Srl and 9Net Srl, Case C-355/12, January 23, 2014.

Image Credits:

Photo by Thicha Satapitanon on Canva

The French Supreme Court’s ruling in UFC Que Choisir v. Valve marks a definitive end to the debate over second-hand markets for digital video games in France. By prioritizing the economic rights of rightsholders and distinguishing between tangible and dematerialized goods, the court aligns itself with recent EU case law, particularly the Tom Kabinet decision. 

Related Posts

POST A COMMENT

Sustainable Agriculture Technologies: Exploring the Role of Intellectual Property

The agricultural industry of today is grappling with challenges at several fronts; it must meet the demands of a fast-growing population on one end and still maintain its efficiency vis-à-vis its impact on climate change and reduce the strain on natural resources. This globally impacts all nations but has a greater impact on Least Developed Countries (LDC’s) and other developing countries. This is because for these countries the agricultural sector is a major source of employment and livelihood and a major foreign exchange earner and supplier of raw materials for their local industries. [1]

Agricultural businesses do not traditionally rely on innovation and rather depend on sharing of knowledge and resources. Yet, the last three to four decades have witnessed some key advancements in agriculture such as genetic modification for plant varieties, insecticides that are very specifically catered to only work on certain types of pests while still preserving the rest of the ecosystem. Since 2007 and up until November 30, 2021, a total of 17629 applications were received for registration of various seeds[2] and plant varieties under the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act of 2001. This indicates the increasing importance of IPR in fostering agricultural innovation and sustainability.

Emerging Technologies: Hope for Sustainable Agriculture

Sustainable agriculture in today’s day and age is embracing a wave of innovative technologies that contribute to a more viable approach to agriculture. These advancements target specific goals like minimizing waste, conserving precious water resources, and nurturing healthy soil conditions. Precision agriculture, which leverages data and automation to optimize resource utilization, is leading the charge. Sensors keep a watchful eye on soil health, allowing for targeted application of fertilizers and water, thereby minimizing unnecessary over-spray and runoff. Drones equipped with sophisticated imaging technology can map variations across fields, enabling farmers to tailor their interventions to specific needs. [3] Robotics assist in tasks like weeding and harvesting, reducing reliance on fossil fuels and human labour.

But technology extends beyond the field. Biofertilizers and biopesticides derived from natural sources offer alternatives to harmful synthetic chemicals. Advanced water treatment systems purify wastewater for irrigation, while vertical farming maximizes yields in urban environments. These innovations, though diverse, share a common thread: their potential to revolutionize agriculture while safeguarding our planet.

 

IPR Innovation: Hand in Glove in Agriculture Sector

Agriculture has made remarkable progress in recent decades, including transferring beneficial traits to many crops that would otherwise be at risk of extinction due to disease, drought and pests. With resistant seed varieties, plants can achieve higher yields and at the same time require fewer chemical fertilizers. This is particularly useful for farmers in developing countries like India. Harnessing this part of agricultural innovation can make a significant contribution to reducing poverty, malnutrition, food security and disease control.

Innovation in the agricultural sector such as in the case of developing stable seeds primarily involves five stages, discovery, proof of concept, early development, advanced development and pre-launch. [4] Farmers, researchers, private companies, consultants, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), consumers and many others are involved in leading, supporting, creating, transferring or introducing agricultural innovations and in advising and informing farmers and the public about their innovations. This is despite the numerous budget challenges that the government faces when it comes to funding research and development of such projects.

Part of recognizing the multifaceted benefits of utilizing good IPR practices in agriculture is that the products in which innovations are made do not just operate on a superficial level. These innovations are literally ‘ingrained’. It directly helps develop more nutritious, healthier and more secure food through innovation in things such as enhanced seed production by genetically modifying them.

Invaluable Patent Laws

Among all the IP laws, strict enforcement of the patent laws is the most essential element to protect agricultural rights in our country. Further, breeding new plant varieties, no doubt benefits society but is a very time-consuming process that requires an investment of intellect and monetary expenses, hence making it crucial to provide incentives to encourage it. Effective patent laws serve a two-fold purpose, they protect the rights of people who create new processes, and since their disclosure is mandatory, they also encourage further research and development in the sector.

Patent laws are invaluable in the biotechnology sector, especially in the US, Europe and Japan, however, there is a need to expand the scope of the technical knowledge and its utility across other parts of the world. In addition, laws and procedures in this sector see major variation across jurisdictions. For example, in the US, patents are granted for animal inventions and human gene sequences alike if eligible. [5] The European Parliament and the Council in 1998 also passed the biotechnology and genetic engineering directive [6] that allowed for legal protection of biotechnological inventions to boost research and investment in the field, subject to a few sociological exceptions. Some of the things for which patents would not be allowed under this directive included plant and animal varieties and biological processes for production of animals or plants. [7]

Ripples of advanced research and development can be felt widely across the field of agriculture today. Very recently, the Singapore Centre for Environmental Life and Sciences Engineering (SCELSE) and the National University of Singapore have discovered new microbials that can enhance the effectiveness of the interaction between crops and microbes, which directly helps increase the yield of the affected crops. It is slated that this research will help boost plant growth by 30%. [8]

Rampant Rise in Biopiracy

It is imperative to note that appropriate enforcement of IPR is essential to bolstering the growth of the sustainable agriculture concept. This is because while on one hand there is the concept of ‘Bioprospecting’, which relies on discovering new processes and biological resources for use, on the other there is ‘Biopiracy’ i.e., unauthorized appropriation of biological resources and traditional knowledge for commercial gain. Hence the need to balance this development with preventing their exploitation, which casts a long shadow over the enforcement of IPR in the agriculture space. Indigenous communities that have vast accumulated knowledge and a rich biodiversity often get exploited by big corporations, who then develop new cosmetics, pharma products and new agricultural products, claiming the traditional knowledge as a new intellectual property they own.

Addressing biopiracy necessitates a paradigm shift. Strengthening community rights over their knowledge through sui generis systems, like biocultural protocols, empowers them to control access and enable benefit-sharing. Recognizing and adapting customary laws within IPR frameworks acknowledges the validity of traditional knowledge systems. Finally, promoting transparency and prior disclosure databases helps prevent biopiracy and ensures greater equity in patent granting. Only by addressing these challenges can IPR truly become a tool for fostering innovation and protecting the rights of all knowledge holders, be it multinational corporations or indigenous communities safeguarding their ancestral wisdom.

IPR Protection for Agricultural Innovation in India

As of 2023, India has experienced a significant rise in applications for the registration of new plant varieties, reflecting a growing recognition of IPR in agriculture. Recent statistics show that thousands of applications have been submitted under the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act of 2001, signalling the increasing importance of IPR in fostering agricultural innovation and sustainability.

The Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement that was brought into effect in 1995 by the WTO was the first international attempt to introduce intellectual property law as part of an essential legal sanction for trade across countries and set down the minimum standards that should be laid down and regulated by members of different nations. After joining the World Trade Organization (WTO), countries agreed to protect new plant varieties and opted for one of these two ways to achieve it:

  • Patents: As with inventions, companies can get exclusive rights to sell seeds of new plant varieties.
  • Special laws: Each country can create its own rules for protecting plants.

India chose the latter path and passed the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act in 2001 and its subsequent rules in 2003. [9] By setting global standards for IPR protection, the TRIPS agreement has played a pivotal role in shaping these developments, further aligning innovation with sustainability.

Overview of the 2001 Act

 

The Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights (PPVFR) Act, 2001, was established to create an effective system for safeguarding the rights of both plant breeders and farmers. The Act aims to:

  • Encourage the development of new plant varieties.
  • Recognize and protect farmers’ contributions to conserving and improving plant genetic resources.
  • Provide a framework for registering new plant varieties based on distinctiveness, uniformity, and stability.

The recognition of farmers’ rights is crucial for acknowledging farmers’ contributions to conserving, improving, and providing access to plant genetic resources necessary for developing new varieties. Additionally, protecting the rights of plant breeders is vital to stimulate investment in research and development, ultimately accelerating agricultural advancement. Such protections are expected to foster the growth of the seed industry, ensuring that farmers have access to high-quality seeds and planting materials. As India ratified the TRIPS agreement, it was imperative to implement provisions that aligned with this agreement. In pursuit of these objectives, the 2001 Act was enacted and an authority was established that was responsible for overseeing the registration process and ensuring compliance with its provisions. The Act outlines specific rights for farmers, including the right to save, use, exchange, and sell farm produce. [10]

Implications of PepsiCo’s FC5 Potato Variety Case on the PPVFR Act in India

On January 9, 2024, the Delhi High Court reinstated PepsiCo’s patent for its FC5 potato variety, marking the end of a lengthy legal battle. Initially, the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights (PPVFR) Authority revoked the patent in 2021, citing that Indian law didn’t allow the patenting of seed varieties. However, PepsiCo successfully appealed this decision.

Facts

PepsiCo introduced its FC5 potato variety in India back in 2009, specifically for use in Lay’s chips due to its low moisture content. The company registered this variety under the PPVFR Act in 2016 for a period of 15 years, granting it exclusive rights for cultivation and sale. The company supplies the FC5 seed variety to farmers in India, who then sell the produce to PepsiCo at an agreed-upon price.

In April 2019, PepsiCo took legal action against nine farmers from Gujarat who were allegedly growing and selling the FC5 potato variety without being part of its contract farming program and demanded Rs. 1 crore as penalty from each of the individual farmers. This lawsuit sparked public outrage, with many who looked at it as an attempt to intimidate small farmers. Following intervention from the Gujarat government, PepsiCo ultimately withdrew the lawsuits.

In June 2019, activist Karuna Kuruganti challenged PepsiCo’s registration of the FC5 potato variety. She argued that the registration violated farmers’ rights under the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights (PPVFR) Act and highlighted procedural irregularities, including a lack of proper documentation. In 2021, the PPVFR authority agreed, revoking the intellectual property protection for the FC5 potato variety, citing that Indian regulations do not permit the patenting of seed varieties.

PepsiCo subsequently challenged the revocation of its Plant Variety Protection (PVP) Certificate in the Delhi High Court. However, on July 5, 2023, the Single Bench of the court dismissed PepsiCo’s appeal. The company appealed before the Division Bench of the High Court in order to seek a reversal of the order dated July 5, 2023.

Issues

The main issue in this case was whether PepsiCo’s registration of the FC5 potato variety under India’s Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001 (PPVFR Act) should be revoked. The case pitted PepsiCo’s intellectual property claim to the FC5 potato variety against the rights of Indian farmers. The question centers on whether PepsiCo’s registration followed the necessary procedural requirements and whether it infringed on farmers’ rights to save, use, and sell seeds of even protected varieties, as granted by the PPVFR Act.

Rules

The PPVFR Act protects plant breeders while safeguarding farmers’ rights. Under Section 39, farmers are entitled to save, use, sow, and sell their farm produce, including seeds of protected varieties. Section 34 allows for the revocation of a plant variety registration if it was granted based on incorrect or incomplete information. Additionally, all assignments or transfers of rights must be properly documented to remain valid under the Act.

Analysis

The activist Ms. Kavitha Kurungati contended that PepsiCo’s registration was based on incomplete documentation, specifically lacking written proof of an assignment from Frito-Lay, the original developer, to PepsiCo India. She submitted that the required documents were not submitted to the registrar during the registration process. While Hoopes was listed as the breeder of the variety, the application was filed by Recot Inc., which was later changed to Frito-Lay North America (FLNA). However, only an unstamped assignment deed between Hoopes and FLNA was provided, with no assignment deed submitted to establish the transfer of rights from FLNA to PepsiCo India Holdings Private Limited. PepsiCo cited an “oral assignment” to justify its registration stating that FLNA assigned the IP to them orally, but this fell short of the PPVFR Act’s documentation requirements.

The activist also argued that PepsiCo had violated the 2001 law by filing lawsuits against farmers. Under Section 39(1)(iv) of the PPVFR Act, farmers have the right to save, use, sow, resow, exchange, share, or sell their farm produce, including seeds of a protected variety, in the same way they were entitled to before the Act came into effect. Hence the rights of the farmers supersede the rights of the breeder which was PepsiCo in the present case.

Judgement by the Court and its implications

On January 9, 2024, the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court reversed this decision, allowing PepsiCo’s appeal and overturning the July 2023 ruling. The Division Bench found that “neither the application nor the ultimate grant suffered from a fundamental misdeclaration or a failure to provide information as required by the provisions of the act, read along with the rules” and subsequently held that a plant variety registration could not be revoked based on procedural issues, such as errors in the application process; rather, revocation could only occur if substantive issues regarding the validity or eligibility of the registration were found. It found that PepsiCo had accurately informed the registrar of seeking registration under the “extant” category, and that FLNA had authorized PepsiCo to file the application, as clarified in a letter from FLNA in September 2019. Consequently, the Division Bench set aside the PPVFR Authority’s order, reinstating PepsiCo’s PVP Certificate.

The judgement underscores the delicate balance that must be maintained between IP enforcement that is relevant for foreign investment in the agrarian sector of India vis a vis the rights of the agricultural farmers themselves. PepsiCo is not the only U.S. company to have faced patent infringement issues in India. Following a prolonged intellectual property dispute, seed maker Monsanto, now owned by German drugmaker Bayer AG, exited certain business operations in India.[11]

Conclusion

In conclusion, the symbiotic relationship between sustainable agriculture and intellectual property (IP) emerges as a crucial driver for global food security and environmental resilience. As technological advancements revolutionize farming practices, the role of robust IP frameworks, including patents, trademarks, and plant breeder’s rights, becomes indispensable. These frameworks not only protect innovations but also incentivize research and development, fostering breakthroughs in seed production, disease resistance, and resource optimization. However, the shadow of biopiracy looms large, underscoring the need for a paradigm shift towards community empowerment, adaptation of customary laws, and enhanced transparency. Only through addressing these challenges can IP truly become a catalyst for equitable innovation in agricultur’

References:

[1] World Intellectual Property Organization. (n.d.). International property (IP) and April 24, 2023 IP and innovation … – wipo. WIPO. https://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/mdocs/en/wipo_ipda_ge_23/wipo_ipda_ge_23_1.pdf

 

[2] Plantauthority.gov.in. (n.d.). Compendium for all categories upto Nov, 2021. https://plantauthority.gov.in/sites/default/files/compediumforallcategoryuptonov-2021.pdf

 

[3] Agriculture drones: Farming drone for crop monitoring. JOUAV. (2023, December 8). https://www.jouav.com/blog/agriculture-drone.html

 

[4] IPR, Innovation & Agriculture . (n.d.). https://fsii.in/ipr-innovation-agriculture/

[5] Watal, J. (1998, July). Intellectual property rights in Indian agriculture – ICRIER. icrier.org. https://icrier.org/pdf/jayashreeW.PDF

 

[6] Directive 98/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council

[7] Directive 98/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions. FAO.org. (n.d.). https://www.fao.org/faolex/results/details/en/c/LEX-FAOC034509/

 

[8] isaaa.org. (2024, January 10). Scientists uncover plant hormone that boosts plant growth by 30%. Scientists Uncover Plant Hormone that Boosts Plant Growth by 30%. https://www.isaaa.org/kc/cropbiotechupdate/article/default.asp?ID=20563

 

[9] E-course PGS 503 : Intellectual property and its management in … – hau. hau.ac.in. (n.d.). https://hau.ac.in/public/pages-pdf/1548828324.pdf

 

[10] Official website of protection of plant varieties and farmers’ Rights Authority, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare. Plantauthority. (n.d.). https://plantauthority.gov.in/

 

[11] Reuters. (2024, January 11). Pepsico wins appeal against Indian attempt to remove potato patent | Reuters. PepsiCo wins appeal against Indian attempt to remove potato patent. https://www.reuters.com/business/retail-consumer/pepsico-wins-appeal-against-indian-attempt-remove-potato-patent-2024-01-10/

Image Credits:

Photo by Thicha Satapitanon on Canva

Sustainable agriculture in today’s day and age is embracing a wave of innovative technologies that contribute to a more viable approach to agriculture. These advancements target specific goals like minimizing waste, conserving precious water resources, and nurturing healthy soil conditions. Precision agriculture, which leverages data and automation to optimize resource utilization, is leading the charge.

Related Posts

POST A COMMENT

IP Rights in the Emerging World of DAOs in India

Picture this: a group of crypto enthusiasts, united by their love for basketball and blockchain, band together with a wildly ambitious dream. They form an entity and call themselves Krause House DAO (a tribute to the late Chicago Bulls general manager, Jerry Krause), and their mission? To buy an NBA franchise. Yes, you read that right. In 2021, a group of 2000 members boldly aimed to purchase an NBA franchise, dribbling into uncharted territory and causing quite a stir. They met via online social platforms such as Discord and tried buying the NBA franchise not with dollars, euros, yens, or any other fiat currency, but instead with cryptocurrency. While their offer wasn’t taken seriously, the idea of a basketball team managed by a decentralized community, making decisions through collective voting and functioning via smart-contracts, added a fun twist to the realm of technology.

In the same year, another DAO captured headlines when it raised $47 million in cryptocurrency to bid on a rare copy of the U.S. Constitution at Sotheby’s auction house. ConstitutionDAO, as it was known, brought together thousands of enthusiasts who pooled their resources to democratize ownership of this historic document. Though they ultimately lost to a higher bid, the event highlighted the mobilizing power of DAOs and their potential to drive collective action.

Struck your fancy? Well, welcome to the universe of DAOs.

What is a DAO?

A Decentralized Autonomous Organization, or DAO (pronounced “Dow”), is a blockchain-based entity with some similarities to a traditional company but with unique features that operate through smart contracts. These smart contracts are self-executing agreements with the terms directly written into code, ensuring transparency and security. DAOs operate on a democratic model, where members collectively make decisions through voting, instead of a single person or a small group controlling the system. This setup aims to create a more open and fair organization.

DAOs are characterized by their decentralized governance structure, where decision-making is distributed among token holders rather than being concentrated in a central authority.

While DAOs are still in their early stages, with fewer than 5,000 existing globally and less than 100 managing over $1 million, they are gaining attention for their innovative activities. From making investments to forming new types of communities, acquiring precious items, and engaging in philanthropy, DAOs are exploring exciting new possibilities.

History of DAOs

The journey of DAOs began with the first-ever Decentralized Autonomous Organization, uninventively enough, called “The DAO” in 2016, a groundbreaking but controversial project that sought to establish a new paradigm in organizational governance. Built on the Ethereum blockchain, the DAO quickly amassed well over $100 million worth of Ether, captivating the tech and finance communities with its innovative approach. However, a critical vulnerability in its code was exploited, leading to a significant hack and the loss of millions of dollars. This incident prompted a contentious hard fork of the Ethereum blockchain, resulting in two separate chains: Ethereum (ETH) and Ethereum Classic (ETC). Despite this setback, the concept of DAOs persisted and evolved.

Another notable example is MakerDAO, which manages the DAI stablecoin. DAI is pegged to the US dollar and is used widely in the decentralized finance (DeFi) ecosystem. MakerDAO operates through a system of smart contracts that ensure the stablecoin maintains its value, demonstrating how DAOs can effectively manage complex financial instruments without centralized control.

Current Scenario of DAOs in India

India’s tech ecosystem is rapidly evolving, with a keen interest in blockchain technologies, including DAOs. However, the regulatory landscape remains uncertain. The Indian government has expressed both interest in and caution towards blockchain innovations, primarily focusing on cryptocurrencies. As of now, there are no specific regulations addressing DAOs, leaving them in a legally grey area. This lack of clear legal recognition presents challenges for DAOs operating in India, particularly in terms of legal identity, accountability, and asset ownership, but also leaves room for liberal interpretations and opportunities.

Can DAOs own assets in India?

In India, as per the status quo, DAOs face significant hurdles in directly owning any assets, let alone IP. Traditional asset ownership requires a legally recognized entity, such as a company or a trust, which does not align with the decentralized nature of DAOs. Nevertheless, DAOs can potentially circumvent this obstacle by establishing a legal entity to hold assets on their behalf. For instance, a DAO could set up a private limited company or a trust, which could then own assets. However, this intermediary approach compromises the core principle of decentralization that DAOs embody. Several DAOs have recently emerged in India, including DaoLens, Push Protocol, Wall.app, and Raptures. However, these organizations have not yet ventured into owning assets.

Can DAOs be the owners of IP rights, either as authors or inventors or through an assignment or license in India?

The situation for owning IP assets mirrors that of other assets. In India, trademarks under Section 18 of the Trademarks Act, 1999, patents under Section 6 of the Indian Patent Act, 1970, and copyrights under Section 17 of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957, must be registered in the name of a natural or a recognized legal person. Consequently, a DAO would need to use an intermediary entity to own IP assets, introducing complexities and potential conflicts with the DAO’s decentralized governance structure. While this workaround is feasible, it does not fully resolve the legal and operational challenges posed by the current regulatory framework.

Can DAOs enforce their IP rights, such as through an infringement action?

Only juridical or legal persons possess rights and corresponding duties, enabling them to sue and be sued. As DAOs are not yet recognized as juridical persons under Indian law, as stated earlier, they may bypass this limitation by establishing an entity that is legally recognized in India or waiting for courts to categorise them as one. Historically, India has granted the status of ‘legal person’ to entities beyond corporations and charitable trusts, including animals, rivers, and deities. Thus, the recognition of DAOs as legal persons is not an entirely farfetched concept. Once this recognition occurs, DAOs will be able to own and enforce their intellectual property rights.

Can DAOs own assets anywhere else in the world?

The legal recognition and status of DAOs vary significantly across jurisdictions. Some countries are beginning to recognize the unique nature of DAOs and are creating legal frameworks to accommodate them. For example, Wyoming in the United States has passed legislation that recognizes DAOs as a distinct form of limited liability company (LLC). This law allows DAOs to own property, enter into contracts, and enjoy legal personhood, providing a clearer path for asset ownership.

In November 2021, an unprecedented event unfolded in Wyoming: a DAO of about 6,000 individuals, bound together through online forums like Discord, acquired 40 acres of land using cryptocurrency. The DAO that purchased the land is devoid of conventional human oversight; decisions are binding and executed without the possibility of reversal by any individual. The lack of a traditional management structure and the automated execution of decisions reflect the essence of the new technology.

If a DAO can manage and own real estate or other tangible assets, it’s not far-fetched to envision it owning intellectual property as well. The principles that enable DAOs to acquire and manage physical assets can extend seamlessly to IP assets, where the decentralized governance model can oversee the creation, management, and commercialization of patents, trademarks, and copyrights.

Furthermore, in March 2024, Wyoming made significant strides in integrating DAOs into its legal framework by introducing a new classification for them as “decentralized unincorporated nonprofit associations” (DUNAs). This innovative legal status provides DAOs with legal existence, allowing them to contract with third parties, appear in court, and manage taxes, while also offering limited liability protection. This move enhances Wyoming’s reputation as a forward-thinking jurisdiction for blockchain entities and could set a precedent for how DAOs are legally recognized and supported, potentially paving the way for similar advancements in the management of intellectual property assets.

In jurisdictions like Wyoming, where DAOs are legally recognized, they can indeed own IP assets, inter alia. This includes the ability to register trademarks, patents, and copyrights in the name of the DAO, thus establishing a direct link between the decentralized organization and its IP. Such legal recognition empowers DAOs to fully leverage their innovations and creations while maintaining their structures.

Conclusion

The journey of DAOs from ambitious ideas to practical organizational models has been both thrilling and challenging. The concept of DAOs holds immense potential for democratizing decision-making and enhancing transparency across various sectors. However, their ability to own and manage assets, especially IP assets, is contingent upon evolving legal frameworks that recognize and accommodate their unique characteristics.

As policymakers worldwide grapple with the implications of decentralized technologies, it is crucial to develop regulations that bridge the gap between innovation and legality. Properly structured, these frameworks can enable DAOs to thrive, fully realizing their potential to revolutionize how we think about organizations and asset ownership. The future of DAOs, and their ability to own IP assets, will depend on creating an environment where decentralized entities are not only viable but also legally empowered to operate autonomously and effectively. Technology is ever-evolving, and its full potential is yet to be unleashed. 

In order to stay afloat, India must proactively tweak its regulatory landscape to accommodate and support the rise of decentralized technologies. By crafting forward-thinking policies that embrace innovation while providing a steadfast legal framework, India can harness the transformative power of DAOs and ensure their successful integration into the economy. As DAOs continue to redefine organizational structures and asset management, the key to unlocking their full potential lies in creating an environment where these digital entities can operate freely and effectively, driving progress and setting new standards for the future.

The cases of ConstitutionDAO, MakerDAO, and FlamingoDAO illustrate the diverse applications and impact of DAOs, showing that while challenges remain, the potential benefits of decentralized, community-driven governance are immense. Whether in finance, digital art, or beyond, DAOs are poised to redefine ownership and collaboration in the digital age.

Image Credits:

Photo by Andrii Dodonov on Canva

By crafting forward-thinking policies that embrace innovation while providing a steadfast legal framework, India can harness the transformative power of DAOs and ensure their successful integration into the economy. As DAOs continue to redefine organizational structures and asset management, the key to unlocking their full potential lies in creating an environment where these digital entities can operate freely and effectively, driving progress and setting new standards for the future.

Related Posts

POST A COMMENT

Jan Vishwas Amendment: DPIIT Releases Draft Trade Marks Rules

Pursuant to provisions introduced by the Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2023, the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT) has released draft rules for holding inquiry, imposing penalties, and preferring appeals under provisions of the trademark and geographical indications legislations.[1] Public comments on these draft rules may be shared by August 1. [The final version of the rules has been published; click here and here to read].

The draft patents, trademarks and geographical indication rules unveiled in January of this year have undergone significant revisions.[2] Though the amendments made vide the Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2023, to the IP laws have yet to be brought into force, the DPIIT proceeded to notify amendments to Patents Rules, 2003, in March 2024. Through the Patents (Second Amendment) Rules, 2024, Chapter IX A, on adjudication of penalties and appeals, was introduced. These require complaints regarding contravention committed under Sections 120 (unauthorised claim of patent rights), 122 (refusal or failure to furnish information), and 123 (practice by non-registered patent agents) of the Act to be filed in Form 31. Further, the appeal against the order of adjudicating officer has to be filed in Form 32.

The procedure provided under the Patents (Second Amendment) Rules, 2024, has been retained, with slight changes, in the draft trademark and geographical indication rules notified on July 2, which are summarised below:

Draft Trade Marks (Holding Inquiry and Appeal) Rules, 2024

As per Rule 3 of the draft Trade Marks (Holding Inquiry and Appeal) Rules, 2024, any person may file a complaint pertaining to contravention under Section 107 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, in Form-I through electronic means to the adjudicating officer. The said Section deals with the penalty for false representation of a trade mark as registered.

Rule 4 contains provisions pertaining to the holding of inquiry. It envisages issuance of a seven-day show cause notice to the person against whom the inquiry is to be conducted, indicating the nature of contravention alleged to have been committed. If, after considering the cause, the adjudicating officer determines that an inquiry has to be held, a notice will be issued calling for the appearance of the person for a hearing on the date fixed in the notice. At this hearing, the contravention, along with the applicable provisions, will be explained. Thereafter, an opportunity will be accorded to file a counter statement and present relevant evidence (document or evidence to be furnished in Form-II).

If the adjudicating officer is satisfied that the person has committed the contravention, he may impose a penalty under the Act via a written order mentioning the specific provisions and the reasons for the penalty imposition. Notably, the proceeding has to be completed within three months of issuance of the notice to the opposite party.

Persons aggrieved by the adjudicating officer’s order may file an appeal, under Rule 5, in Form-III, to the appellate authority within 60 days.

Other important aspects include the electronic transmission of all communications and the mandate to upload every order to IP India’s official website.

Draft Geographical Indications of Goods (Holding Inquiry and Appeal) Rules, 2024

The draft Geographical Indications of Goods (Holding Inquiry and Appeal) Rules, 2024, specifies that any person may file a complaint regarding contravention committed under Sections 38 (falsifying and falsely applying geographical indications), 39 (penalty for applying false geographical indications), 40 (penalty for selling goods to which false geographical indication is applied), 41 (enhanced penalty on second or subsequent conviction), and 42 (penalty for falsely representing a geographical indication as registered) of the Act in Form-I. The remaining provisions are more or less the same as those of the draft Trade Marks (Holding Inquiry and Appeal) Rules, 2024.

Conclusion

The draft rules signify a crucial advancement in the enforcement and management of IP rights in India. By providing structured procedures for filing complaints, conducting inquiries, and appealing decisions, the DPIIT aims to foster a more transparent and efficient system. The emphasis on electronic communication and timely resolutions reflects a modern approach which can enhance stakeholder confidence in the IP ecosystem. Overall, these initiatives not only aim to streamline processes but also to uphold the integrity of trademarks and geographical indications, ultimately contributing to a more robust IP framework in India.

References:

[1] The draft Trade Marks (Holding Inquiry and Appeal) Rules, 2024, and the draft Geographical Indications of Goods (Holding Inquiry and Appeal) Rules, 2024. 

[2] Click here, here and here to download the draft rules from January 2024.

Image Credits:

Photo by olm26250 on Canva

The draft rules signify a crucial advancement in the enforcement and management of IP rights in India. By providing structured procedures for filing complaints, conducting inquiries, and appealing decisions, the DPIIT aims to foster a more transparent and efficient system. The emphasis on electronic communication and timely resolutions reflects a modern approach which can enhance stakeholder confidence in the IP ecosystem. Overall, these initiatives not only aim to streamline processes but also to uphold the integrity of trademarks and geographical indications, ultimately contributing to a more robust IP framework in India.

Related Posts

POST A COMMENT

WIPO Treaty: Safeguarding India’s Traditional Knowledge

On May 24, 2024, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) approved a Treaty which requires patent applicants to disclose the country of origin or source of the genetic resources on which the claimed invention is based.[1]

Objective

The Treaty aims to establish an international disclosure requirement, ensuring Patent Offices have access to appropriate information to prevent erroneous grants for inventions lacking novelty or inventiveness regarding genetic resources and traditional knowledge associated with genetic resources.

This requirement is also crucial for enhancing the patent system’s efficacy and providing benefits to both providers and users of genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge.

Salient features

  • Enforcement

As per Article 17, the new Treaty will come into force three months after the 15 eligible contracting parties deposit their instruments of ratification or accession. Once it comes into force, the contracting parties will have to lay down the disclosure requirements specified therein.

  • Definition of genetic resources

Under Article 2 of the Treaty, genetic resources are defined as material of plant, animal, microbial or other origin containing functional units of heredity of actual or potential value.

  • Disclosure requirement

Article 3 of the Treaty contains the disclosure requirements to be adhered to by patent applicants.

  1. As per the said Article, if the claimed invention is based on genetic resources, the patent applicant would have to disclose the country of origin of the genetic resources. If such provision does not apply or the applicant does not know the country of origin, the source of the genetic resources must be disclosed instead. Here, the source can be a research centre, gene bank, etc.
  2. If the claimed invention is based on traditional knowledge associated with genetic resources, the patent applicant must disclose the indigenous people or local community who provided the traditional knowledge associated with genetic resources. In case such provision does not apply or if the same is not known to the applicant, the source of the traditional knowledge associated with genetic resources must be disclosed. The source in this context includes scientific literature, publicly accessible databases, patent applications and patent publications.

  • Declaration to be provided if information is not known

As per Article 3.3, the applicant must make a declaration in situations where no such information is known.

  • Opportunity to rectify mistakes

Article 3.4 requires contracting parties to provide guidance to patent applicants on how to meet the disclosure requirement. Further, patent applicants must be granted an opportunity to rectify a failure to include the minimum information mentioned above or correct any erroneous or incorrect disclosures.

  • Patent offices are not to be burdened with disclosure verification

It is specified, under Article 3.5, that the patent office should not be under an obligation to verify the authenticity of the disclosures made in accordance with Article 3.

  • Applicability does not extend to prior applications

Article 4 stipulates that a contracting party shall not impose obligations under this Treaty on patent applications filed prior to its entry into force for that party. This is subject to existing national laws on disclosure applicable to such patent applications.

  • Non-compliance with disclosure requirement

The contracting parties would have to put in place a mechanism to deal with instances of non-compliance with disclosure requirements, as per Article 5.1 of the Treaty.

  • Revocation of patent rights

On a joint reading of Articles 5.3 and 5.4, it is clear that patent rights can only be revoked, invalidated, or rendered unenforceable solely on account of the patent applicant’s failure to disclose information under Article 3 if there is fraudulent intent regarding the disclosure requirements.

  • Possibility of extension to other IP domains 

The possibility of extending the disclosure requirement to other areas of intellectual property can be considered by the contracting parties in the review to be held after four years of the Treaty coming into force.

  • Assembly of contracting parties

Article 10 deals with the Assembly of contracting parties. In the Assembly, the contracting parties will be represented by their delegations. This Assembly is tasked with dealing with matters concerning the maintenance and development of the Treaty and so on.

Hailing this Treaty, the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, in a press release dated May 26, 2024, highlighted that the new disclosure obligations will provide added protection to Indian genetic resources and traditional knowledge. The press release also pointed out that disclosure requirements are currently in place in 35 countries, and most of these are not binding; the Treaty will ensure compliance with disclosure obligations.

Comments

This is yet another remarkable achievement by WIPO in bringing this Treaty, which is to safeguard the genetic resources and traditional knowledge associated with genetic resources worldwide from being erroneously patented. The primary objective of the Treaty is to safeguard the rights of Indigenous people and local communities and protect genetic resources from unauthorised exploitation by third parties.

While the Treaty provides a clear legal framework for the protection of genetic resources, it also fosters international cooperation among member countries to protect each other’s biodiversity by preventing its exploitation by unauthorised parties. This is undoubtedly a significant step.

We hope India and all other eligible member countries will provide accession to the Treaty and make the necessary changes in their respective Patent Laws to ensure the smooth implementation of the Treaty and safeguard our genetic resources.

References:

[1] https://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/articles/2024/article_0007.html

Image Credits:

Photo by corelens on Canva

On a joint reading of Articles 5.3 and 5.4, it is clear that patent rights can only be revoked, invalidated, or rendered unenforceable solely on account of the patent applicant’s failure to disclose information under Article 3 if there is fraudulent intent regarding the disclosure requirements.

Related Posts

POST A COMMENT

Music Behind the Ring: Authors' Rights in Underlying Works

It takes a village (team) to make a sound recording, with inputs from performers such as music directors, lyricists, singers, pianists, guitarists and so on. When it comes to the rights of authors of underlying works, i.e., literary works (lyrics) and musical works (melody depicted on sheet music) incorporated in the sound recording, Indian Courts have taken conflicting views in the past despite crucial changes through the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012. These changes emphasised the rights of the authors of original works and shed light on aspects relating to it, and indeed cannot be termed as merely clarificatory.

On a similar line, in a recent judgment, the Calcutta High Court held that the 2012 amendment conferred substantive rights on the authors of such works, who are now entitled to receive royalties on each occasion a sound recording is communicated to the public.[1] It was also made clear that the rights of the author in the underlying works could not be defeated by obtaining a license to exploit the sound recordings. This article explores the various facets of this momentous decision.

Underlying Works Dispute – The Three Suits by Vodafone, Saregama and IPRS

The present suits came to be instituted concerning the songs offered by Vodafone Idea Ltd. (Vodafone) for selection as caller tunes by its customers as part of its Value Added Services (VAS). While the suit filed by Saregama India Ltd. (Saregama) relates to the copyright in the sound recordings, the one instituted by the Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. (IPRS) seeks to restrain Vodafone from communicating to the public its repertoire of musical and literary works incorporated in the sound recordings.

IPRS emphasised the changes brought about by the Amendment Act and the agreements subsequently executed whereby music companies, including Saregama, assigned their rights in respect of the underlying works incorporated in the sound recordings in favour of IPRS. Additionally, reliance was placed on the decision of the Bombay High Court in Indian Performing Right Society Limited v. Rajasthan Patrika Pvt. Ltd.[2] (Click here to read our article on the ruling).

In the suit filed by Vodafone, being the first in terms of chronology, it was maintained that no separate license was required to be obtained from or royalty to be paid to IPRS for the exploitation of underlying works. Vodafone submitted that the producer was the first owner of such works. Relying on Section 17(c), Vodafone stated that the authors of underlying works waived their rights upon agreeing to valuable consideration. Reference was also made to the independent copyright in sound recordings as a separate class of work. Vodafone argued that royalty was payable to authors of underlying works only if such works were used independently of the sound.

Substantive Rights Conferred on Authors of Original Works

The Court opined that the 2012 amendment “radically changed the legal framework concerning the rights of authors of the original literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works”; a) the authors of original works now have the right to claim an equal share of royalties each time a sound recording is communicated to the public[3], b) the authors are prohibited from assigning or waiving their right to receive royalties for the exploitation of their work in any form other than for the communication to the public of the work along with the cinematograph film in a cinema hall[4], and c) the amendments provide for a tariff scheme as per which royalties are to be collected by the copyright society[5]. The Copyright Rules, 2013 elaborate on the requirements pertaining to the tariff scheme and also mandate the framing of a scheme for the distribution of royalties to the copyright society’s members.

Right of First Owner vis-à-vis Right of Authors

Rejecting Vodafone’s contention, the Court noted that though Saregama was the first owner in terms of Sub-section (c) of Section 17, the proviso added to said Section as well as the third and fourth provisos added to Section 18(1) vide the 2012 amendment recognised the right of authors of literary and musical works in a sound recording. This was said to have an “overriding effect” over the first author’s claim. With this, the Court held that Vodafone was required to pay IPRS royalty for the literary and musical works incorporated in the sound recordings in accordance with provisions of the amended Act.

The reliance placed upon the agreements entered into between Vodafone and Saregama was also not accepted, with the Court confirming that the same did not confer any right upon Vodafone to exploit the underlying musical and literary works incorporated in the sound recordings; the 2014 master agreement, being of unspecified duration, was deemed to have expired after five years, i.e., in the year 2019, based on the provision contained in Section 19(5). The annexed agreement executed in 2016 expressly stated that it was Vodafone’s sole responsibility to obtain licenses from the copyright society. Moreover, clauses of the memorandum of settlement and the new agreement later entered into by Vodafone and Saregama specified that any license for exploitation of the literary and musical works incorporated in the sound recordings had to be obtained by Vodafone from IPRS upon payment of royalties and at Vodafone’s own cost and responsibility.

The Court pointed out that Saregama did not have the right to grant any license with respect to the underlying works, considering that the same had already been assigned to IPRS (as mentioned earlier in this article). Consequently, such a license would run afoul of the terms and conditions of the rights granted to the copyright society and be rendered void based on a combined reading of Sections 19(8), 30, and 30A of the Act.

Decision of the Court

The Calcutta High Court dismissed Vodafone’s suit and directed the telecom service provider to disclose the data and logs of actual use made by its subscribers and the works utilised as part of its VAS within five weeks. So, the suits filed by Saregama and IPRS are still pending, with Saregama at liberty to withdraw its suit in view of the terms of the memorandum of settlement executed with Vodafone in 2019.

An injunction was also issued restraining Vodafone from communicating to the public IPRS’s repertoire of musical and literary works without obtaining a license and paying royalty to IPRS. However, the Division Bench issued a limited stay on this injunction on an appeal filed by Vodafone.

Comments

The judgment marks a significant milestone in protecting intellectual property rights, particularly affirming authors’ entitlement to royalties for their creative contributions. This ruling departs from past practices that often marginalised these contributions, highlighting the intrinsic value of creative labour and ensuring a more equitable compensation for authors. It represents a broader recognition of authors’ rights and emphasises the importance of fair compensation for artistic endeavours.

Beyond the legal sphere, the ruling impacts the creative economy by fostering a climate of respect and appreciation for authors’ contributions. With their rights protected and contributions acknowledged, authors are likely to explore new creative avenues, enriching the artistic landscape. The judgment also prompts businesses and stakeholders in the creative industry to reassess their practices, ensuring compliance with updated legal standards that prioritise authors’ rights and promoting transparency and fairness in intellectual property transactions.

References:

[1] Vodafone Idea Limited v. Saregama India Limited & Anr. (CS No.23 of 2018), Saregama India Ltd v. Vodafone Idea Limited (CS No.155 of 2018), and Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. v. Vodafone Idea Ltd (CS No.210 of 2018); Judgment available here.

[2] 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 944.

[3] Sub-sections (9) and (10) of Section 19.

[4] Third and fourth provisos to Section 18(1).

[5] Section 33A.

Image Credits:

Photo by cottonbro studio on Pexels

 

The Court opined that the 2012 amendment “radically changed the legal framework concerning the rights of authors of the original literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works”; a) the authors of original works now have the right to claim an equal share of royalties each time a sound recording is communicated to the public[3], b) the authors are prohibited from assigning or waiving their right to receive royalties for the exploitation of their work in any form other than for the communication to the public of the work along with the cinematograph film in a cinema hall[4], and c) the amendments provide for a tariff scheme as per which royalties are to be collected by the copyright society[5]. The Copyright Rules, 2013 elaborate on the requirements pertaining to the tariff scheme and also mandate the framing of a scheme for the distribution of royalties to the copyright society’s members.

Related Posts

POST A COMMENT

'INFOSYS' Trademark: Injunction Against Use in Corporate Name

In a judgment dated May 27, 2024, the Delhi High Court issued an injunction restraining the use of the registered and well-known trademark, ‘INFOSYS’, as part of the corporate name of the Defendant, Southern Infosys Limited.[1]

The present suit was filed by Infosys Limited, the plaintiff, against the Defendant, alleging infringement under Section 29(5) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

Incorporation of Companies:

Incorporated in the year 1981, the Plaintiff, six years after its incorporation, secured registration of ‘INFOSYS’ as a wordmark in Class 9. Since then, the mark has been registered across several other classes.

The Defendant company, on the other hand, was incorporated in 1994 under the name ‘Disha Financial Services Limited’. Subsequently, it shifted its business focus and changed its name to ‘Southern Infosys Limited’ in 1998.

The decision of the Delhi High Court:

The decision of the Court is summarised below:

  • Trademark as part of corporate name

As per Section 29(5) of the Act, the use of a registered trademark by a person amounts to infringement if a) such mark is used as his trade name, name of business concern, or part thereof, and b) the person deals in goods or services in respect of which the trademark is registered. Both the conditions were said to be fulfilled in the instant case. The adoption of the trademark by the Plaintiff and its registration predated the mark’s incorporation in the Defendant’s corporate name. Further, specific references were made to the overlap in the parties’ business activities, the objects clause in the Defendant company’s MOA and failure on the part of the Defendant to show dissimilarity in the goods and services.

  • Likelihood of consumer confusion

Though the Court clarified that the said Section did not require one to prove that the use of the trademark resulted in public deception or dilution of the mark, it went on to address this aspect as well. Considering the visual, phonetic, and conceptual similarity between the marks, on a prima facie assessment, the Court observed that there was a likelihood of consumer confusion.

  • Concealment regarding issuance of previous notices not intentional

As to the submissions made by the Defendant asserting deliberate concealment by the Plaintiff of the issuance of notices in 2001 and April 2020, the Court noted that there was no documentation regarding the 2001 notice and also accepted the Plaintiff’s contention that operational disruptions owing to the pandemic led to the oversight in disclosing the April 2020 notice.

  • Delay in initiating action does not extinguish rights under trademark law

Before proceeding to the objection regarding delay, the failure on the part of the Defendant to conduct due diligence before adopting its corporate name was pulled up. This was considered against the backdrop of the trademark being recognised in the industry for over 17 years (before Defendant’s adoption). The Court went on to hold that the delay of over 20 years on the part of the Plaintiff in initiating action did not extinguish its trademark rights, especially in light of the continuous use of the trademark. The mere delay was also held not to constitute acquiescence.

  • Trademark has acquired distinctiveness

Citing the concept of acquired distinctiveness, the Court dismissed assertions that the Plaintiff’s trademark was generic and merely descriptive of the services provided. The Court remarked, “‘INFOSYS’ has transcended its ostensibly descriptive origins to embody a unique identifier of the Plaintiff’s goods and services. Over decades, ‘INFOSYS’ has been consistently used, promoted, and legally protected as a trademark, deeply embedding it in the public consciousness as synonymous, not with a general category of technology services, but specifically with the Plaintiff’s goods and services.”

Finally, the Court issued an injunction restraining the Defendant from using the Plaintiff’s trademark in its corporate name. Since the Defendant had been using the trademark for over twenty years, it was considered prudent to give the defendant four months to transition to a non-infringing trade name. The matter will be heard next on August 20.

Remarks:

While there have been numerous cases of Infringement of Infosys marks in India and some landmark cases as well, this will indeed be added to the list provided the final rulings are in favour of the Plaintiff. This is purely due to the Court’s acknowledging the infringement even though the delay in filing the suit was over two decades. This ground, if upheld upon appeal, will help in future action where the delay in initiating the suit denied an injunction.

References:

[1] Infosys Limited v. Southern Infosys Limited [IA 6817/2024 in CS(COMM) 257/2024]; Judgment can be accessed here.

Image Credits:

Photo by maxkabakov on Canva

As per Section 29(5) of the Act, the use of a registered trademark by a person amounts to infringement if a) such mark is used as his trade name, name of business concern, or part thereof, and b) the person deals in goods or services in respect of which the trademark is registered. Both the conditions were said to be fulfilled in the instant case. The adoption of the trademark by the Plaintiff and its registration predated the mark’s incorporation in the Defendant’s corporate name. Further, specific references were made to the overlap in the parties’ business activities, the objects clause in the Defendant company’s MOA and failure on the part of the Defendant to show dissimilarity in the goods and services.

Related Posts

POST A COMMENT

Counterfeiting: IndiaMART not Entitled to Safe Harbour Protection

In a counterfeiting case involving the infringement of the ‘PUMA‘ trademark, the Delhi High Court held that the defendant, IndiaMART IndiaMESH Ltd., was not entitled to safe harbour protection as it did not comply with the prescribed due diligence requirements.[1]

Upon receipt of complaints from its consumers in August 2021, the plaintiff, Puma SE, conducted a search and realised that counterfeit products bearing its registered trademarks were listed for sale on the defendant’s e-commerce website. It was also found that at the time of registration on the platform, the seller was presented with a drop-down menu with a list of brand names under which the product could be sold, and there was no verification of the seller’s credentials. The present suit was instituted by the plaintiff, alleging that the defendant, by including “Puma shoes” in the said menu, was “aiding, abetting and facilitating” the infringement of its trademarks.

The Court accepted the reliance placed by the plaintiff upon the decision of the Division Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan in Google LLC v. DRS Logistics (P) Ltd.[2] The interpretation of “use of a mark” under Sections 2(2)(b) and 2(2)(c)(i) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, was adopted in the present case; the said expression was not limited to use in visual form but included “use in relation to goods in any form whatsoever” and Section 2(2) did not “control or limit the width of Section 29(6)“. Hence, the use of the plaintiff’s trademark in the drop-down menu amounted to “use” under said Sections. The Court added that the plaintiff’s trademark was visually represented as it appeared to the seller at the time of registration, and the fact that it was a backend feature was held to be immaterial in this context.

Including the plaintiff’s trademark in the drop-down menu was said to increase the likelihood of consumer deception as it enabled counterfeiters to depict their products as genuine. It was held that, with such use, there was a likelihood of unfair advantage being taken of the mark “in a manner which would be detrimental to its distinctive character and repute“.

It was observed that the safe harbour protection under the Information Technology Act, 2000 was not applicable to the defendant since a) its function was not limited to providing access to the communication system, b) it selected the receivers of transmission, and c) it failed to take reasonable steps to ensure that users did not post infringing listings as required under Rule 3(1)(b)(iv) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.

Rejecting the defendant’s contention that it promptly took down the infringing listing once the same was brought to its notice, the Court remarked, “There is obviously no use in closing the stable doors after the horses have bolted. An e-commerce platform cannot become a haven for infringers.”

Holding that a prima facie case of infringement was made out, the Court issued an injunction restraining the defendant from providing the ‘PUMA’ trademark or other registered marks of the plaintiff as options in the drop-down menu for registration on its portal. Further, the defendant was directed to remove the listing of products infringing the plaintiff’s trademarks on being so notified by the plaintiff.

The matter will be heard next on February 7, 2024.

References:

[1] Puma SE v. IndiaMART IndiaMESH Ltd. [IA 15564/2021 in CS(COMM) 607/2021]

[2] FAO(OS)(COMM) 2/2022

Image Credits:

Photo by simpson33 on Canva

It was observed that the safe harbour protection under the Information Technology Act, 2000 was not applicable to the defendant since a) its function was not limited to providing access to the communication system, b) it selected the receivers of transmission, and c) it failed to take reasonable steps to ensure that users did not post infringing listings as required under Rule 3(1)(b)(iv) of the IT Rules, 2021.

Related Posts

POST A COMMENT

MIB Appoints Nodal Officers to Put a Lid on Film Piracy

In a significant step towards tackling film piracy, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) has appointed nodal officers who have been empowered to direct the takedown of pirated content from online platforms. In this article, we attempt to determine the efficacy of the mechanism of nodal officers in addressing the menace of film piracy.

Need for an effective mechanism

As highlighted by the Ministry in its press release dated November 3, 2023, the film and entertainment industry suffers losses amounting to over Rs. 20,000 crore every year on account of piracy. Due to the lack of an institutional mechanism, copyright owners are compelled to seek remedies against copyright infringement and piracy by instituting legal proceedings, which are undoubtedly time-consuming. 

Moreover, the grant of injunctions has proved futile over time, considering the tendency of infringing websites to resurface as redirect, alphanumeric or mirror websites. As a remedy against the infringement of copyright by such hydra-headed rogue websites, the Delhi High Court introduced dynamic injunctions for the first time in April 2019.[1] Going a step further, the Delhi High Court issued a “dynamic+ injunction” in August 2023, restraining the defendant websites and their redirect, alphanumeric or mirror websites from streaming not only the present works of the plaintiff studios but also their future works.[2] The same was considered necessary considering the possibility that the films and series could get uploaded on rogue websites immediately after their release.

These measures cannot do away with the need for a framework to promptly address the proliferation of pirated content, especially considering the extent of losses faced by the industry.

Prohibition of pirated films’ exhibition under the 2023 amendment

The Cinematograph (Amendment) Act, 2023 (the “Act”), which received the President’s assent on August 4, 2023, provides for the inclusion of Section 6AB. The said Section prohibits public exhibition of infringing copies of films for profit if such exhibition is either done at a place of exhibition not licensed under the 1952 Act or rules made thereunder or is made in a manner that amounts to copyright infringement under the Copyright Act, 1957, or any other law for the time being in force.

Any contravention of the above-mentioned provision will not only result in the imposition of a fine (ranging from Rs. 3 lakhs to 5% of the audited gross production cost) but also in imprisonment for 3 months, which could be extended to 3 years. This is in accordance with Section 7(1A) of the Act.

Additionally, Section 7(1B)(ii), as introduced under the 2023 amendment, specifies that the Government or its agencies can take suitable action against an intermediary for acting in the manner described under Section 79(3) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, or any other law for the time being in force. Section 79(3) of the IT Act states that an intermediary can be held liable if, despite being notified by the Government or its agency, the intermediary fails to remove or disable access to material, including information, data, or communication links, that is used by third parties to commit unlawful acts and is made available or hosted by such intermediary.

However, it is necessary to note that these amendments have not been brought into effect by the Government yet.

Appointment of nodal officers

To ensure adequate redressal of grievances pertaining to the circulation of pirated content, nodal officers have been appointed in the offices of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting and the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC). A total of 12 nodal officers have been appointed, out of which 9 are CBFC’s regional officers.

As per the new mechanism, a complaint can be filed by an original copyright holder or a person authorised by such holder, with the nodal officers. The Ministry’s notification provides the format in which the complaint has to be filed. On receipt of a complaint, the nodal officers are authorised to direct the intermediaries (including internet service providers, online marketplaces, search engines, etc.) to take down the pirated content from the digital platforms. After being directed to do so, the intermediaries would be required to comply with the same within 48 hours.

The format for notifying the intermediary to remove or disable access to the content has been annexed to the office order dated November 3, 2023, issued by the Ministry. This order states that the nodal officers have been nominated “for the purpose of issuing notification(s) to the intermediaries in respect to unlawful information as per clause (ii) of sub-section (1B) of section 7 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952”.

Analysis

This proactive initiative by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting has received widespread appreciation not only from the film industry but also from everyone who is affected directly or indirectly. It is imperative to note that film piracy not only impacts the economic aspect of the industry but also discourages innovation and hampers the growth of the entertainment sector.

The concerted efforts of nodal officers, in collaboration with industry stakeholders and law enforcement, are expected to serve as a deterrent and contribute to the creation of a more secure and sustainable ecosystem for filmmakers and content creators.

While this may not help to combat piracy entirely as the content over streaming services are out of the purview of the Cinematographic Act, nevertheless, this is a terrific move to get the pirated content off the internet with less effort and on a timely manner to have a lesser impact on the business of original cinematographic content. 

References:

[1] UTV Software Communication Ltd. and Ors. vs. 1337X.to and Ors. [CS(COMM) 724/2017]

[2] Universal City Studios LLC. and Ors. vs. DotMovies.Baby and Ors. [CS(COMM) 514/2023]

Image Credits:

Photo by Leuchtturm Entertainment on Unsplash

As per the new mechanism, a complaint can be filed by an original copyright holder or a person authorised by such holder, with the nodal officers. The Ministry’s notification provides the format in which the complaint has to be filed. On receipt of a complaint, the nodal officers are authorised to direct the intermediaries (including internet service providers, online marketplaces, search engines, etc.) to take down the pirated content from the digital platforms. After being directed to do so, the intermediaries would be required to comply with the same within 48 hours.

Related Posts

POST A COMMENT