1
Research and write a report on a specific aspect of IPR, such as patent law, trademark law, or copyright law.
Copyright is a right given by the law to creators of literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works and producers of cinematograph films and sound recordings. In fact, it is a bundle of rights including, inter alia, rights of reproduction, communication to the public, adaptation and translation of the work. There could be slight variations in the composition of the rights depending on the work.
Copyright ensures certain minimum safeguards of the rights of authors over their creations, thereby protecting and rewarding creativity. Creativity being the keystone of progress, no
civilized society can afford to ignore the basic requirement of encouraging the same. Economic and social development of a society is dependent on creativity. The protection provided by copyright to the efforts of writers, artists, designers, dramatists, musicians, architects and producers of sound recordings, cinematograph films and computer software, creates an
atmosphere conducive to creativity, which induces them to create more and motivates others to create.
If copyright protection is applied rigidly, it can hamper progress of the society. However,
copyright laws are enacted with necessary exceptions and limitations to ensure that a balance is maintained between the interests of the creators and of the community.
Copyright does not ordinarily protect titles by themselves or names, short word combinations, slogans, short phrases, methods, plots or factual information. Copyright does not protect ideas or concepts. To get the protection of copyright a work must be original.
The Copyright Act, 1957 protects original literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works and cinematograph films and sound recordings from unauthorized uses. Unlike the case with patents, copyright protects the expressions and not the ideas. There is no copyright in an idea.
Copyright protects the rights of authors, i.e., creators of intellectual property in the form of literary, musical, dramatic and artistic works and cinematograph films and sound recordings.
The owner of the copyright in an existing work or the prospective owner of the copyright in a future work may assign to any person the copyright either wholly or partially and either generally or subject to limitations and either for the whole term of the copyright or any part thereof.
Fig1.1 shows the sample application of registration of copyright. The applicants can visit copyright office for submission of application. To apply copyright act, applicants / legal representatives have to pay some fees which is shown in Fig 1.2
2 Fig 1.1
3 Fig 1.2
4
Analyse a real-life case study involving IPR, such as a dispute over trademark infringement or a patent lawsuit.
1) Tips Industries v Wynk Music
Issue:Does a statutory licensing scheme exist under the Copyright Act for online streaming services?
Background: The dispute canters around section 31D of the Copyright Act, 1957, which provides for a statutory licensing scheme, whereby any ‘broadcasting organization’ desirous of
‘communicating to the public’ any sound recording can obtain a statutory license to do so provided they pay royalty rates to the copyright owners at rates fixed by the Intellectual Property Law Board.
Facts:
Tips Industries Ltd (Plaintiff) is an Indian music label that exercises copyright over a significant music repository that, in 2016, granted Wynk Music Ltd (Defendant) a license to access this music repository. At the expiry of the said license, both parties attempted to renegotiate the licensing conditions. Still, they failed to do so; hence, Wynk took refuge by invoking Section 31D of the Copyright Act. Tips challenged Wynk’s invocation of Section 31D and prosecuted Wynk according to Section 14(1)(e) for breach of their exclusive sound recording rights.
Judgment:
After hearing the contentions of both parties, the Bombay High Court found Wynk guilty of direct infringement on two counts – 1. To offer the copyrighted work under section 14(1) (e) (ii), which allowed the users to download and listen to the plaintiff’s work offline, and 2. Under section 14(1) (e) (iii) for communicating the plaintiff’s works to the users via their streaming service.
In addition to that, the Bombay High Court sought this opportunity to clear out the air regarding the ambiguity that existed concerning online streaming services falling within the scope of Section 31D:
1. Under Section 31D of the Copyright Act, the ‘Download / Purchase ‘ of copyrighted works is not covered.
Wynk Music allowed the users to download and store copyrighted music for unlimited future use, which is instituted to be a ‘sale’ and not ‘communication made to the public,’ which constitutes a ‘broadcast’ for Section 31D. Hence, there is no claim for a statutory license for using such copyrighted work by Wynk Music.
5 2. The application of Section 31D of the Copyright Act does not include Internet broadcasting.
The defendant’s case was based primarily on the presumption that Section 31D covered Internet streaming services under’ radio broadcasting’ as described in a 2016 DPIIT office circular, given that’ radio broadcasting’ included’ internet broadcasting’ under Section 31D.
The Court had an opposing view which resulted in the rejection of the interpretation put forth by the defendant.
The Court found Section 31D to be an exception to copyright, which should only be strictly interpreted. Upon careful examination of the statutory scheme of 31D and the rules
accompanying it, it becomes apparent that statutory licensing was intended only to cover radio and television broadcasting and not internet broadcasting. After examining the history
associated with Section 31D, the Court derived that, despite the global existence of internet streaming services when the Section was inserted through an Amendment Act of 2012, the legislation, even though aware of it, omitted to include internet streaming services from the ambit of Section 31D.
In addition, the memorandum presented by the defendant does not contain any additional weightage of their claim as a memorandum only acts as ‘guidelines’ and lacks statutory authority and therefore has no influence to the extent of their claim.
The judgment was passed in favour of the plaintiff, and the Court held that the plaintiff was entitled to an interim injunction, having regard to the reality that they had made a prima facie case, and would suffer irreparable harm in the way of lost revenue.
2) YRF v Sri Sai Ganesh Productions
Issue:Whether copyright can exist in a cinematography film independent of the underlying works that it is comprised of?
2. Does the expression under section 14 to ‘make a copy of the film’ mean making a physical copy only? And between the two films, is there a substantial and material similarity?
Facts:
A copyright infringement suit was filed against Sri Sai Ganesh Productions & Ors by Yash Raj Films Pvt Ltd on the grounds that it blatantly copied the movie Band Baja Baarat produced under the YRF banner and producing Jabardasht which showcased substantial and material similarities in terms of theme, concept, plot, character, sketches, story, script, form and expression amongst other things.
Judgment:
The Court, while determining the first issue, relied on the judgment handed down by the Delhi High Court in the case of MRF Limited v. Metro Tyres Ltd, in which the Court held that copyright exists in the ‘cinematographic film’ independent from other underlying works that come
together to constitute it and that there is a requirement of originality to exist in
‘cinematographic films’ which can be read into from Section 13(1)(b) of the Copyright Act, 1957
6 through Sections 13(3)(a) and 2(d) of the said Act even though it has not been explicitly
mentioned.
The Court, while determining the second issue, held that the expression ‘to make a copy of the film’ provided in Section 14(d)(i) of the said Act does not simply mean creating a physical copy of the film by process of duplication. Furthermore, as the movie are protected just like original works, the Court extended the test of originality set out in the case of R.G Anand v. Deluxe Films to distinguish between the two films based on ‘substance, foundation, and kernel’ and
understand the viewpoint of an average moviegoer as to whether they would have an unmistakable impression that one work was a copy of the other.
In the instant case, the Court found that the defendants had blatantly copied the plaintiff’s film’s fundamental, essential, and distinctive features.
7
Conduct an interview with someone working in the field of IPR (e.g. a patent attorney or a copyright specialist) and write a summary of their insights.
To file patent or to register copyright mark, applicant should fill necessary details and should carry important original and xerox documents such as Incorporation Certificate, Partnership Deed and PAN Card. the entire process takes 2 to 3 months but if any dispute arises regarding the copyright, it can take 10 to 12 months.
8
9 Applicant can register rights through online web portal: https://ipindiaonline.gov.in