Month: August 2021

OLFACTORY MARKS IN INDIA

The role of a trademark can generally be accepted as a two-way function of protecting the individual identity of a product by making it distinguishable from others. With the continued increase in number of competing products in markets, the quest for each trademark of a product to be distinguishable has lead to the birth of many unconventional trademarks. Trademarks like shape, sound and smell among others keep pushing the boundaries of the law. The argument which makes a tempting case for a smell to be accepted as a trademark is that of distinguishability. As smell is scientifically accepted as the part which is retained by the human memory for the longest duration[1], hence it by itself makes a case for smell to be trademarked to protect the identity uniquely associated therewith.

Two important factors need to be considered while determining the acceptability of sound mark[2]:

  1. The smell should serve the purpose of making product distinctive and not be the product itself.
  2. The smell should not be a derivative result of nature of goods itself. (Ex- an orange drink cannot claim a unique tangy orange smell.)

The perplexing question with regards to the acceptance of sound marks in India comes in form of their inability to be graphically represented. Section 2 (zb) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 as, “trade mark means a mark capable of being represented graphically and which is capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one person from those of others.[3]” While the Trademark Rules in 2017 proposed a way[4] to for sound marks to be graphically presented, therefore giving wider acceptability to them, the same unfortunately is not at all feasible with smell marks. A smell unlike sound cannot be graphically presented, neither can it be stored and retained for long physically, although the chemical formula for the components of smell can be provided with but the same would not be constituting odour. The same had been held in the landmark ECJ judgement of Ralf Sieckmann v. Deutsches Patent und Markenam.

Although the discourse about acceptance of olfactory marks remains largely an academic discussion as one application has been filed before the Registry of Trademarks[5], but if there were to a viable solution to the debate, it would have to be the removal of compulsory graphical representation of a trademark. The EU Trademark Directive in 2019[6] had removed the criterion of graphical representation of trademark which in turn has given more flexible approaches to be seen while considering a valid submission of an olfactory representation, a similar kind of approach will have to be seen in India to come a step closer to the era of olfactory trademarks.

By

Ranjul Malik

1st Year B.A.L.L.B

Army Institute of Law, Mohali.

[1] WIPO Magazine, Smell, Sound and Taste- Getting a Sense of Non-Traditional Marks, February 2009

[2] Id

[3] The Trade Marks Act, 1999, § 2(zb).

[4] Trade Marks Rules, 2017, Rule 26.

[5]  Harshada Wadkar, Non-Conventional Marks, Lexology (March 29 2019)

[6] Directive (Eu) 2015/2436, European Parliament And The Council Of The European Union

INDIAN PERSPECTIVE OF PERSONALITY RIGHTS

Personality rights refers to right of persons related to their personality which are protected under the Right to privacy as it is considered to be the property of a person. It is most importantly used by celebrities and people use their names, photograph, voice etc to increase the growth and publicity of the business. In a Supreme Court Judgment on 2017 it was said that personality rights are derived from the common law principle of tort of “passing off” like in UK. Through this judgment rights were evaluated to the position of constitutional rights and it was said that every individual has a right to control their life and how they want to portray their image to the world, which also means an individual can permit or prevent their name from being used in public.[1]

Position in India

There is no legal statue that protects personality rights in India, but it comes under Article 21 of the Constitution and is also protected through various significant judgments. One of the most important judgments which protected personality rights was a 2003 Delhi High Court Judgment in the case of ICC Development (International) v. Arvee Enterprises, which held “The right of publicity has evolved from the right of privacy and can inhere only in an individual or in any indicia of an individual’s personality like his name, personality trait, signature, voice. etc. An individual may acquire the right of publicity by virtue of his association with an event, sport, movie, etc”.[2]

Personality rights include two aspects:

  • Right of publicity

Right to publicity is a intellectual property right which grants protection against misappropriation of name, voice, picture for commercial benefits to the other person. Right to publicity is also known as celebrity rights. As the image of celebrities is of intrinsic values, it is important for celebrities to safeguard their image in front of the society in keep up their name. In the case of  Titan Industries Limited v. M/S Ramkumar Jewellers[3] the Delhi High Court observed that when the name or image of a famous personality is used without their permission, the issue is not that people should not use the name of that famous personality for commercial purposes, but the only issues which lays is that the name of that famous personality should be used with their permission as they have a right to control when and where their name should be used.

  • Right to Privacy

Right to privacy which is inferred from right life and liberty under section 21[4]. All citizens have a right to safeguard the privacy of their own and their family. No one can publish any persons personal thing without the consent of that person. There are four rights which are protected under the right to privacy[5]:

  1. Right to avoid public disclosure of private rights.
  2. Right to intrude upon a person’s isolation and to prevent some sort of prying in person’s private affair
  3. Avoid fake light and publicity
  4. Curb misappropriation of the name and likeness of an individual

In the case of R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, the court held that it is important to strike  a balance between right of publication and right to privacy. Nothing can be published without the consent of the concerning individual unless in information is based on public records. 

Conclusion

Right to personality consists of two aspects which are right to publicity and right to privacy, which are commonly used for protection of celebrity’s name and image. Name of celebrities are often used for commercial purposes for the benefit of someone’s business, if any such use is without the consent of that person is considered to be illegal. Though personality rights are not included under any legal statute, it is now being recognised through various judgments.

Recommendations

  1. A proper provision should be formed protecting personality rights and laws regarding personality rights should be made strict in order to prevent misuse of person’s identity by another
  2. There is a fine line between privacy and publicity, there should be regulations which restrict media from invading privacy of celebrities.

By

Avantika Singh
3rd Year, BBA LLB (Hons.)
Symbiosis Law School, Pune

[1] Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, AIR 2017 SC 4161.

[2] ICC Development (International) v. Arvee Enterprise, 2003 (26) PTC 245.

[3] Titan Industries Limited v. M/S Ramkumar Jewellers, 2012 (50) PTC 486 (Del).

[4] The Constitution of India, 1950; Art. 21.

[5] T Vidya Kumari. Celebrity Rights as a form of Merchandise- Protection under the Intellectual Property Regime, 9 JIPR 120, 122 (2004).

IPR: The Movement of Struggle to success

India got its independence in 1947.  The economy at that time was still caged in the strict rules and restriction for import and export. While having a closed economy the main motto was to substitute imports and exports and only rely on the products manufacturing in India. The Government had a major control over finance and capital markets which resulted in economic reforms in the country. After introducing LPG i.e. liberalisation, privatisation, globalisation on 24 July 1991 India had a huge increase in GDP growth rate every year. The Intellectual property played an important role during such time. In the initial days IPR was at the baby stage, number of problems were arising in the implementation of the polices.

The Companies and the investors were not even aware about IP and about how can it help the country in its economic development. Thus without a healthy system there were major infringement which resulted in decline of inventions affecting the economy of the country.

     India later on with a view to come up with solutions for all these problems started strengthening in the IPR laws. The New patent law was made after independence in the form of the Indian Patents Act 1970. In 2005 more such amendments were made in intellectual property. In this way Indian signed lot of agreements with different countries like Paris Convention, Patent Cooperation Treaty, Budapest Treaty and TRIPS agreement to comply with the International and Indian standards. Recently, India signed the “Madrid Protocol” which further enhances the applicability of Trademarks in 89 countries. All the amendments made in to the field of IP and India being a part of all these conventions has led to increase in registration in IP resulting in growth of GDP in the country.

A story of success

    On a trip to Malaysia Indian bank clerk and a fledgling entrepreneur Mr.SK.Mathlani came across mosquito repellent mats. This took his attention and he thought that these mats are need of the time and might have huge market for it, because of the daily annoyance of mosquitos that people face. Mathlani invested with a small amount and started with a small-scale business he also realised that for achieving success he would need a brand name and image and thus he patented his idea and trademarked his brand name. He focused on a strong IP strategy on registering trademark and created a strong brand name and image .With the initial investment of only UD $65,000.

   In 1995, one of India’s largest industrial conglomerates, M/s Godrej Sara Lee Limited (GSLL), was looking to enter the domestic mosquito repellent market. After the evaluation of the available options. He saw a quick rise in JET mosquito nets and thus he decided to buy it. This was the case of Matlani’s fortuitous trademark registration and IP management, becoming his biggest asset of all.

Conclusion:

 Intellectual property is still undervalued in many parts of the country Matlani’s story is an eye-opening example of intellectual property can boost the brand and bring out your work to its full potential reach till the end consumer. In the era of start-ups and innovation incubation boosters in our economy, we should know that in bringing out the best intellect from our inventions and creativity, intellectual property is a gold mine to our success. This Independence Day let’s celebrate our minds, let’s celebrate our inventions and let’s make a vision to prosper as an economic empowerment by safeguarding them with our IPR laws.

BY

RASHI OSWAL

B.A. L.L.B 3rd Year

DES NAVALMAL FIRODIA LAW GOLLEGE, Pune

References

JAMNALAL BAJAJ: A FORGOTTEN HERO?

At the 75th anniversary of India, when the general opinion regarding corporate, start-ups and people running them is preconceived to be that of narcissistic profit minting structures, we try to take down such stereotypes and take a glimpse at life of a person who is responsible for not only for one of the strongest business empires of India but actively contributed socio-nationalist forums and movements as well.

Fondly considered by Gandhi as his fifth child, the story of Jamnalal Bajaj is no short of unbelievable exploits. Bajaj who founded the Bajaj group of companies was a rare mix of ethical entrepreneurship. He owned properties but did not let this dilute him from the truth of life and continued to prioritise values even when his business was seeing a surge. Bajaj really took into his own the Gandhian way of life and principles. He was very close to Gandhi and played a very important role in persuading Gandhi to come to Wardha, which emerged as the capital centre of our freedom struggle. Giving up his claim on the inherited property at an age of 17 were already signs enough to show he was not an ordinary business blood. Jamnalal started early from his home, by opening their house’s temple to everyone including Harijans. He was actively involved in freedom struggle in smaller pockets and princely states like Sikar, Bijolia and Jaipur (1939). Jamnalal had important involvements in the Non-co-operation movement of 1921, the boycott of Simon Commission in ’29 and Salt March in 1930. Apart from the works like these on a pan nation level. Jamnalal also worked in capacities of a social reformer, promoting Go seva, women empowerment, promotion of use of Hindi, empowering Dalits and promoting use of Khadi across Rajasthan. He established a Mahila Ashram at Wardha to promote and spread the message of importance of education of girls.

Managing and growing his empire, heading voluntary roles like those of head of All India Khaddar Board and Gandhi Seva Sangh, partaking in nation’s freedom struggles too, not obeying and succumbing to British orders, all this while maintaining and keeping his spirituality alive and inviting saints like Vinoba Bhave to live near him, the story of Jamnalal is a story of a human embodiment of what MBA curriculum have for years wanted to imbibed within students. Jamnalal was not a businessman, not a humanitarian, not a nationalist, not a rebel, Jamnalal was all of those things in one as Gandhi’s fifth child.

By

Ranjul Malik

1st Year B.A. L.L.B

Army Institute of Law, Mohali

PARODIES: AN INDIAN COPYRIGHT LAW PERSPECTIVE

The term parody refers to a work often used to ridicule, criticize or mock an original work. Although it is often confused with satire due to the lack of jurisprudence in Indian law. The US courts[1] have made a clear-cut distinction between the two. A parody is a work that is based upon an original work to criticize or ridicule aspects of the original, while a satire is a work that is based on the usage of wit and irony to bring out contrast on general themes. For this reason, while a parody can be protected against copyright law as it is supposed to add a layer of work to the original work, on the other hand satire cannot take any defense and a satirist has to explain and justify each element borrowed from an original art form.

The Indian law is not just grey on the distinction between satire and parody to an effect that it considers both as same and decides on a case-to-case basis, but it also lacks a direct statutory provision dealing with parodies directly and is therefore based on judgments of the courts. Tests like the four-factor tests[2]in USA are absent from the Indian showcase. The discourse, debates, and precedence on the potential role of “freedom of speech and expression” under Article 19 of the Constitution and its interplay with parody is also not well delved upon in our country.

The general notion regarding an instance involving a parody and copyrights infringement is that parodies are protected under the doctrine of “fair use” as given under Section 52 of the Copyright Act 1957. The arguments arise due to the open-ended nature of the term fair use which has to be interpreted individually.  Furthermore, the moral rights (Section 57 of the Act) like. right against any act of distortion, mutilation, modification, or untoward act done to an author’s original work, over a copyrighted work are put into perspective, as no owner would give allowance to use his/her work, that too for criticism nonetheless.  But that being said the general view accepted can be understood by Civic Chandran v. Ammini Amma[3] case of Kerela High Court, wherein emphasis by the Hon’ble Court lay upon the intention of creation of parody. Meaning whereby a critique of a work by the means of a critical criticism or critical ridicule can be established clearly by a parodist, they can claim the defense of fair use against the copyright infringement. Moreover, the court also laid emphasis on the nature of both the works, which means if both the works revolve around similar themes (which is the case with parodies), then events and incidents are bound to be similar and hence would not constitute an infringement.

Although the ground to make use of the defense of fair use is well established, i.e., to prove a critical imitation, but there is still a lack of jurisprudential clarity on how to prove the critical imitation and how is it different from a blatant imitation. Therefore, while the “what” is answered, the “how” part of the riddle remains yet to be answered.

To summarise, today, a parodist who establishes a degree of critique to his parody work, in terms of criticism, mockery or ridicule or any other form, and can therefore show that the work is not a blatant imitation for the sake of it, can be protected under “fair use”. Otherwise, any other work whether falling into the category of satire or not would be in infringement of rights of copyright.

By

Ranjul Malik

Army Institute of Law, Mohali.

1st Year Student

[1] Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc 510 U.S. 569 (1994).

[2] Folsom v. Marsh, 9 F Cas 342 (1841).

[3] Civic Chandran v. Ammini Amma, 16 PTC 329 (Ker) (1996)

DEEPFAKES AND THE COPYRIGHT LAW IN INDIA

Deepfakes are the new kid on the block, be it your favourite political parties’ campaign being jeopardised by that unoriginal yet infamous clip that went viral, or your favourite movie star being portrayed unethically on pornographic sites, they seem to be everywhere. Unfortunately, as the status quo stands the technology which etymologically is derived from the combination of “deep learning and fake”, finds itself in the headlines for its misuse than the alter.

The question to ponder over purely from an IP lens is whether or not the use of deep fake amounts to a copyright infringement? As deep fake involves fabricating a photo or a video of a person to create it, they are under the Indian law[1] an infringement of the copyright. Section 17 of the Copyright Act, 1957 defines that an author or a writer has the first ownership rights to a creation. In case of a photograph, the author is the photographer and for a video format, it is the producer of the video. Further, Section 14 of the Act also provides exclusivity in licensing to a copyright owner and other person using even a photo or any element from the work in doing it against the Section. It is also of note that deepfakes (especially ones commonly used with a wrong intent) will not be covered under the defence of fair dealing u/s 52, which covers a gamut of acts which won’t constitute infringement of a copyright. Therefore, in light of these provisions of the copyright regime in India, a deep fake will constitute an infringement of a copyright.

The infringement will bring in both criminal and civil actions under Section 63 and 55 of the Act respectively. Liability also arises on account of application of the IPC[2] and the IT Act. IPC Sections 499 for 500 will apply for defamatory act, in addition Sections 354 (spreading fake pornographic videos) and 354A (sexual harassment) will also apply. Deepfakes also amount to obscenity and therefore violate Section 67 of the IP Act, 2000[3] and Section 66E for violation of individual privacy.

Even after the intellectual property protection and the liabilities attached thereof, a deepfake is further against the personal and moral rights of the author, especially when the work is distorted and mutated and put into a morally and legally wrong way.

The deepfakes are a modern marvel of the 21st century, which if used in a progressive and constructive way (medical and criminal forensics among many others) are an asset which shall and are protected under the Copyright Act by the defences of fair dealings, but in as far as the deepfakes for pornographic or defamatory purposes are concerned, which is the more prevalent use of the technology, the creator of such deep fakes is for under both civil and criminal actions for the infringement and also is liable under various provisions of IT Act and the IPC. 

By

Ranjul Malik

Army Institute of Law, Mohali.

1st Year Student

[1] The Copyright Act, 1957

[2] The Indian Penal Code, 1860.

[3] The Information Technology Act, 2000

Place of origin matters..!

Some products or particular goods originate from a specific region or locality and has some special characteristics, qualities or reputation which is attributable to the place of origin. There are various factors governing this like the climate, soil, temperature, moisture and raw materials utilised the process of manufacturing or traditional methods and surely the human efforts that go in the preparation of such product. To make it more simple GI is a sign used on products that have a specific geographical reputation that is due to that origin. It promotes economic prosperity and boosts the exports also preserves cultural identity. In textile and handicrafts industries, fruits and nuts, Ayurvedic products – Triphala ashwagandha beverages etc.    
Here are some examples – Darjeeling tea, solapur bed sheets, oranges of Nagpur, kanjivaram silk and Swiss watches, kolhapuri chapals.

The significant difference between trademark and GI is that trademark is created to inform the consumers about the product while GI is identified by the particular place from which it originates. To determine the quality, reputation and characteristics a trademark can be licensed or assigned to anyone in the world for consideration and is owned by a particular company and not by a geographical place. Usually with GI the name of the place is always associated before the product for eg: Ratlam ki sev, Mathura ke pedhe, banarasi pan, amritsari chole, delhi chaat, ratnagiri hapus mangoes (local).

Special laws are also assigned to the protection of GIs, trademarks laws in from of collective marks and certification marks are intertwined with GIs. Consumer protection and laws against unfair competition etc. 

The reason why GI has thrived in recent years is as it fuels the marketing strategies and is used as a tool to grab the attention of the masses. Consumers want their product to be of certain quality & character that they may value. This has favoured the development of specific local markets or craftsman to produce such products linked to the place of origin. It gives the manufactures an added advantage as the good already has a goodwill attached to it due to GI.

BY

KASTURI MORE

LLB 1st Year

YASHWANTRAO CHAVAN LAW COLLEGE, PUNE

Decoding the Intricacies of Parallel Imports and Doctrine of Exhaustion – Part 2

Law in India:

            Since the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual[1] has allowed the participating countries to form their own methods to deal with exhaustion of intellectual property right, India has dealt with it under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.[2]

            Section 30 of the Act places certain limitations on the effect of registered trademark i.e. it specifically excludes certain acts as not constituting infringement. Sub-section 3 of Section 30 establishes that once the a person acquires the goods legitimately, the trademark owner cannot claim infringement for the sale in the market or dealing of those goods by the person by claiming that “the registered trade mark having been assigned by the registered proprietor to some other person, after the acquisition of those goods or the goods having been put on the market under the registered trade mark by the proprietor or with his consent.”

            Sub-section 4 of Section 30 acts as an exception to sub-section 3. It limits the application of Section 30(3) when legitimate reasons to oppose the subsequent sale or dealing with respect to the goods are given by the trademark owner. These reasons includes situations where the trademark owner can prove that “conditions of goods have been changed or impaired” and therefore, allowing dealings in those goods will adversely affect the rights and reputation of the trademark owner.

            The cumulative effect of sub-section 3 and 4 of Section 30 gives legitimacy to subsequent sale or further dealings by a person once the goods have been acquired legitimately from the trademark owner, unless there has been a material change in the goods which may possibly tarnish the reputation of the registered trademark and its owner.

Important Case Law:

            The most important case in India which dealt with the issue of parallel importation and doctrine of exhaustion is the case of Kapil Wadhwa and Ors. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. and Ors.[3] Here, one Kapil Wadhwa was importing and selling the printers manufactured by Samsung at a lower price than Samsung themselves. The Single Judge decided that the acts of Mr. Wadhwa were illegal and that India followed National Exhaustion. However, the Division bench overturned that decision and held that India follows International Exhaustion. The decision of the Division became the law of the land and International Exhaustion still remains the doctrine followed in India. The owner of the registered trademark cannot, thus, prevent parallel importation and subsequent sale of its products in India if the products were purchased legitimately as long as no material detriment to the value or reputation of the trademark and its owner can be proved.

Conclusion:

Parallel Importation and the Doctrine of Exhaustion adopted by a country has various economic and legal ramifications. While allowing parallel imports and subsequent sales helps in preventing monopolistic tendencies of the trademark owner and allows for making the goods available to the public at reasonable rates, it also makes it increasingly difficult to protect the intellectual property rights of the owners. The position adopted by the Indian legislature as well as the Courts does an excellent job of balancing these diverging interests of consumers and the trademark owners.

BY

TANVEER MALNAS

B.A.L.L.B – 4th Year

ILS LAW COLLEGE, Pune

[1] The WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property, 1994, art. 6.

[2] The Trade Marks Act, 1999 (Act 47 of 1999), sec 30.

[3] MANU/DE/4894/2012

Decoding the Intricacies of Parallel Imports and Doctrine of Exhaustion – Part 1

Introduction:

Many of us have bought smartphones or laptops which were purchased by the seller in countries like USA and UAE and sold in India in the so-called ‘Grey Markets’. While doing this we are usually aware of the technical nuances like the fact that the warranty is not valid outside the country of sale. However, what we are usually not aware of are the legal nuances associated with this practice.

Parallel Importation and Doctrine of Exhaustion:

The situation relating to importation of goods into one country after purchasing it in another come under the ambit of Parallel Importation.[1] Generally, the simple act of purchasing the product in one country and importing it into another is legally allowed. However, legal concerns arise when the purchaser goes on to make a subsequent sale of that product in the country of importation. The legality of such practice in a country is decided by the Doctrine of Exhaustion adopted by that country. Doctrine of Exhaustion refers to the depletion of the trademark owner’s rights over a particular piece of his/her product once that piece is bought by the buyer legitimately in the market where the trademark owner or any party authorised by him has introduced his/her goods for sale. The area in which the trademark owner loses or exhausts his rights upon sale depends on the doctrine of exhaustion followed by the concerned country.

Kinds of Doctrine of Exhaustion:

The TRIPS Agreement, by virtue of Article 6 has allowed the participating countries to adopt their own doctrine of exhaustion. As a result of that, essentially 3 different kinds of doctrine of exhaustion are followed and recognised internationally:

  1. Doctrine of International Exhaustion: This Doctrine expounds that once trademark goods are sold in a market with the consent of the trademark owner he cannot enforce those rights anywhere in the world. This Doctrine is generally followed by the least developed countries as it enables them to import technologies and innovations found in the developed nations at a reasonable prices.
  2. Doctrine of Regional Exhaustion: As per this Doctrine, trademark owner cannot enforce his rights to resale in the countries which belong to a particular region once the goods are sold in a country belonging to that region. However, rights to resale can be enforced if the subsequent sale is made without a prior sale by the owner in any of the countries within the region.
  3. Doctrine of National Exhaustion: This doctrine maintains that trademark owner cannot prevent subsequent sale in the national market if the first sale was made by the trademark owner in the same national market. However, if the trademark owner had not introduced and sold the goods in the national market then he can prevent subsequent sale by other individuals.

Thus, the legality of sale in the country of import after parallel importation and the enforceability of the rights of the trademark owner to prevent the subsequent sale in that country depends on the kind doctrine of exhaustion followed in the country.

BY

TANVEER MALNAS

B.A.L.L.B – 4th Year

ILS LAW COLLEGE, Pune

[1] Shrabani Raut, “Parallel Imports and International Exhaustion”, Intellectual Property and Technology Law Update, Page 3 (2018).

Curious Case of Copyrights Over Fonts – Part 2

Concern about Originality

Another concern relating to copyrights over fonts is whether new fonts can actually be regarded as original works for claiming protection under copyright laws. This concern stems from the fact that fonts (or rather typefaces) are merely altered manner of representation of the alphabets and symbols that have already existed as part of the concerned language. I believe that this concern is misguided and new fonts clearly satisfy the criterion of originality. As seen from the case of Burlington Home Shopping Pvt. Ltd. v. Rajnish Chibber[1], the test for originality in India is the “sweat of the brow” test. For a work to be original, it should involve a certain degree of work and effort from the author and should be clearly attributable to the author as against anyone else. These requirements are clearly fulfilled in the case of new fonts as the creation of the font by the author clearly shows considerable effort on his part, right from the processes of designing typefaces to the development of a code that leads to the running of the program on the computer. The new font is also clearly attributable to the applicant as there is no other person who can be associated with this particular way of expression of the alphabets and symbols. Therefore, the work of the applicant squarely meets the established criterions for determining originality.

A Way Forward and Conclusion

As we understand now, fonts undoubtedly satisfy the requirements for getting protection, both for the code and for the typefaces. However, following the view taken in Aananda Expanded v. Unknown[2], there has been a general practice of not granting copyrights for non-conventional works such as typefaces in India. Even though the phrase “other work of artistic craftsmanship” is included under the definition of “artistic work” in the Act[3], the Registrar as well as the courts have been reluctant in recognising non-conventional work as arctic work under this phrase (as witnessed in Aananda Expanded v. Unknown)[4]. While some have suggested amendments to the Act to solve this problem, I’m of the opinion that rather than an amendment to the Act, it would be more beneficial if a series of precedent is set by the Courts liberalizing the application of “other work of artistic craftsmanship” and giving a wider scope to the definition of “artistic work”. In my opinion, it would be impossible to include specific provision for all the non-conventional works under the Act and including a few of them would prove to be counterproductive as it is usually seen that specific inclusion of some leads towards the exclusion of all the rest. All the necessary provisions exist in the current law itself, what is needed is a proper interpretation by the Courts.

BY

TANVEER MALNAS

B.A.L.L.B – 4th Year

ILS LAW COLLEGE, Pune

[1] 1995 PTC (15) 278

[2] Supra Note 2

[3] Section 2(c), The Copyright Act, 1957, No. 14, Acts of Parliament, 1957 (India)

[4] Supra Note 2