INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS

A PRESENTATION BY:
SWATI KESHARI
SUSHMITA DASS
MD.FAISAL HAQUE
RISHABH SINGHAL
KAUSHAL KISHOR
SHRISHTI SHUKLA
MBA SECTION B
 Intellectual property rights
Introduction

Intellectual property is a property that arises from the human

intellect.

It is a product of human creation

Intellectual property comprises two distinct forms:

1) Literary and artistic works

2) Industrial property
 Intellectual property law in india

•There are many big and small intellectual property law

firms worldwide.

•In india intellectual property rights are safely protected

and controlled by well established statutory and judicial
framework

•Apart from that there are many attributes and law firms of
intellectual property all over the country in many STATES.
 WIPO
• WIPO ( WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
ORGANISATION) WAS ESTABLISHED BY THE
WIPO CONVENTION IN 1967
• THE WIPO IS A SPECIALISED AGENCY OF
UNITED NATIONS
• IT PROMOTES THE PROTECTION OF IP
THROUGHOUT THE WORLD
• ITS HEADQUARTERS ARE IN GENEVA,
SWITZERLAND
 PATENTS

A PATENT DESCRIBES AN INVENTION FOR WHICH INVENTOR CLAIMS

THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT

IT IS COVERED UNDER THE ACT CALLED THE PATENTS ACT, 1970(
AMMENDED BY PATENTS ACT, 2005)

IT EXTENDS TO THE WHOLE OF INDIA

IT SHALL COME INTO FORCE ON SUCH DARE AS CENTRAL

GOVERNMENT MAY PUBLISH, BY NOTIFICATION IN THE OFFICIAL
GAZETTE
 INFRINGEMENT
• ANY REPRODUCTION, USE, DISTRIBUTION,
PERFORMANCE ETC OF THE WORK WITHOUT
THE PERMISSION OF THE OWNER

• AN IDENTICAL OR SUBSTANTIAL SIMILAR

REPRODUCTION IS ALSO COVERED

• INFRINGEMENT- DAMAGES-INJUNCTIONS
 CASE STUDIES RELATED TO
INFRINGEMENT
• The Coca-Cola Company Vs. Bisleri International Pvt. Ltd Manu/DE/2698/2009
• IPR Law- Infringement: Export: Threats: Jurisdiction – The Delhi High Court held that if the
threat of infringement exists, then this court would certainly have jurisdiction to entertain the
suit.
• It was also held that the exporting of goods from a country is to be considered as sale within the
country from where the goods are exported and the same amounts to infringement of trade
mark.
• In the present matter, the defendant, by a master agreement, had sold and assigned the trade
mark MAAZA including formulation rights, know-how, intellectual property rights, goodwill etc
for India only. with respect to a mango fruit drink known as MAAZA.
• In 2008, the defendant filed an application for registration of the trade mark MAAZA in Turkey
started exporting fruit drink under the trade mark MAAZA. The defendant sent a legal notice
repudiating the agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant, leading to the present
case. The plaintiff, the Coca Cola Company also claimed permanent injunction and damages for
infringement of trade mark and passing off.
• It was held by the court that the intention to use the trade mark besides direct or indirect use of
the trade mark was sufficient to give jurisdiction to the court to decide on the issue. The court
finally granted an interim injunction against the defendant (Bisleri) from using the trade mark
MAAZA in India as well as for export market, which was held to be infringement of trade mark
 CASES RELATED TO TRADEMARK
• In 2007, the high-end signature hand-bag and luggage maker,
Louis Vuitton Malletier, lost an outrageous copyright infringement
case against comedy fashion company Haute Diggity Dog.
• In 2007, the high-end signature hand-bag and luggage maker, Louis
Vuitton Malletier, lost an outrageous copyright infringement case
against comedy fashion company Haute Diggity Dog.
• The comedy designers had released a line of parody products
named Chewy Vuitton, to go along with other memorable knock-
offs such as Chewnel No.5 and Sniffany & Co.
• Remarkably, the U.S Court of Appeals ruled against the claim of
copyright breach, stating that because of the element of parody,
the products were adequately differentiated and unique, thereby
negating any copyright or trademark infringement.
CASE STUDIES RELATED TO COPYRIGHT
• In 2011, Naruto, a curious macaque monkey in Indonesia
picked up nature photographer David Slater’s camera and
took one of the most famous selfies in recent years.
• David Slater’s copyright infringement claim against those
who had copied or downloaded the photo from his online
posts was rejected, the court ruling that Mr. Slater did
indeed own the camera, but not the photo.
• A counter claim filed in 2015 on behalf of Naruto the
macaque sought to claim damages against Mr. Slater and
others, and secure the intellectual property rights under
Naruto’s name as the author of a work of art.
• The poignant argument in the case is whether it can be said
that Naruto knew what he was doing.