E N D
1. IPR Enforcement in India
By Ruchika Sukh, Advocate
K & S Partners
3. Enforcement of IPRs in India
LAWS ARE ONLY AS GOOD AS THEIR ENFORCEMENT
4. IP Enforcement-Remedies Civil
Infringement
Passing off
Criminal
Administrative
Technological measures
ALL CAN BE PURSUED SIMULTANEOUSLY
5. Civil Litigation- Objective To provide compensation to the right holder
To prohibit future infringement
Appropriate disposal of infringing material and all tools/ plates / dyes used for manufacturing the same.
6. Civil Action: Reliefs Injunctions against future violations
Civil raids & Seizures
Damages OR Accounts of Profits
Delivery up/ Discovery of infringing material / documents
Preservation of assets
Copyright owner- Infringing material is deemed to be his property.
7. Interim / Interlocutory Injunction Often the real remedy
Objective: To maintain status quo
Time is of essence
Factors considered in granting :
Prima facie case
Balance of convenience
Irreparable injury if injunction not granted
Gujarat Bottling Company v. Coca Cola 21 IPLR 201
8. Interlocutory injunction Statutory recognition
Importance is also recognized by the judiciary
Landmark Supreme Court judgments
9. Wander Ltd. & anr. vs. Antox India P. Ltd. Supreme Court on interlocutory injunctions:
“Usually, the prayer for grant of an interlocutory injunction is at a stage when the existence of a legal right asserted by the plaintiff & its alleged violation are both contested… The object is to protect the Plaintiff against injury by violation of his rights for which he could NOT adequately be compensated in damages recoverable in the action if the uncertainty were resolved in his favour at the trial.
10. Wander Ltd. & anr. vs. Antox India P. Ltd. Supreme Court on Balance of Convenience:
“The need for such protection must be weighed against the corresponding need for the defendant to be protected against injury resulting from his having been prevented from exercising his own legal rights for which he could not be adequately be compensated. The Court must weigh one need against another and determine where the balance of convenience lies.”
11. Midas Hygiene Industries P. Ltd. V. Sudhir Bhatia & Anr. Supreme Court…
“…in cases of infringement either of trademark or of copyright normally an injunction must follow. Mere delay in bringing the action is not sufficient to defeat grant of injunction in such cases…the grant of injunction also becomes necessary if if it prima facie appears that the adoption of the mark itself was dishonest”.
12. Lakshmikant V. Patel vs. Chetanbhat Shah Supreme Court:
“In an action for passing off it is usual, rather essential to seek an injunction, temporary or ad-interim”
“proof of actual damage is not essential… likelihood of damage is sufficient”
“an absolute injunction can be issued restraining the defendant from using or carrying on business under the Plaintiff’s distinctive trademark”.
13. Enforcement of IPRs - Trademarks Indian Courts have applied and expanded principles of trans-border reputation even if:
The Plaintiff has no presence in India
The goods of the defendant are entirely dissimilar (dilution principle recognized)
Provided knowledge of the mark acquired through various sources of trans-border reputation
14. Enforcement- Domain names M/s Satyam Infoway Ltd. V. Sifynet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (2004) 6 SCC 145
SC has held that domain names are subject to the legal norms applicable to other intellectual properties, such as trademarks.
Yahoo Inc. v. Akash Arora 1999 PTC 201
SC applied general trademark law to the internet.
15. Ex Parte Order When the matter is extremely urgent
At a preliminary hearing of the interim application without notice to the answering defendant.
Granted before the motion for interim injunction is fully heard but for a limited period only.
After grant of ex parte injunction, the Court must proceed with disposal of the interim injunction application after the defendant has entered appearance.
16. Ex Parte Orders Injunction;
Discovery of documents;
Preserving of infringing goods, document of other evidence related to the subject matter of the suit;
Restraining the defendant from disposing off his assets in a manner which may adversely affects rights of the IP owner to claim damages, costs or other pecuniary remedies.
17. Anton Pillar Order Anton Pillar v. Manufacturing Process (1976) RPC 719
Similar to ex parte interlocutory order
After a hearing in camera, Court authorizes plaintiff to inspect premises of defendant and take inventory of the offending material
18. Anton Pillar Orders Sensitive in nature
Pre conditions for grant:
Extremely strong prima facie case
Damage (potential or actual) very serious
Clear evidence that defendants have in their possession, incriminating document/ material which they may destroy.
19. John Doe Order Court appointed commissioners to enter the premises of any suspected party and collect evidence of infringement.
Suspected party may not be named in the suit.
Indian Courts have conferred expanded powers to commissioners- Roving commissioners
Ardath Tobacco Co. Ltd. vs. Mr. Munna Bhai & Ors.
20. Mareva Injunction Freezing order
Prevents the infringer / offender from removing / disposing of assets in which the gains from infringement have been invested.
Aim- unjust enrichment of the defendant and to ensure payment of damages to Plaintiff
21. Final injunction To ascertain rights of the parties
Remedies for Breach of injunction
Police assistance
Assistance of administrative bodies
Contempt proceedings
22. Damages / Account of Profits These are mutually exclusive alternative remedies
Account of profits- An equitable relief
Plaintiff adopts defendant’s acts as his own.
Damages- for the losses suffered by the Plaintiff on account of the defendant’s acts
23. Damages- recent trends Time Inc. vs. Lokesh Srivastava
Punitive damages awarded for the first time – Rs 5 lakhs
Distinction between compensatory damages and punitive damages was made out.
24. Time Incorporated vs. Lokesh Srivastava Delhi High Court:
“The award of compensatory damages to a plaintiff is aimed at compensating him for the loss suffered by him whereas, punitive damages are founded on the philosophy of corrective justice and as such, in appropriate cases these must be awarded to give a signal to the wrong-doers that law does not take a breach merely as a matter between rival parties but feels concerned about those also who are not arty to the lis but suffer on account of the breach”
25. Damages- recent trends Microsoft Corporation vs. Yogesh Papat & anr. 2005 (1) CTMR 424
Highest costs and Damages ever awarded for IP infringement by Indian Courts
Approximately Rs 20 lakhs
26. Criminal Remedies- TM Falsification of Trademarks / Infringement of copyright is a criminal offence
A complaint may be filed before a Magistrate; OR
Police can register an FIR and prosecute directly; (statutory requirement to obtain the Registrar’s approval.
Registration is not a requirement.
27. Criminal Remedies- TM/ CR Cognizable offence
Imprisonment- 6 months to 3 years
Fine- Rs 50,000 to 2 lakhs
Enhanced penalty on subsequent convictions.
Seizure, forfeiture and destruction of infringing goods/ material for placing before the Magistrate.
28. Civil vs. Criminal Less hassle for the plaintiff
Jurisdictional advantage
Interlocutory Injunctions
Damages
Possibility of settlement
However…
No deterrence
No fear factor- no arrest
Expensive & lengthy
29. Administrative Remedies Indian Customs Act, 1962
Deals with import/ export of goods including protection of patents, trademarks and copyrights.
Confiscation of infringing material by Excise Authorities
Restrictions against parallel importation of goods
30. Technological measures Holograms
Electronic devices
Encryption
Anti-copy devices
31. Mechanisms for effective enforcements Political will to strictly enforce the law
Legal power and willingness to conduct secret raids without notice to the infringer
Legal power and willingness to seize all infringing products + machinery and business records
32. Mechanisms for effective enforcements Willingness to follow through with quick prosecution of damage awards.
Willingness to impose deterrent fines and jail terms (to act as scare crows against large manufacturers and organized crime syndicates)
Legal power and willingness to impose preliminary injunction with severe penalties.
33. Mechanisms for effective enforcements Criminal proceedings must be fast and fair
Legal power to confiscate and destroy infringing products.
34. Enforcement of IPRs – Case Studies.
35. Enforcement of IPRs – Case Studies.
36. Enforcement of IPRs – Case Studies.
37. Enforcement of IPRs – Case Studies.
38. Enforcement Blues Judicial/administrative Delays
Lack of ‘Damages Culture’ – no deterrence for infringing conduct
Lack of effective border enforcement measures
Police – political interference, corruption, lack of technical expertise
39. Impediments to Enforcement Police –
Political interference
Corruption
Lack of technical expertise/training
Lack of follow up
Delay in case preparation
Delay in commencement of prosecution
40. Impediments to Enforcement Customs/Border Measures
No effective mechanism available under customs law
IP offences generally seen as private offences
Lack of training/technical expertise
And of course, corruption and political interference
41. BUT … All is not lost Courts are by and large fair and pro active
Special IP (cells) set up in major cities and suo moto raids being carried out
Code of Civil Procedure amended to ensure expedited trial
42. BUT … All is not lost Industry specific bodies formed to fight piracy
NASSCOM-BSA - Software Piracy
IMA - Music Piracy
IPRS/PPL - Sound Recording/ Performance Piracy
With many success stories to their credit!