The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Commerce tabled the 161st Report on the Review of the Intellectual Property Rights Regime in India on 23rd July, 2021. The Report in light of the increasing importance of Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) observed and analysed the current IPR scenario in India and the challenges involved in strengthening the IPR regime.

Under the section concerning the review of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 after taking into account the suggestions by various stakeholders, the Report made recommendations on various fronts. The Report recommended that the Trademarks Department should introduce new categories of classifications in consonance with the developing requirements of industry and trade. Furthermore, such categories should be detailed and specific to avoid convoluted interpretations. While acknowledging the need for speedy grants of trademark registration, the Report recommended that the period for which application remains published and open for third-party objections should be reduced from 4 to 2.

The Report heralded the importance of using technology to make the working of the Trademarks Registry more efficient. It recommended that the Trademarks Department should take up initiatives to make the offices more modern and digital so that speedy redressal of work can also take place. A crucial point of consideration in the Report was Section 115(4) of the Trade Marks Act which deals with the cognizance of offences. As per this section, a police officer having a rank not less than the Deputy Superintendent of 

Police (DSP) is mandated to evaluate the existence of risk of an infringement and also the enforcement actions. Furthermore, such officers are also supposed to take the opinion of the Registrar of Trademarks before initiating any action. Attention was brought to the fact that a senior officer at the level of DSP is often burdened with other administrative and supervisory work and thus, is unable to conduct the required investigations timely. The Report in view of this recommended that the procedure set out in Section 115 of the Trade Marks Act should be simplified to expedite investigations. It was also recommended that one or more well-trained police officers having specialized knowledge of IP crimes should be deployed in place of a high ranking officer.

The Report also recommended that a separate category for Export Oriented Units (EoU) products should be made, so that such products could get their trademark registrations on a priority basis and contribute effectively to the national economy by timely export of the EoU products. 

Disclaimer: Views, opinions, interpretations are solely those of the author, not of the firm (ALG India Law Offices LLP) nor reflective thereof. Author submissions are not checked for plagiarism or any other aspect before being posted.

Copyright: ALG India Law Offices LLP

The Tribunal Reforms (Rationalization and Conditions of Service) Ordinance 2021 (‘Ordinance’), on April 04, 2021, decided to abolish the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (‘IPAB’) on account of its incapability to timely delivery justice and reduce the burden on the exchequer. Pursuant to this decision, the Delhi High Court decided to set up a separate Intellectual Property Division (‘IPD’) that aims at resolving IP related matters. The author is of the opinion that the Intellectual Property Division will be able to efficiently resolve the problems for adjudicating IP disputes that were initially posed before the IPAB.

While the IPAB was a step in the right direction, it does not go far enough in terms of creating a robust framework for cultivating expertise from specialized personnel. Neither did it ensure that these judges experience a wide range of legal issues that would enlarge their vision and pave the way for a more holistic IP jurisprudence that can create a balance between private IP rights and interest of the public. Therefore, the creation of an Intellectual Property Division by the Delhi High Court is a first of its kind and has paved the way for quicker and effective settlement of the pending IP disputes.

Specialized IP Law bench is not a novel concept and it has been in existence across various other jurisdictions as well. The United Kingdom was one of the first such countries which established the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC) in 2010. USA and Canada don’t have a separate tribunal or division for adjudicating IP disputes, but generally such matters are presided over by judges who have significant experience in the field. Hence Federal courts generally preside over the matters relating to IP. The IPD is in line with the international trend and serves a similar purpose.

IPD will streamline the adjudication of IP related matters by the Hon’ble High Court, thereby also reducing burden on the courts and will allow for a quicker adjudication process. It will also provide litigants to have their matter heard by judges who are considered as experts of IP adjudication. The Delhi High Court is already in the process of laying down comprehensive rules for the Intellectual Property Division. This certainly gives hope to litigants in these times of increasing commercial significance of intellectual property rights. Hence, IPD can be considered as an effective alternative to the IPAB.

Disclaimer: Views, opinions, interpretations are solely those of the author, not of the firm (ALG India Law Offices LLP) nor reflective thereof. Author submissions are not checked for plagiarism or any other aspect before being posted.

Copyright: ALG India Law Offices LLP

The COVID-19 pandemic has transgressed the boundaries of our usual norms. The whole world has made a shift towards the virtual environment in multifarious aspects. The pandemic ruled out the physical mode of working and even traditional brick-mortar offices adapted to the virtual working model.

The legal industry also saw a revamp in its working, legal chambers, firms and most importantly, courts started operating in a virtual model. Consequently, the concept of virtual internships also started budding since the importance of internships is insurmountable in the life of a law student. Internships provide hands-on experience of working in the legal field, thus, becoming essential for a law student whose only experience with law has been the course books.

In some aspects, virtual internships stand to be a much better option for law students and there are multifarious reasons for it. A law student can pursue a virtual internship all year round; there lies no barrier of time or place. These internships can be carried on while one is attending university as well since there is no requirement of physical attendance in neither the universities nor the law firms/offices. Furthermore, there lies not much expense which is to be expounded in virtual internships as they can be carried out from the comforts of ones’ home. Moreover, this puts a lot of students on an equal footing since not many can bear the cost of living in metro cities, where mostly all IP firms are situated. Due to the virtual environment, students have also been able to intern at foreign firms, thus expanding their knowledge about different jurisdictions of the world, without having to bear the expenses of being there.

Virtual internships have become more fruitful, especially in the IP field since the prosecution/transactional work mostly remained unfazed by the pandemic, as it was already being carried out seamlessly via the internet. With courts working virtually as well, even the litigation of IP matters has shifted to the online mode. This has become more beneficial for law students since they can hear IP matters during their internships, no matter where they are and without any hassle which one would face while being in the courts.

Though many are eager to shift back to the offline mode of working, virtual internships in the IP field should stay even beyond the pandemic. Virtual internships offer more opportunities, especially in the prosecution of IP matters and provide the flexibility to learn and enhance one’s skills all year-round.

Disclaimer: Views, opinions, interpretations are solely those of the author, not of the firm (ALG India Law Offices LLP) nor reflective thereof. Author submissions are not checked for plagiarism or any other aspect before being posted.

Copyright: ALG India Law Offices LLP

The Department Related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Commerce under the chairmanship of Mr. V. Vijayasai presented a report titled, “161^st Report: Review of the Intellectual Property Rights Regime in India” (“the Report”) in Rajya Sabha on 23rd July, 2021. This comprehensive report proposes major changes to the current IPR Regime by addressing awareness initiatives, amendments to the current IP legislations, active involvement of State Governments and re-assessment of the IPR Policy, 2016, etc.

The Report observes Section 52(1) of the Copyright Act, 1957 (“the Act”), which provides an exception and allows copying of the authored works, for reading and recitation in the public domain for use in educational institutions. The Report identifies that this Section may prove to be detrimental to the publishing industry/authors who majorly earn through their royalties. Taking note of this, the Report suggests facilitation of fair and equitable procedure by the way of amending Section 51(1) to permit reprographic works in Government-owned educational institutions and storing it in libraries for easy access and allowing limitations to unrestricted commercial grants to copy literary work and storing them in digital formats.

The Report promotes the implementation of the Central Government initiative of National Mission on Library which allows affordable accessibility to students and academicians via community libraries while simultaneously protecting rights of the author.

The Report guides the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (“DPIIT”) to look into the provisions of Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works for any exceptions to the Copyrights. The report observes that this would prove beneficial to the copyright holders and the public alike.

The Report further suggests some modifications to the Act. The report recommends to increase the renewal time of Copyright Societies from 5 to 10 years under Section 33(A) in order to reduce the administrative burden and the long delays in renewal.

Along with this, the Report notes the rising digital or Over the Top (“OTT”) platforms which contributes widely to the economy. According to the report, India would be the tenth largest market globally with around 805 million internet subscribers by 2022. This is recognized as a need to include these OTT platforms under the benefit of statutory license along with traditional broadcasters. In furtherance of this, the Report suggests amendment to Section 31D of the Act to incorporate ‘internet or digital broadcasters’ under statutory license. The Report observes that this would ensure balance between the interests of traditional and internet broadcasters alike.

The Report can be accessed here:

https://rajyasabha.nic.in/rsnew/Committee_site/Committee_File/ReportFile/13/141/161_2021_7_15.pdf

Disclaimer: Views, opinions, interpretations are solely those of the author, not of the firm (ALG India Law Offices LLP) nor reflective thereof. Author submissions are not checked for plagiarism or any other aspect before being posted.

Copyright: ALG India Law Offices LLP

The Bewildering Predicament of Voice Actors in India: A Performer’s Right Tragedy is a paper published in 2021 [Rohan Cherian Thomas, ‘The Bewildering Predicament of Voice Actors in India: A Performer’s Right Tragedy’. Indian Journal of Intellectual Property Law (2020. The paper aims to discern the issues faced by voice actors. Through detailed interviews from some voice actors, the paper seeks to analyse the recorded interviews through the lens of The Copyright Act, 1957 and The Copyright Rules, 2013. The paper also attempts possible solutions.

The perception of the audience can be affected if a dub is not done properly or if the sound does not sync with what they see on the screen and this issue is called a ‘lip flap’ in the industry. A bad dub can ruin even the greatest content. The public eye is focused on an actor and these skilled individuals do not get the recognition they deserve and are often underpaid. To remedy this, the paper suggests that the voice actor should enjoy the same rights as a performer actor.

The paper draws attention to the unrecognized existence of the voice actors. By voice actors it means both dubbing artistes as well as voice-over artistes. The power balance in the industry works against voice actors, criticism can be met with reprisal. After all, artists have to find work within the industry. This is the reason why many voice actors refused to be interviewed. The paper highlights the efforts and skill of the dubbing artiste and finds that some actors acclaimed for their roles choose, unfortunately, to discredit the dubbing artiste.

The paper examines the efficacy of the laws protecting the rights of these dubbing artiste. The paper highlights The Copyright Act, 1957 and The Copyright Rules, 2013. It suggests to insert the term ‘Voice Actor’ in section 2(qq) of the act and also to insert ‘Originality’ in section 38 of the act. Further, it advises the formation of a performer’s society Dedicated to Voice Actors and to insert mandatory licensing through performer’s society in accordance with the existing Act. 

The paper concludes that associations of voice actors across the country have to educate their community. A voice actor should realise the benefit of being a part of a society and contributing to the industry with skill and effort. The paper recommends that in the meantime the industry comes up with a scheme to benefit the performer’s rights granted under the Copyright statutes. 

The paper can be accessed here –

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rEptn_8ljJ4WM2PPNeClSyi6GfEiF1mJ/view]

Disclaimer: Views, opinions, interpretations are solely those of the author, not of the firm (ALG India Law Offices LLP) nor reflective thereof. Author submissions are not checked for plagiarism or any other aspect before being posted.

Copyright: ALG India Law Offices LLP