Nayantara Malhotra, Associate, lead a very interesting discussion on whether lesser penalty should be imposed on an innocent IP infringer during this week’s practice workshop session. The discussion delved into whether the socio-economic landscape of a developing country such as India should be taken into consideration when deciding penalty on first-time or innocent infringers. The larger question on what constitutes innocence was also discussed at great length.

Dishti Titus, Senior Associate, conducted a ‘Legal Issues Seminar’ (LIS) on Cognizability of the Offence of Copyright Infringement. Second in a 10-session module on ‘The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) in the Context of IP Offences’, the session focused on the conundrum of cognizability of the offence under the Copyright Act, 1957 and the Code of Criminal Procedure. The session also touched upon various judicial precedents on the issue and shed light on the oscillating positions followed by various Courts.

The session concluded with questions on the difference in treatment of offences with a similar degree of punishment under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and some interesting observations from the team on their position on the issue.

The presentation can be accessed here.

In this week’s Practice Workshop Series, Sannidhi Mahapatra, Trainee Associate, lead a thought-provoking discussion on ‘AI and Automation in IP Firms’. The pros and cons of artificial intelligence taking over the legal profession and the extent to which AI can aid IP lawyers were discussed at length during this session.

Second in a 10-session module on Evidentiary Issues in Selected IP Court-Judgements, this week’s ‘Legal Issues Seminar’ (LIS) was conducted by Pranay Bali, Senior Associate, on ‘Issues related to Primary and Secondary Evidence’. The session focused on the for interpretation of admissibility of Trademark Registration Certificates and photocopies of essential documents (such as agreements) as opposed to originals.

The session provided valuable insights for incorporation in practice, and saw some interesting questions on the admissibility and legality of status reports webhosted on the TM Office online portals in opposition proceedings as well as in suits for infringement/passing off.

The presentation can be accessed here.

ALG Associate Siddharth Varshney lead today’s PWS session on the need for tribunalization of IP. Questioning whether there is a need for tribunals to adjudicate on IP matters, whether technical knowledge is necessary, and discussing the practical issues faced by attorneys practicing in these tribunals, the session provided all participating attorneys and interns with some food for thought!