A ‘Special Legal Issues Seminar- General IP’ (SLIS-GIP) was conducted by Uroosa Shahzad and Arundathi Krishnadas, Associates, on “Comments to the Bureau of Indian Standards on the e-commerce rules for self-governance”. The seminar covered ALG’s comments to the draft E-Commerce Principles and Guidelines for Self-Governance published by the Bureau of Indian Standards, Ministry of Commerce.  The session also addressed existing laws governing e-commerce, such as the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020, the Information Technology Act, 2000, the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, etc.

The members engaged in a lively discussion and debate on the best practices of e-commerce self-governance.

During last week’s PWS Session, Naman Keswani (Associate) hosted a discussion on the topic “Should the duration of copyright protection be reconsidered to allow for perpetual renewal?”. The session commenced with an in-depth discussion on the rationale behind the limited protection of copyrighted works, and whether such protection should be allowed perpetually, as other forms of tangible property. The discussion explored arguments in favour, highlighting that protection for an elongated or even perpetual duration does not hinder creativity, while opposing views focused on how granting an option to protect copyright perpetually would affect public knowledge. and further creativity. The session further delved into what kinds of copyrighted work would attract perpetual protection, and how the current legal framework, by way of fair use, would ensure a balance. The session concluded that copyright protection can be reconsidered for limited extensions in specific cases but moves towards perpetual protection must be approached with caution to preserve the balance between incentivizing creators and safeguarding the public domain.

A ‘Legal Issues Seminar- General IP’ (LIS-GIP) was conducted by Sonal Kumari, Trainee Associate, on “What is the threshold of use of a trademark to claim Quia Timet Action?”. The seminar discussed relevant provisions under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to determine whether an anticipatory infringement claim is maintainable via Quia Timet Action. The session analysed various judgments where the courts tried to strike a balance between credible threats and mere apprehensions. The seminar concluded with the members exchanging their views on what constitutes as “Imminent Threat” to establish a claim of Quia Timet Action under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.    

The presentation can be accessed here.

During last week’s PWS Session, Vaidehi Gupta (Associate) led a discussion on the topic “Does Surrogate Intellectual Property undermine Fair Trade Practices by Allowing Institutions to Claim Public Knowledge?” The session commenced with an in-depth discussion on surrogate intellectual property, focusing on the growing practice of institutions asserting control over digitized public domain works. The discussion explored arguments in favour, highlighting that digitization requires significant investment and institutions should have some control to recover costs, while opposing views emphasized that restricting access to digitized public domain works undermines fair competition, limits innovation, and contradicts the principles of open access. The insights shared during the session underscored that while institutions may recoup costs through reasonable monetization models, they should not be allowed to impose restrictive intellectual property claims on public knowledge, as this would unfairly hinder accessibility and fair trade practices.

During the last PWS session, Vanshika Gupta, Associate, led a discussion on “Do memes constitute an inherent violation of intellectual property rights?” The session began addressing the ongoing tension between intellectual property frameworks and the digital culture of memes. The session examined the nature of memes, whether they are inherently original and if they can be deemed to rely significantly on pre-existing copyrighted content. A key debate emerged on whether memes should qualify as transformative works, and whether there should be a clearer threshold to assess the value addition to the original content. The session also explored whether meme culture could curtail commercial opportunity of the original content creators. The session concluded with a consensus that while existing IP laws provide a framework for addressing meme-related disputes, the evolving nature of digital content and transformative use may necessitate clearer legal thresholds to balance the rights of original creators with the cultural significance and widespread dissemination of memes.