ALG’s Pranay Bali will be speaking on ‘Challenges to Intellectual Property Rights in the Metaverse and their redressal’ at National Law University, Jodhpur’s webinar organized by its Centre for IP Studies. The webinar will cover the challenges to intellectual property in the metaverse from various stand points, including monitoring infringement, enforcing rights, data protection, and also the governing statutory and regulatory framework.

The webinar is live on April 9, 2022 at 11:00 am and is open to students, in-house counsels and legal practitioners, members of academia and the industry, and anyone else with an interest in the subject. To attend, please register here.

A ‘Legal Issues Seminar-General IP’ (LIS-GIP) was conducted by Sannidhi Mahapatra, Associate, on “Do Moral Rights Vest in Trademark Owners over Modification or Alteration of Packaging?”. The seminar explored concept of moral rights for copyright owners and their possible extension to trademark law. The session specifically delved into how the provision of Section 30(4), Trade Marks Act, 1999 could be interpreted to include the moral rights of owners over any change or impairment to product packaging, in light of relevant judicial decisions. The session concluded with interesting questions on the liability of intermediaries such as e-commerce websites for the sale of products under tampered packaging and whether the current judicial interpretation can suffice in its applicability.

The presentation can be accessed here.

During last week’s Practice Work Shop (PWS) Session, Harshit Parasher, Trainee Associate, led a discussion on “Is the Right to Repair Detrimental to the Interests of Patent-Holders?”. The session saw an insightful discussion on right to repair and its impact on patent-holders’ exclusive right to manufacture patented products. The discussion delved into the practice of planned obsolescence and whether right to repair is an effective tool to curb it. The session concluded with some intriguing ideas about how the right to repair can be used to strike a balance between the rights of the patent holders and the consumers at large.

General IP Interns – Tripti M Kumar, Gaurangi Sharma, Tarini Sharma and K Nazreen Haider (Final Year), Anjali Shekhawat, Harsh Agrawal and Prasun Tripathi (Pre-Final Year) have commenced their General IP Internship with the firm’s law practice.

We hope their stay in the firm during the 4 week period of their internship will be mutually enriching and that the firm and they will learn exciting things from each other!

In the matter of Samir Kasal v Prashant Mehta & Ors. [2022 (89) PTC 432 (Del)], a Single Judge [Asha Menon J.] of the High Court of Delhi, vide order dated January 19, 2022, dismissing the Plaintiff’s interim application seeking injunction, held that exclusive rights such as copyright, cannot be claimed over works for which the idea has been in the public domain for years.

Section 13 of the Copyright Act, 1957 provides, “…copyright shall subsist throughout India in the following classes of works, that is to say, (a) original literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works…”.The issue arises whether ‘original’ work can include within its ambit, those works for which the underlying idea is in the public domain or if the underlying idea itself must bear originality.

The Plaintiff argued that the idea and format for conducting a 10-over cricket league for retired players was his own, and that he had exclusive rights over it. The Plaintiff also argued that his idea was being forged by the Defendants for their commercial advantage.

The Defendants contested the originality of the idea and argued that matches in which retired cricketers have played, including to raise funds for public causes, has been conceptualised in 1997 and such matches have also been organized in 2015 and 2016.  The Defendants further contended that the concept of hosting league-matches at neutral avenues and engaging retired cricketers was not a novel one in the field of cricket. Further submitting that the Plaintiff’s idea lacked uniqueness, the Defendants argued that the concept had been in the public domain for years, and that the Plaintiff was not entitled to claim copyright protection over the format and concept of its cricket league.

The High Court, while dismissing the interim application, observed that “The idea of a ‘Ten Overs’ cricket match, with two innings, was introduced way back in 1997 in New Zealand. Retired Cricketers have been playing matches all around the world and therefore, that too, is not an original idea of plaintiff……since each of these ideas have been in ‘Public Domain’ for long i.e., since its conceptualisation in 1997, 2015 and so on, none can claim exclusive right to any of these ideas…….To say that because the plaintiff conceptualized a league match with retired cricketers in a ‘T-10 Test Format’…… that being his idea, had become his exclusive right, is to stretch it too far to claim a right to seek an injunction against the Legends League Cricket tournament organized by the defendants”.

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