The much-anticipated ruling in the appeal filed by the Publishers in The Chancellor, Masters & Scholars of University of Oxford v. Rameshwari Photocopy Services case was pronounced on December 9, 2016 by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court.
The much spoken about verdict pronounced by Justice Endlaw on the Delhi University Copy right case has yet again grabbed everyone’s attention as the Publishers filed an appeal against the decision. The Delhi high court after a series of litigation
The first of January of each year is, well, the New Year’s Day for most part of the world. It is also another reason for celebration for some authors, researchers, archivists and book publishers. January 1st also happens to be
Yoga is one of the oldest physical and spiritual exercises known to mankind. It is collective knowledge and has been believed to be in existence from around 2500 B.C. Come to think of it, there should be no intellectual property battle over it – it is India’s traditional knowledge and no single entity or company should be allowed to monopolise any yoga asana or posture in the form of a patent or copyright, as the case may be. However, practically and legally, it isn’t this straight forward and answers can only be sought by analysing, inter alia, copyright over yoga postures, impact of India’s Traditional Knowledge Digital Library (TKDL) and the current position of law in light of the latest Delhi High Court judgment.
A movie has different elements that make it what it is. You have the story line (which is understood through the dialogues and the script), the sound tracks that enhance the movie experience as a whole, the costumes and the choices of location, and of course the acting. Therefore, a great deal of effort from many different persons makes a good movie. The question that often arises is, does the movie as a whole receive intellectual protection or can its constituent parts also be protected? Who owns the copyright of a movie? The writers, singers, composers, directors, producers and actors are just a few of the stakeholders in every movie.
Following up on my earlier post about the IP clause in an employment agreement, where I mentioned the contents of the clause ought to define the Intellectual Property, I figured that, that would be a good aspect to cover – Identifying IP.
The Plaintiff, Vogueserve International Private Limited, is an Indian company which was engaged in the business of trading of home textiles, home decorative, furnishing and clothing etc. and provide buying services for international buying companies. All four Defendants were employed with Vogueserve until July 2011. When they resigned, they took with them, the client database and other confidential information. In November 2011 they started a new company under the name of “Excel Buying Services” dealing in the same line of business as Vogueserve. They continued to contact Vogueserves clients through their old email id and used the information that they had taken. Vogueserve filed an FIR against the former employees to initiate criminal proceedings and filed a suit with the Court and sought an injunction against Defendants from contacting their former clients in particular “STRAUSS innovations”, “BOLTZE”, “IMPRESSIONEN”, “SCHNEIDER”, and DS PRODUKTE”.
My first job was at a start-up company – It was a part time job during law school, and I was working for a company that conducted creative theme based tours and events around the city. Working there helped me learn an incredible amount about everything! Partly through observing and a majority through actual experience I learnt the in and out of running a business, in particular, one that focused heavily on creativity.
We are a boutique intellectual property law firm based out of India, assisting clients ranging from early-stage start-ups to Fortune 500 companies across several industries in protecting intellectual property across the globe.