2. •Intellectual property is the creation of human mind, the human
intellect and hence called intellectual property.
•By acquiring a legal right over the property, the creator of the
intellectual property seeks to ensure that he has exclusive rights
over it and that property can be put to use by others only with his
content.
•Common types of intellectual property rights include :
• Copyrights
• Trademarks
• Patents
• Industrial design rights
• Trade secrets.

3.  IPRs are key elements needed to maintain the competitive
edge of any industry.
 Impart success to the business by creating and preserving
exclusive markets.
 Increasing costs of R&D in developing new products and
processes.
 To provide incentives to inventors for further research and
investment in R&D.

4. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
INDUSTRIAL COPYRIGHT AND EMERGING
PROPERTY NEIGHBOURING FORMS
LAW
•Patents •Writings •Domain Names
(Inventions) •Musical Works •Digital
•Trademark •Audiovisual Works Copyrights
(Goods & •Painting & •Geographical
Services) Drawings Indications
•Industrial •Broadcasts
Designs •Architectural
Works
•Performances
•Sound
Recordings

6. TATA SONS v/s BODACIOUS TATAs
 Trade mark violations through meta-tags.
 The defendants had hyperlinks to pornographic
sites.
 The moment a user queried for TATAs, the
defendant's web site would show up in the search
results right at the top.
 The Delhi High Court restrained the use of the
famous trade mark “TATA” not only as a domain
name and as a trade mark but also as a meta-tag.

7. Tata Sons Limited v/s Manu Kosuri
 The trade mark “TATA” had been copied in various forms
by the domain name registrant, namely as jrdtata.com,
ratantata.com, tatayodogawa.com, tatahoneywell.com, etc.
 The case was filed against in the Delhi High Court.
 The Delhi High Court found similarity between the trade
mark TATA and each of these domain names.
 The domain names were put on hold by NSI.
 NSI filed a declaration in court stating that they would
abide by the orders of the Delhi High Court in respect of
these domain names.

9. Puneet Industrial Controls Pvt. Ltd.
v/s.
Classic Electronics:
 The plaintiff was engaged in the manufacturing and
selling broad range of electric goods.
 The plaintiff alleged that his relative, misusing the
trade secret and confidential information, had started
his own manufacturing unit and started imitating the
products.
 The court held that plaintiff had copyright over the
information and restrained the defendants from
imitating the products of the plaintiff.

10. BCCI v/s REDIFF.COM:
 Issued a notice against Rediff.com on a petition from the
BCCI.
 To restrain the web portal from using the domain name
“indianfantasyleague.com” in an online cricket game.
 Also to restrain the respondent using logo depicting a
batsman playing a shot in the game, as they were
deceptively similar to BCCI's Indian Premier League
(IPL) trademark and the logo.
 Sought a direction to Rediff.com to render a true and
faithful account of all profits earned by them by using the
impugned trademark "IFL" as well as the logo.
 Claimed damages to the tune of Rs 10 lakhs.

12. BASMATI RICE ISSUE
 In September 1997, a Texas company called RiceTec won
a patent on "basmati rice lines and grains”.
 RiceTec, owned by Prince Hans-Adam of Liechtenstein,
faced international outrage over allegations of biopiracy.
 India threatened to take the matter to WTO as a violation
of TRIPS which could have resulted in a major
embarrassment for the United States.
 Both voluntarily and due to review decisions by the United
States Patent Office, RiceTec has lost most of the claims
of the patent, including, most importantly, the right to call
their rice lines "basmati”.
 Huge victory for Indian farmers who could have faced

13. VIRGIN ATLANTIC v/s JET
AIRWAYS
 “Virgin Atlantic” introduced an inward-facing herringbone
layout, and holds a patent and design rights in several
countries, including the UK.
 In 2007 Virgin Atlantic initiated legal proceedings against
Premium Aircraft Interiors UK Ltd, known as Contour, the
firm that designed the airline’s flatbed seats for selling
copies of the design to rivals, including Jet Airways.

14. CONTD….
 Virgin was unsuccessful at the first instance in Jan’09.But
in Oct’09, the previous decision was overturned and ruled
in favor of Virgin, holding the Patent to be valid and
infringed.
 Virgin has filed an infringement suit against Jet Airways in
the UK.
 The pre-grant opposition to the Indian Patent application
is pending at the Chennai Patent Office and is presently
at hearing stage.
 Jet Airways, if unsuccessful will incur huge loss (money
and time), and subsequent patent infringement suits if
Virgin is successful in obtaining a patent in India.

15. THANK YOU