• Intellectual Property Law

    Moral Rights of Architects : No Remedy for Demolition of Works?

    In May this year, in a case concerning the demolition of Hall of Nations, Hall of Industries, and Nehru Pavilion in Delhi, all three of them being highly acclaimed architectural relics, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has ruled that an architect does not have the right to ask for reconstruction of his demolished buildings as per original plans. The primary question that this case raised was vis-a-vis the ambit of the Right to Integrity in works of one’s authorship as guaranteed by the Berne Convention to which India is a signatory and the mandate of which has been adopted into India by virtue of the Copyright Act, 1957.   [Ayushi Goel…

  • Corporate & Commercial Law Briefs

    NCLAT on Purchase of Minority Shareholding under Section 236 of the Companies Act, 2013

    S. Gopakumar Nair & Anr. Vs. OBO Betttermann India Private Limited & Anr. Decided by the Hon’ble National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (Company Appeal (AT) No. 272/2018 – Decided on 09.07.2019) (Coram – Justice A.I.S. Cheema and Mr. Balvinder Singh)   [Highlights: The provision of purchase of minority shareholding under Section 236 of the Companies Act, 2013 is only applicable to cases of an amalgamation, share exchange, conversion of securities or for other similar reasons, and not every case where 90% or more shareholding in a company is acquired. Second, valuation of shares for the purchase of minority shareholding under Section 236(2) must be done by a “registered valuer” and…

  • Securities Law Briefs

    IL&FS Securities Services Ltd. Vs. NSE Clearing & Ors. [SAT Order – 03.07.2019]

     [Highlights: First, the Hon’ble Securities Appellate Tribunal has held that decisions of Clearing Corporations established under Section 8-A of the Securities Contract (Regulation) Act, 1956 are appealable under Section 23L of that Act. Second, it reiterated that SEBI has wide powers to consider an annulment of trades under Sections 11 & 11B of the SEBI Act, 1992. Third, an affected party has the right to apply for the modification of a SEBI order and SEBI cannot deny such party, seeking to protect its interests, an opportunity of being heard.]   Decided by the Hon’ble Securities Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai – Appeal No. 262/2019 – Decided on 03.07.2019 (here)   Facts of…

  • Intellectual Property Law

    Judicial Evolution of ‘Fair Use’ of Copyrights – In the Context of Parodies

    To parody is to imitate another’s work in order to ridicule or criticize such work. The act of copying may also be the result of reproducing an original work indirectly, which is from a copy thereof. Parody is not possible without reproduction of a certain amount of work from the original published work. Where does an act of parody then violate the rights of the creator and cause copyright infringement?   [Abhishek Iyer is a student of 3rd Year B.A.-LLB at the Gujarat National Law University, Gandhinagar and can be reached at abhishekiyer1999[at]gmail.com]   History of the Creator’s Rights The first statute that protected the creator’s rights was Britain’s Statute of Anne…

  • Intellectual Property Law

    Trade Dress Infringement: When Imitation is not Flattery

    The Trade Marks Act (TMA) was introduced in 1999 for the registration of Trade Marks in India and mainly to provide for better protection of the trademark for goods and services preventing their fraudulent use. Trade Mark refers to a graphically representable mark capable of distinguishing a particular good or service distinctively which includes the shape of goods, their packaging and combination of colours, etc. Under section 2(q) of TMA, a ‘package’ further includes a case, box, container, covering, folder, receptacle, vessel, casket, bottle, wrapper, label, band, ticket, reel, frame, capsule, cap, lid, stopper and cork. This article seeks to analyse ‘trade dress’ as an intellectual property right, both in…

css.php