IP Litigation on the Internet

7/25/2019 IP Litigation on the Internet

1/26

P V S G I R I D H A RAdvocate

Giridhar & Sai Associates

IP ISSUES ON THE INTERNET


2/26

INTERNET AS COMMERCIAL SPACE

Internet Commerce is the se o! the Internet !or a""#hases o! creatin$ and com#"etin$ %sinesstransactions

Too mch !ocs has %een #t on carr&in$ ot the !ina"

transactiona" #hases ' the orderin$ and #a&ment

i(e( #rocess o! De"iver& to the end'cstomer


3/26

Internet Commerce is the se o! the Internet !or a"" #hases o! creatcom#"etin$ %siness transactions)

Too mch !ocs has %een #t on carr&in$ ot the !ina" transactiona" the orderin$ and #a&ment)

*t +ithot esta%"ished s##"& chains !or re$"ar and rotine #r#osover"oo-s the +ider #ers#ective)

It is o!ten said, that the !orma" #"acement o! an order is #receded %man& as ./ #revios in!ormation e0chan$es(

DUM* PIPELINE SMART PIPELINE

IPIN1R

INGEME

NT


4/26

Internet Commerce com#rises

Full sales and marketing cycleIdentifying new markets

Developing ongoing customer relationshipsAssisting potential

customers with their purchasing decision

Providing round-the-clock points of sale

Supply Chain Management

ngoing Customer Support


5/26

Is it on"& a%ot trade34hat a%ot man!actre3

.D PRINTING


6/26

Is it on"& a%ot trade34hat a%ot man!actre3

.D #rintin$ or additive man!actrin$ is a #rocess o!ma-in$ three dimensiona" so"id o%5ects !rom a di$ita"!i"e( The creation o! a .D #rinted o%5ect is achievedsin$ additive #rocesses( In an additive #rocess ano%5ect is created %& "a&in$ do+n sccessive "a&ers o!materia" nti" the entire o%5ect is created(

In 6"& 7/87 the U(S( Arm& de#"o&ed 7/'!oot shi##in$containers "oaded +ith .D #rinters to A!$hanistan( Eachcontainer +as sta!!ed %& t+o en$ineers and ses #"astic,stee", and a"minm to #rint ot %att"e!ie"d e9i#mentand re#"acement #arts on the !"&(

Internet o! Thin$s :IoT; < Sec( .- :hard+are #er se3;


7/26

Dm%Pi#e"ine Smart

Pi#e"ine

4h& did =c-er%er$ %& 4hatsa## !or >8? %i""ion+hen he co"d have do+n"oaded it !or !ree3


8/26

Le$a" Im#"ications

So!t+arisation :Sec( .- ' @Hard+are #er se;

O+nershi# B Licensin$ :Trans!er o! Pro#ert& Act;

IP and doctrine o! E0hastion

Citiens, Consmers B Users


9/26

IP Liti$ation in Internet < e& Isses

6risdiction

Cha""en$es in IP Protection B En!orcement

Isses

6risdiction Domain Names

e&+ordsFAd+ords

IP In!rin$ement


10/26

6risdiction Banyan Tree Holding v Muralikrishna Reddy (200

The #"ainti!!, *an&an Tree Ho"din$s, is a hos#ita"it& com#an& re$istin Sin$a#ore +ith %siness ventres across the $"o%e and c"aim to sed the mar- *an&an Tree and %an&an tree device in its %stransactions since 8?, there%& ac9irin$ a secondar& meadistinctiveness and a $reat de$ree o! $ood+i"" +or"d+ide(

The de!endants are to+nshi# deve"o#ers residin$ in H&dera%ad :An

Pradesh; and have ado#ted the name @*an&an Tree Retreat !or ontheir #ro5ects(


11/26

*an&an Tree Ho"din$ v Mra"i-rishna Redd&

P"ainti!! averment ' Cort #ossesses re9isite 5risdiction

services are o!!ered to De"hi residents thro$h %rochres(

' De!endants +e%site is interactive B accessi%"e !rom an&+he

' niversa"it&, %i9it&, and ti"it& o! the Internet B th

indicative that the De"hi Hi$h Cort #ossessed 5risdiction(

P"ainti!! so$ht e0 #arte interim in5nction a$ainst the #a

di"tion o! the *an&an Tree mar- on the De!endant +e%sit


12/26

Jestions that arose in *an&an case

:i; Does hostin$ o! a niversa""& accessi%"e +e%site %& the De!endants

5risdiction to the !orm Cort !or the #r#oses o! a #assin$'o!! actio

in!rin$ement action +here the P"ainti!! is not carr&in$ on %siness +i

5risdiction o! sch cort3

:ii; +here the de!endant is so$ht to %e sed on the %asis that its +eaccessi%"e in the !orm state, +hat is the e0tent o! the %rden on th

#rima !acie esta%"ish that the !orm cort has 5risdiction to enterta

:iii; Is it #ermissi%"e !or the P"ainti!! to esta%"ish sch #rima !acie cas

Ktra# ordersK or Ktra# transactionsK3


13/26

Ans+er to Isse 8

8( the P"ainti!! +o"d have to sho+ that the De!endant KpurposeavailedK itse"! o! the 5risdiction o! the !orm cort(

7( 1or this it +o"d have to %e #rima !acie sho+n that the natre activit& ind"$ed in %& the De!endant %& the se o! the +e%site

an intention to conc"de a commercia" transaction +ith the +eand that the s#eci!ic tar$etin$ o! the !orm state %& the De!endres"ted in an in5r& or harm to the P"ainti!! +ithin the !orm s


14/26

Ans+er to Isse 7

Requirements under Section 20 (c) !"- Some #art o! the case o! action has arisen in the !orm state %&

internet %& the De!endant

- sho+ #rima !acie that the said +e%site, +hether e#hemistica""&

K#assive #"sK or KinteractiveK, +as s#eci!ica""& tar$eted at vie+estate !or commercia" transactions(

- The P"ainti!! +o"d have to #"ead this and #rodce materia" to #that some commercia" transaction sin$ the +e%site +as entereDe!endant +ith a ser o! its +e%site +ithin the !orm state res

in5r& or harm to the P"ainti!! +ithin the !orm state(


15/26

Ans+er to Isse .

8( The commercia" transaction entered into %& the De!endantinternet ser "ocated +ithin the 5risdiction o! the !orm c!e a solitary trap transaction since that +o"d not %e an iKpurposeful" availment %& the De!endant(

7( It +o"d have to %e a rea" commercia" transaction that thehas +ith someone not set # %& the P"ainti!! itse"!( I! the ois in the !orm o! a series o! tra# transactions, the& have to havin$ %een o%tained sin$ !air means( P"ainti!! see-in$ to5risdiction on the %asis o! sch tra# transactions +o"d hanam%i$os"& in the #"aint, and a"so #"ace a"on$ +ith it smateria", to #rima !acie sho+ that the tra# transactions re

satis!& the a%ove test(


16/26

S"idin$ Sca"e o! =i##o case

The cort a##"ied the Ks"idin$ sca"eK test !or determinin$ "eve" o!interactivit& o! the +e%site, !or the #r#oses o! ascertainin$ 5risd

o! the !orm state in =i##o M!$( Co( v( =i##o Dot Com :8??;

The cort in =i##o c"assi!ied +e%sites as :i; #assive, :ii; interactive

:iii; inte$ra" to the de!endants %siness(

Ka three #ron$ed test has emer$ed !or determinin$ +hether the e0

o! s#eci!ic #ersona" 5risdiction over a non'resident de!endant is

a##ro#riate8( the de!endant mst have s!!icient Kminimm contactsK +ith the !orm sta7( the c"aim asserted a$ainst the de!endant mst arise ot o! those contacts

.( the e0ercise o! 5risdiction mst %e reasona%"e(K


17/26

Domain Names F TMSatyam #n$o%ay &td' v Si$ynetSolutions !vt' &tdAIR 7// SC ./

The a##e""ant +hich +as incor#orated in 8?? re$istered severa"domain names "i-e +++(si!&net, +++(si!&ma""(com,+++(si!&rea"estate(com etc(, +ith ICANN and 4IPO(

The res#ondent re$istered the domain names, +++(si!!&net(netand +++(si!!&net(com in 7//8(

Does re$istration o! domain name +ith ICANN con!er IPR3 The S#reme Cort he"d

A domain name can %e said to %e a +ord or name +hich is ca#a%"e o!

distin$ishin$ the s%5ect o! trade or service(

The se o! the same or simi"ar domain name ma& "ead to a diversion o!

sers +hich co"d res"t !rom sch sers mista-en"& accessin$ one domain

name instead o! another(
http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1630167/http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1630167/http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1630167/http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1630167/http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1630167/http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1630167/http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1630167/


18/26

Are e&+ordsFAd+ords Trade Mar-sConsim In!o v Goo$"e India :7/8/;

Goo$"e sed !or trademar- in!rin$ement %ecase o! its@e&+ords S$$estion Too", +hich +as s$$estin$ the se o!the P"ainti!!s re$istered trademar- !or Goo$"es @Ad'+ords#ro$ram(

De!endants No( 7 to , a"" o! them rnnin$ com#etin$

matrimonia" +e%sites, "i-e Sim#"&marr&(com +ere sin$ theP"ainti!!s re$istered trademar-s "i-e *haratmatrimon& as-e&+ords there%& dis#"a&in$ their advertisements as s#onsored"in-s on the Goo$"e search#a$e +henever a ser -e&ed in theP"ainti!!s trademar-s into the Goo$"e search en$ine(


19/26

Jestions in *haratmatrimon& case

#i$ %hether the Plaintiff&s trademarks were descriptive or genericthere!y diluting the strength of such a trademark'

#ii$ %hether the Defendants were (using& the trademark as understoin Sections )#)$#!$ * #c$ and Section )+ of the ,rade Marks Act .++

#iii$ %hether /oogle was lia!le for contri!utory trademarkinfringement for including the Plaintiff&s trademarks in its (0eywordSuggestion ,ool&'

Ac-no+"ed$ement !or s"ides on this case Prashanth Redd&, S#ic& IP


20/26

Jestion 7

On the 9estion o! +hether the De!endants +ere @sin$ the P"ainti!!strademar-s as nderstood in Section 7:7;:%; B :c; and Section 7? the Cort!ond in !avor o! the de!endants( Section 7:7; is a de!initiona" #rovision +hstates +hen a mar- ma& said to %e sed in the conte0t o! $oods or services(

Section 7? de!ines +hen e0act"& a trademar- is in!rin$ed( The 5d$ment dra+a !ine distinction %et+een the varios #rovisions o! Section 7? +hich

individa""& dea" +ith sitations o! @se in the corse o! trade, @a##"ication the mar- and @advertisement o! the mar-( In this case the Cort he"d that de!endants actions +o"d %e c"assi!ied as @advertisement o! the mar-(

The Cort ho+ever a"so c"ari!ied that the same +o"d 9a"i!& nder thee0ce#tion o! Section 7?:; +hich e0c"des those advertisements that +ererendered accordin$ to @honest #ractices in indstria" or commercia" matters


21/26

Jestion .

:iii; 4as Goo$"e "ia%"e !or contri%tor& in!rin$ement3 Cort !ond iGoo$"e r"in$ that contri%tor& in!rin$ement re9ired intention anthe #resent case since the trademar-s +ere %asica""& descri#tive it%e #roved that Goo$"e had intentiona""& s$$ested these mar-s +itin!rin$e the P"ainti!!s trademar-s(

The Cort ho+ever he"d that i! the -e&+ord s$$estion too" +ere t

an ar%itrar&, !anci!" trademar- then in that case it +o"d #ossi%"&!or contri%tor& in!rin$ement( Ver& interestin$"& the Cort a"so seeisse +ith Goo$"es di!!erin$ trademar- #o"ic& !or di!!erent 5risdic+hi"e it +o"d investi$ate trademar- com#"aints !or %oth the ad+oand the -e&+ord s$$estion too" in contries "i-e 1rance +here it sccess!""& sed, in contries "i-e India, U(S(A( and U(( it "imits

trademar- com#"aints to on"& the ad+ords te0t(


22/26

Jestion 8

On the 9estion o! descri#tive trademar-s the Cort !ond in !avor o! thede!endants i(e( it !ond that the #"ainti!!s trademar-s +ere descri#tive andthat the de!endants +o"d %e severe"& a!!ected i! the& +ere restrained !romsin$ the same( Since some o! the +ords "i-e Tami", Te"$ etc( did not have s&non&ms, $rantin$ the P"ainti!!s an a%so"te mono#o"& over the se o! these+ords +o"d ma-e it im#ossi%"e !or the de!endants to advertise their service

On the 9estion o! +hether the P"ainti!!s trademar-s had ac9ired a distinctsecondar& meanin$ the Cort #re!erred to +ait nti" evidence co"d %e "ed othat as#ect drin$ tria"(

The Cort a"so #ointed ot that Section ./ o! the Trademar- Act, a""o+s @hon#ractices in commercia" matters as a va"id de!ence( In the case at hand thede!endants se o! the mar-s +as honest since there +ere no #ossi%"e s&non&that the de!endants co"d have sed to honest"& descri%e their services


23/26

Stestone v $ir*&andersgericht* Co"o$ne, 7//8

This +as a case invo"vin$ t+o com#etin$ on"ine 5o% a$encies( Thede!endant rotine"& dee#'"in- to 5o% detai"s he"d on the c"aimants+e%site( The c"aimant c"aimed co#&ri$ht in!rin$ement) the de!endantar$ed that %& #"acin$ in!ormation on a #%"ic"& accessi%"e #a$e, thec"aimant had $iven an im#"ied "icence to "in- to it(

A dee# "in- is a hot "in- to a s%sidiar& #a$e o! another 4e% site that

is not its home #a$e( The #"ainti!!s ar$ed that dee# "in-s are i""e$a",%ecase the& ta-e sers direct"& to ne+s artic"es, %assin$introdctor& #a$es and advertisin$, ths de#rivin$ the #"ainti!!s o!revene !rom their advertisements(

Cort he"d !or c"aimant, that the de!endant had in!rin$ed thec"aimants e0c"sive ri$ht o! distri%tion(


24/26

Brook$ield ommunications* #nc' v' +est oast ,ntertainment or'*:8?US,COA;

*roo-!ie"d se""s its KMovie*!!K com#ter so!t+are thro$h itsK%roo-!ie"dcomm(comK and Kmovie%!!on"ine(comK +e% sites and o!!erss%scri%ers on"ine access to the Movie*!! data%ase itse"! at itsKinho""&+ood(comK +e% site( It ho"ds mar- !or $oods and services onMovie*!! since 8??(

In Octo%er 8??, *roo-!ie"d "earned that 4est Coastone o! the nations"ar$est video renta" store chains +ith over // storesintended to "anch a

+e% site at Kmovie%!!(comK containin$, inter a"ia, a searcha%"eentertainment data%ase simi"ar to KMovie*!!(K 4est Coast notes !rtherthat, since at "east 8?, it has a"so sed varios #hrases inc"din$ the termKMovie *!!K to #romote $oods and services avai"a%"e at its video stores(
http://www.leagle.com/decision/19991210174F3d1036_11097/BROOKFIELD%20COMMUNICATIONS%20v.%20WEST%20COAST%20ENTERTAINMENThttp://www.leagle.com/decision/19991210174F3d1036_11097/BROOKFIELD%20COMMUNICATIONS%20v.%20WEST%20COAST%20ENTERTAINMENThttp://www.leagle.com/decision/19991210174F3d1036_11097/BROOKFIELD%20COMMUNICATIONS%20v.%20WEST%20COAST%20ENTERTAINMENT


25/26

*roo-!ie"d < Initia" Interest Con!sion

Cort devised the initia" interest con!sion'a %rand o! con!sio#artic"ar"& a##"ica%"e to the Internet( It ma& occr +hen a sercondcts a search sin$ a trademar- term and the res"ts o! thesearch inc"de +e% sites not s#onsored %& the ho"der o! thetrademar- search term, %t rather o! com#etitors(

He"d 4est Coast ses *roo-!ie"ds trademar- not to re!erence*roo-!ie"ds #rodcts, %t instead to descri%e its o+n #rodct :in case o! the domain name; and to attract #eo#"e to its +e% site( Tis not !air se and is "ia%"e to %e restricted %& in5nction(


26/26

Emai" $iridharQ$irisai(comGiridhar & Sai

Associates

No( .8? Lin$hi Chett& Street:III 1"oor;, Geor$e To+nChennai ////8

Ph /'77.??F 781a0 /'777

4e%site +++("a+$onindia

IP Litigation on the Internet

Documents

Transcript of IP Litigation on the Internet