COPYRIGHT - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE MANUAL 2018

-
Ever since the Copyright office has been shifted under the aegis of Ministry of Commerce & Industry, the entire registration procedure has been revitalized.

Earlier, the Copyright registration took over two years which has been significantly brought down to less than two months and having personally seen the changes, it left me wondering why these reforms didn't take place earlier..? Anyway...now things are moving so fast that after Copyright Office has issued manual of practice and procedure on 27th April, 2018 following to the draft guidelines issued in February, 2018, accession to the WIPO Copyright Treaty, 1996 (WCT) and WIPO Performance and Phonogram Treaty, 1996 (WPPT) happened on 4th of July, 2018.

The manuals have been published (after taking into consideration, the relevant suggestions from the stakeholders) in order to increase the transparency and reduce the delay in processing the Copyright application.

The manual for different Copyright works can be accessed here:

1. Literary works - here

2. Artistic works - here

3. Musical works - here

4. Sound Recording works - here

5. Cinematograph works - here

Comments on these guidelines would follow shortly.


~until next time~


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Starbucks vs. SardarBuksh

-
Image
Branding your brand does not and must not mean that you copy somebody else's brand name and get a free ride upon their good will.  Trademark law is very clear in this aspect while keeping two most essential pre-requisites before registering a trademark as - 1. Trademark has to be distinctive; 2. Trademark must not be descriptive. Lot many brand owners make mistakes in understanding the concept of distinctiveness and start using brand names which are similar to the already existing trademarks which are famous. Making minor changes here and there either in spellings or color combinations or finding a rhyming words to the existing trademarks does not yield distinctiveness to your brand name. Some of the brand owners knowingly make use of such deceptively similar marks and then get sued.  In one of such interesting cases in Delhi High Court, the Court has ruled in favor of Starbucks who filed a case against a local coffee shop chain SardarBuksh for copying word mark a
Read more

Trade Marks and U(nu)sual Misunderstandings

-
Trade Marks registration process in India has seen enormous changes in past 2-3 years. The number of Forms have been reduced from 64 to 8. The examination time has reduced from 2 years to 5 working days - believe it or not but its true and one of the fastest all over the world!   However, the change in law or rules has not impacted some common misconceptions that are prevalent among business owners about the Trade Marks. Thought it would be good to address them here: 1. I don't need to perform search..My Trade Mark is Original in toto Applicants commonly believe that the trade name they thought is distinctive enough and don't see any need to get a search done or to get an opinion from a practitioner. Let me say something unpleasant that the name you want to trademark probably isn’t as original as you think it is, at least not in the eyes of the Trade Marks Registry. Every year, thousands of trademark applications are rejected without refunds because they too closely resembl
Read more

The Jurisdiction Saga on the interplay of the Design Act, 2000 and the Commercial Courts Act, 2015

-
In a very lucid judgment in the case of S.D. Containers vs. Mold-tek Packaging Limited (Civil Appeal No. 3695 of 2020), the Supreme Court of India decided the matter clearing the air of doubt on the interplay of the Design Act, 2000 and the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Relevant facts on background of the case -  Mold-tek Packaging Limited (hereinafter Plaintiff/Respondent), a manufacturer and seller of plastic packaging material who obtained design registration for its container's lids, jars etc. in 2015 and 2017. In late 2019, the Plaintiff/Respondent came to know about S.D. Containers (hereinafter Defendant/Appellant) who allegedly infringed design of the Plaintiff/Respondent. The Plaintiff/Respondent filed a civil suit before the Commercial Court at Indore seeking permanent injunction against the Defendant/Appellant from copying and using the design of the Plaintiff/Respondent as described in Design Application No. 299039 and 299041 for the containers and lids, respectively. The
Read more