Tag: 2000

The Design Act | salient features & Important Principles

August 29, 2022
/ Leave a Comment on The Design Act | salient features & Important Principles

7 min
1 year
1,219 word

Tagged 2000, Design act, General Knowledge, India, Intellectual property rights

The Design Act | salient features & Important Principles

keywords – Design Act, IPR, design protection, intellectual property

Written By – Sangamithra S

Introduction

The Design Act was designed to defend and preserve the distinctive industrial designs applied to certain goods produced through industrial procedures. Nowadays, every mechanical or commercial enterprise has its original, exclusive, and evident designs.

According to Section 2(d), “Design” refers to features such as shape, pattern, configuration, ornament, or composition of colours or lines that are applied in three dimensions, two dimensions, or both using any of the processes, whether manual, chemical, mechanical, separate, or combined, and that in the finished article appeal to or are judged entirely by the eye.

Thus, the creator or owner of the item will be granted an Industrial Designs Right under this demonstration. This Intellectual Property Right protects the visual plan, which includes the style, appearance, design, and so forth, of the contemporary item.

The Design Act of 1911 was employed in the past. In order to bring the Design Act up to par with international law, The Design Act, 2000 was made.

Nevertheless, it exempts:

Any construction method, principle, or object that is merely mechanical in nature, except any trademark as set out in clause (v) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958;

The term “property mark” as used in section 479 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, is not included.

Any artistic work as described in clause (c) of section 2 of the Copyright Act of 1957 is excluded.

Salient Features of the Act

Based on the material that was utilised to create that material, a classification was formed.
The design’s subject matter serves as the only foundation for the classification.
‘Absolute Novelty’ makes it possible to judge a novelty based on earlier publishing of any work.
An object’s registration as a design can be restored.
If there is any infringement, the severity of the punishment is increased.
A registered design’s two-year confidential period is likewise nullified.
Regulation of anti-competitive behaviour in licence agreements.
Before registering a design, the laws governing application substitution are specified.
Cases may be forwarded to the high court by the district courts, who also have the faculty and authority to do so.
It incorporates the provisions relating to the controller’s authority being delegated to other controllers and the examiner’s responsibility.

Registration

Industrial design protection promotes fair competition in the sector by fostering innovation, creativity, and originality. A specific product’s design boosts both its marketability and monetary value. When a design is registered, the owner gains exclusivity, and the buyer can quickly tell that a product is associated with a certain brand. Registered designs can be utilised as a corporate asset to pay off debts or sold in the market.

The following prerequisites must be met for the design to qualify for registration under the Design Act of 2000 and receive legal protection:

The feature of novelty
There must be no earlier publishing of the design, and it must be original.
Applying design to an article
Design work shouldn’t conflict with India’s public morals, security, or order.

Section 10 of the Designs Act of 2000 states that once a design is registered, the copyright lasts for ten years.

Infringement

The grounds for design infringement or piracy are outlined in Section 22 of the aforementioned Act, and they may only occur when the design’s copyright is in effect.

A design is violated when,

a registered design is used for commercial purposes without the registered proprietor’s permission or written approval;

the design, or any evident or fraudulent imitation thereof, is applied to any object or class of articles for which the design has been registered, without the registered owner’s authorization.

knowing that the design or any obvious or fraudulent imitation of it has been applied to any article in any class of articles in which the design is registered without the consent of the registered proprietor, one commits design infringement when they publish, expose, or cause to be published, exposed, or exposed for sale that article.

Both designs must be evaluated in order to determine whether a false or evident replica of the design has been made. To determine whether “fraudulent” / “obvious imitation” has occurred or not, the majority of decisions have relied on the test of judging by the eye.

Remedies for Design Infringement

The Design Act states in Section 22(2) that a person who violates the design is liable. The same provision also offers the registered owner recourse for design infringement. Consequently, the following is the liability of the party who breaches the aforementioned Act:

The Design Act’s Section 22 (2) (a) requires the offender to pay Rs. 25,000 for each violation. The whole sum must equal Rs. 50,000. The aforementioned sum is for the infringement recovery;

According to Section 22(2)(b), the registered design owner has specific rights that allow for the recovery of damages and the holding of violators accountable.

For instance, the Bombay High Court made a decision about Section 22 of the Act, which allows lawsuits against “any individual” in this section, in Videocon Industries v. Whirlpool of India Limited. A registered owner may be prohibited from using a registered design by an order of injunction issued by the High Court in accordance with Section 22 of the Design Act or by the Controller in accordance with Section 19 of the Design Act, depending on the specifics of the case. Consider a certified owner does not request their design be added to a product that is being sold or connected to the sale indicated above. Another registered owner cannot use Section 22 in that situation.

As a result, only the use of the disputed design is qualified for the Section 22 remedies for Design Infringement. The infringement suit of a registered design extends against any person who would incorporate a registered owner, as demonstrated in Section 22 and sub-sections 1 to 3 in particular. Hence, the owner of a registered design may sue the infringers for the same. To compensate for the loss that the registered owner experiences, liability is imposed on the violators. Additionally, the owner must mark all products covered by a registered design in order to move the design infringement process along.

Conclusion

Design is therefore a type of intellectual property that describes mental creations like designs for industrial objects that are eventually employed in commerce. It is the end product of an individual’s intellectual pursuits. Once a design is registered, the registered proprietor has the legal right to file a lawsuit, in a court no lower than the District Court, against individuals who violate the design, in order to cease such exploitation and recover any damages that are legally owed to them. Please be aware, nonetheless, that if the design is not registered under the Designs Act of 2000, there will be no legal basis for taking legal action against the infringer in accordance with the Act’s provisions.

References

Das, S. (2021). Design Infringement; www.iiprd.com.

Kholia, P. (2021, April 6). [Law Notes] The Designs Act of 2000 | IPR by Priyanshi Kholia; www.mylawman.co.in.

Nambiar, H. & Krishnaa, S. (n.d.). Design act, 2000. Legal Service India – Law, Lawyers and Legal Resources.

Nanadikar, P. (2021, November 28). Steps involved in registration of Design Act, 2022

Pal, C. (2020). Industrial Design – An Imperative IP Right.

Singh, K. (2021, December 31). What are the Remedies for Design Infringement? – An Overview. Swarit Advisors;

for more info visit us! Or mail us at edumoundofficial@gmail.com

Case Analysis on Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India | IT Act

Article / Law

August 5, 2022
/ Leave a Comment on Case Analysis on Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India | IT Act

8 min
1 year
1,501 word

Tagged 2000, Case Analysis, Freedom of Speech, Indian Constitution, IT Act

Case Analysis on Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India | IT Act

In the Indian legal system, the landmark judgment SHREYA SINGHAL Vs UNION OF INDIA is extremely important. The basic right to freedom of speech and expression protected by Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution is at issue in this case. The constitutional legality of section 66A was challenged, and the IT Act of 2000 was repealed as a result.

Keywords: Case Analysis, IT Act, 2000, Freedom of Speech, Indian Constitution, legality, technology, Section 66A

WRITTEN BY: SONALI SINGH

BENCH:

Hon’ble Judges:

Justice Jasti Chelameswar and Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman

DATE OF JUDGMENT:

March 24, 2015

CITATION:

AIR 2015 SC 1523

PETITIONER:

Shreya Singhal

RESPONDENT:

Union of India

INTRODUCTION

One of the most cherished fundamental rights granted by our Constitution is freedom of speech. The Indian Supreme Court has reaffirmed the significance of freedom of speech as well as expression. The change to Section 66A of the Information Technology Act of 2000 took effect in 2009. Sending “offensive” texts through a computer or any other communication device, such as a mobile phone or tablet, is punishable under Section 66A. Which carries a maximum sentence of three years in prison and a fine.

In the Indian legal system, the landmark judgment SHREYA SINGHAL Vs UNION OF INDIA is extremely important. The basic right to freedom of speech and expression protected by Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution is at issue in this case. The constitutional legality of section 66A was challenged, and the IT Act of 2000 was repealed as a result.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The Mumbai police detained two females named Shaheen Dhada and Rinu Srinivasan in 2012. For expressing their discontent with a bandh called in the aftermath of Shiv Sena president Bal Thackery’s death. The women expressed their dissatisfaction on Facebook. Also, Section 66A of the Information Technology Act of 2000 was used to arrest them. Although the arrested women were ultimately released and the criminal case against them was dropped, the arrest sparked great public interest. The petitioners filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, alleging that section 66A of the Information Technology Act 2000 infringes on an individual’s right to freedom of speech as well as expression, as guaranteed by Article 19(2) of the Constitution.

ISSUES

1. Constitutional validity of Sections 66-A, 69-A, as well as 79 were challenged.

2. Whether Section 66A is curtailing Freedom of speech and expression?

3. Whether Section 66A is saved under Section 19(2)?

ARGUMENTS OF PETITIONER

1. The right to freedom of expression granted by Article 19(1)(a) is curtailed by Section 66A of the IT Act of 2000, which is not preserved by the reasonable restrictions specified in Article 19(1)(a).

2. Section 66A is ambiguous and causes inconsistency since it does not explicitly define terms used under this section and is left subject to interpretation at the discretion of law enforcement agencies.

3. Articles 14 and 21 have been breached because there is no “intelligible differentia” as to why this provision has only been addressed through one mode of communication, resulting in self-discrimination.

ARGUMENTS OF RESPONDENT

1. It was argued that the possibility of section abuse could not be a basis for declaring the section unlawful.

2. The vagueness of a statute is not a reason to declare it unconstitutional

JUDGEMENT

This Judgment has increased the importance of the right available to us to express ourselves freely. Justice Nariman highlighted the point, that “the liberty of thought and expression is not merely an aspirational ideal. It is also a cardinal value that is of paramount significance under our constitutional scheme.”

The Court agreed with the petitioner that none of the grounds contained in Article 19(2) was capable of being invoked as legitimate defences to the validity of Section 66A of the IT Act. The court further stated that what might be offensive for someone may not be for someone else. Therefore, it is very subjective.

There are two things to keep in mind. The first is that it is an all-inclusive definition. Second, the term makes no mention of the content of the information. In reality, it only refers to how such information is transmitted.

Information of all kinds is enticed in—it could be scientific, literary, or artistically valuable, it could be relevant to current events, or it could be profane or seditious. The fact that the information sent must be irritating, inconvenient, grossly offensive, and so on, demonstrates that no distinction is made between simple discussion or advocacy of a particular point of view, which may be irritating, inconvenient, or grossly offensive to some, and incitement, in which such words lead to an imminent causal connection with public policy. The court agreed with the Petitioners that Section 66A very clearly affects the freedom of speech and expression of the citizenry of India at large.

Maneka Gandhi v. UOI

The Court referred to various landmark judgments on freedom of speech as well as expression. The right to freedom in Article 19 guarantees the freedom of speech and expression recognized in the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, where the Supreme Court held that freedom of speech and expression has no geographical limitation and moves with a citizen’s right to collect information and exchange ideas with others, not only in India but also abroad.

In Romesh Thapper v. the State of Madras, the court stated that freedom of speech lay at the foundation of all democratic organizations. In Khushboo v. Kanniamal & Anr., this court stated the right requires a free flow of opinion and ideas.

Bennett Coleman & Co. vs. UOI

In Bennett Coleman & Co. V. Union of India & Ors, the court held that Freedom of Speech and the press is the Ark of the Covenant of Democracy because public criticism is essential to the working of its institutions. This Court has laid down further what “reasonable restrictions” means in several cases.

Chintaman Rao vs. State of MP

Also in Chintaman Rao v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, this Court said: The phrase “reasonable restriction” connotes that the limitation imposed on a person in the enjoyment of the right should not be arbitrary or of an excessive nature, beyond what is required in the interests of the public.

The word “reasonable” implies intelligent care and deliberation, that is, the choice of a course that reason dictates. Legislation that arbitrarily or excessively invades the right cannot be said to contain the quality of reasonableness unless it strikes a proper balance between the freedom guaranteed in Article 19(1)(g) and the social control permitted by Clause (6) of Article 19, it must be held to be wanting in that quality.

The Hon’ble Court also discussed the concept of balancing the strike between “Hate Speech” and “Free Speech”. The Court stated that Hate Speech is basically when people pass hate comments on religion, race, caste, sex, place, birth, etc. By Arbitrary decision, any innocent comment can just not be put in the ambit of Hate Speech and any hate speech cannot be given the shield of right to Speech and Expression under Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution.

Intelligible Differentia

The court stated that discrimination under Article 14, it is unable to agree with Petitioners that there is no intelligible differentia between the medium of print, broadcast, and real-live speech as opposed to speech on the internet. The intelligible differentia is clear – the internet gives any individual a platform that requires very little or no payment through which to air his views. Further Rule of Severability was applied. With this application, only Section 66A was held to be unconstitutional and not the whole act.

Finally, the Court also upheld the secret blocking process under Section 69A of the Act, by which the Government can choose to take down content from the Internet. Holding that it did not suffer from the infirmities in Section 66A or Section 79, and also it is a narrowly drawn provision with adequate safeguards.

RULE OF LAW

Thus, Section 66A was declared unlawful in this ruling, and it was determined that citizens’ rights to free expression and the ability to conduct business over the internet are constitutionally protected.

CONCLUSION

The preamble of our Indian Constitution guarantees citizens’ fundamental right to free speech as well as expression, which is one of the most essential democratic foundations. Also in today’s world, social media has become the most popular way for people to express themselves. Defamation and sedition, however, are exceptions to the right to free speech and expression. In this case, the girl had just questioned the reason for Mumbai’s closure via a Facebook message. Arresting people for this crime is illegal because it violates citizens’ rights. Innocent people suffer emotional anguish as a result of their wrongful detention. It is the nation’s responsibility to defend fundamental rights, hence the law must be scrupulously followed as interpreted by the courts.

STATUS OF JUDGMENT

The present status of judgment is still applicable and has not been overruled in any other case.

REFERENCES

Shreya Singhal v Union of India, [W.P. (Crl). No.167 of 2012]
Section 66A of Information Technology Act, 2000- Punishment for sending offensive messages through communication service, etc. -Any person who sends, using a computer resource or a communication device.
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, {(1978) 2 S.C.R. 621}.
Romesh Thapper v. The State of Madras,{ (1950) AIR 124}.
Khushboo v. Kanniamal & Anr, {AIR 2010 SC 3196}
Bennett Coleman & Co. V. Union of India & Ors, {[1962] 3 S.C.R. 842}.
Chintaman Rao v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, {1951 AIR 118, 1950 SCR 759}.

For any Query

Mail us at edumoundofficial@gmail.com

Who are We?

EduMound is a start-up platform established for young minds aspiring to contribute their skills and knowledge for the growth of the educational fraternity. We are an educational platform that focuses on the co-curricular portfolio development of students.

Stay Connected

Events

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR WEBSITE!