IPR & Cyber Laws

TY.BSc.IT
Sample Case Studies

CASE 1: Cyber Law: (Unit V):-

In an E-trade agreement, signature is based exclusively on asymmetric methods or

techniques. It has been described as a special door, which can be opened with a four key
lock. The two keys are on every side of the door, and each of these two keys belongs to a
single party. Both the parties stand respectively on each side of the door and both of them
have different keys. One of them is coincidental with the key possessed by the other party,
since they have agreed on the shape and notches in the key (public key) However, the other
party is not, and none of the parties knows exactly ,what kind of notches the other key will
have. The only thing is sure that the door can only be opened when the four keys are in it.
Once both the parties have locked the keys into the door it is possible to open it and for the
parties to be sure that they can negotiate through that open door safely without being afraid
that an outsider might interfere in their business.

Questions:
Q1. What is this case study about? How is it related to Cyber Law?

Q2. Discuss with reference to authentication of electronic records using digital signatures.

****************

CASE 2: Cyber Law & IT Act: (Unit V & VI):-

Mr.C.H.Chote installed a website chahooindia.com. This resembled another renowned
website chahoo.com. The services rendered by Mr.C.H.Chote are similar to the services
rendered by the chahoo.com. (Plaintiff) M/s C.H.Bade and Company, which had installed
chahoo.com, claimed that they are global internet media, rendering services under the
domain name chahoo.com which was registered with the Net work solution
Incorporation, since 2000. An application for registration of trademark chahoo was
pending in India. M/s C.H.Bade and company, further, claimed that they are the first in the
field to have a domain name chahoo, and also to start web directory and provide search
services. In June 2000, such directory was named chahoo. Mr.C.H.Chote adopted the
domain name chahooindia.com which is closely resembling to the renowned name
chahoo.com.It was found that the internet users, who wanted to use chahoo.com may
reach to the chahooindia com. Hence, they claimed that the act of Mr.C.H.Chote is
dishonest and was tantamount to cyber squatting.

Mr.C.H.Chote claims that-

1. Plaintiffs trademark was not registered in India; therefore, there could not be any
action for infringement of registered trade mark.
2. There could not be an action of passing off as the defendants were not offering goods
but services.
3. The persons using internet and seeking to reach the internet site were all technically
educated and literate persons. As such there is no chance of deception and confusion.

Questions:

Q1. Discuss the claims of the parties and their legal rights with reference to Cyber Laws and
I.T. Act.

****************

CASE 3: Rights of Patents: (Unit III):-

Mr.X an industrialist, manufacturer of pens, chalks, dusters and other education materials.
There has been a persistent complaint from the customers that the chalks manufactured by
him, have a lot of dust and it is troublesome to clean the board after writing. The Research
and Development division of Mr.X came up with an innovative chalk. The chalks are
absolutely dust free and the writing of the chalks gets vanished automatically after certain
time. Mr. X applied for registration of the patent for this product and has got the patent.
Subsequent to the patent granted, he continued with the production for five years after
which he stopped the production. The reason was the lack of demand because of the heavy
cost of the product. Mr. Y a College lecturer independently made research on the similar
type of chalks and came out with the same quality chalks with mach less cost.
He applied for Patents which was objected by Mr.X on the ground that-
1. Patent for the same product is registered in his name.
2. The product developed by Mr.Y is not an innovative but it is the imitation of his
patented product.
Mr.Y claimed that-
1. The product patented by Mr.X is not in use as he has stopped the production.
2. The product invented by Mr.Y is different than that of Mr.Xs product in many
respects such as shape, quality, cost, etc.
3. Mr.Y who is a lecturer in a Government college, has carried out the research on this
product as a part of his academic work.
4. He wants to produce the chalks exclusively for the Government colleges.

Questions:

Q1. Discuss the rights of Mr.X and Mr. Y as per the provisions of Patents Act 1970.

****************

CASE 4: Patents Act 1970: (Unit I & III):-

Hindustan Lever Limited (Plaintiff) is the leading manufacturer of various kinds of soaps,
detergents, chemicals, etc.The different products of the company are sold under the brand
names and the company enjoys considerable good will and reputation in the market. Godrej
Soaps Limited (Respondent) also a manufacturer of the various brands of soaps and
detergent and is one of the competitors of the plaintiff company. The plaintiff company
holds and owns more than 171 active patents granted by the Government of India under the
Patents Act. The company claims that the respondent has access to the specification of
Patent number 170171 and they have wrongfully and illegally copied and materially utilized
the patented information resulting infringement of the said patent of the petitioner. It is
further claimed by the petitioner that The toilet soap of the Respondent has been sold
under the trade mark VIGIL has a wrapper bearing the words ALL NEW LONGER
LASTING SOAP .This misleads and make the trade and public believe that the toilet soap
is an improved product. Such wrongful and illegal acts of the Respondent cause to the
Petitioner company an irreparable loss, damage and injury.
The Respondent Company claims that-
1. It is a multinational company and a pioneer in the field of manufacturing of toilet
soaps in India for the last 60 years.
2. The respondent company has been utilizing various admixtures of various soaps.
3. They did not apply for patent for such admixture, as the substance obtained is not an
invention.
4. The patent in question is a new one, the validity of which is under serious dispute of
challenge.
5. If the plaintiff is granted an injunction at this stage then, it would enable the plaintiff
to appropriate a large chunk of the soap industry to itself and would adversely affect
the healthy competition.

Questions:

Q1. Discuss the case with reference to the Patents Act.

****************

CASE 5: Copyrights Act 1957: (Unit I & III):-

Copyright is a beneficial interest in movable property in the actual or constructive
possession of the owner there of. The right to copy and distribute commercially such
material may be transferred or assigned to any other party with certain returns called as
royalty. The intention of the parties whether it was an assignment of a grant of permission
to use in the normal course, be gathered from the writing itself and the words used therein.
Gramophone Company of India Limited the plaintiff entered into an agreement with Shanti
Films Corporation, a film producer. According to the agreement the copyright in the
soundtrack of a film produced by the Shanti Film Corporation (Defendant) was assigned by
it to the plaintiff. The plaintiff by the agreement got the exclusive right to produce records,
tapes etc. of the film and sold the copies thereof.
However, it was found that Shanti Film Corporation has been selling the copies of the
soundtrack and of the films. Hence, the plaintiff filed a suit against defendant for permanent
injunction against the infringement of the copy right and also filed an application for
temporary injunction. The plaintiff claimed that the agreement prima facie reveals that
there is an assignment of copyright of the soundtrack in its favor. There are no restrictions
to use the copyright. Therefore, the publication of soundtrack of the film in question or
reproduction of records without its authority will prima facie be infringement of copyright.
However the defendant denied the claim stating that it is
there own production and hence, no one can stop them for reproduction.

Questions:

Q1. Discuss the issue with reference to the relevant provisions of the Copyright Act 1957.

****************

CASE 6: Trade Mark: (Unit I & III):-

Two parties applied for registration of Trade mark. Shri Ghanashyam and Shri Dhanashyam
applied for registration of trade mark. They were both rivals. The trades used by these rivals
were Mathura Ghee and Mathurang Ghee respectively. Shri Dhanashyam started using
Mathurang after lapse of five years from the use of trade mark Mathura Ghee by Shri
Ghanashyam. He had polarized the trade mark Mathura Ghee by investing huge amounts
on advertisement. The two trade names were phonetically similar. There was not much
difference in pictorial and monogram that is the trade mark of the rivals. The only
difference was the word G registration was granted to neither.

Questions:

Q1.Discuss in the light of Trade Mark provisions in this case.

Q2. Suggest the plaintiff regarding use of Trade Mark.

****************
CASE 7: Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP): (Unit II):-

On March 20, 2000, Complainant submitted a complaint pursuant to the Uniform Domain
Name Dispute Resolution Policy ("UDRP Policy") implemented by the Internet
Corporation of Assigned Names and Numbers ("ICANN") on October 24, 1999, under the
rules for the UDRP Policy implemented by ICANN on the same date ("UDRP Rules"). On
April 10, 2000, Respondents representative served a Response to the Complaint. On
April 28, 2000, the Center issued a Notification of Appointment of Administrative Panel
and projected a decision date, setting this Panels deadline for issuing a decision as May 11,
2000.

Complainant is the owner of several U.S. Trademark Registrations for several variations of
the mark WEBER. Complainant is the manufacturer of "Weber" grills and related products
and services. Respondent is an Illinois hardware store which owns or operates websites
under the domain names in dispute. These websites promote sales of Complainants
product. Respondent is an authorized reseller of Complainants products.

Questions:

Q1. Examine the domain name dispute of Weber-Stephen Products Co. v. Armitage
Hardware.

Q2. What is at issue in the Weber case? Do you agree with the resolution?

****************

CASE 8: Patents: (Unit I & III):-

Dr.P.M Desai. a Doctor in All India Institute of Medical Sciences invents a machines which
can delivered a glucose to a patent through the skin by causing the pores of the skin to absorb
glucose and deliver it to the blood stream. The claim of the doctor of such an invention is
rebuked by medical community as being highly improbable and useless in invention.
However, when the invention is put to demonstration it is found to be indeed effective and is
claimed by the doctors to be highly useful method of treatment of diabetes by regulating the
amount of glucose supply to the blood. Now that the invention has been hailed by the medical
community, as being a new useful and non-obvious method of treatment.

Questions:

Q1. Discuss the label of provisions in relation to this case as per Patent law.
Q2. Can the doctor claim a Patent in the invention?