Madrid Protocol in India

The Madrid Protocol is an important step towards the international protection and recognition of trademarks. The protocol is actually an amendment to the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks, which was revised at Stockholm, in 1967 and subsequently amended. This article attempts to focus on some of the key features of the Protocol and to what extent these features help the member countries or, the 'contracting parties' for securing the international registration of their trademarks.

Article 1 of the Protocol provides that reference to contracting party in the Protocol shall be construed as both a contracting state and a contracting intergovernmental  organisation. An important provision of this Protocol is Article 2, which deals with securing protection through international registration. This provision lays down the criteria for securing international registration of a trademark, such as, the applicant should be a national of a contracting party, or domiciled in a contracting party, or has a real or effective industrial establishment in the said contracting party. The main advantage of this Protocol is that the applicant need not individually approach every trademark registration office of the contracting states in which he wishes to get his trademark registered. All that is needed is that the applicant should approach the office of the contracting state and through this office, the application is to be sent to the International Bureau of the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) which shall then register the mark in the international register. Article 3 of the Protocol talks about the territorial effect of the registration. It says that application of the trademark to any contracting state shall be done only upon request made so by the applicant and thereafter, the trademark shall be construed  to be made applicable to each of the contracting parties.

Thus, the Madrid Protocol in India, by ensuring that the applicant, who seeks to get his trademark registered, not only ensures that the entire procedure for obtaining a registration is completed in a lucid way, but also significantly contributes towards reduction of time in filing an application, reduction of expenses which would otherwise have been undertaken by the applicant including expenses of engaging a lawyer, and also the applicant while filing an application is only required to file in one language and at one time and the benefits can be enjoyed in all the 89 countries who are members. Article 16 of the Protocol, which talks of signatures, languages with respect to the Protocol is an important provision. It says that the Protocol shall be signed in English, French and Spanish languages and shall be sent to the Director General who shall decide the official text of the Protocol. Another important advantage of the Madrid Protocol is that while in most countries, the process for obtaining the registration is cumbersome and may take a long time, this is not the case with Madrid Protocol. It mandates that the entire process for obtaining a registration shall be 18 months. This is provided in Article 5(2)(b) of the Protocol. But the above mentioned advantage is subject to the condition that the office of the contracting state has informed the International Bureau about the delay in filing opposition by others and the notification of refusal by the contracting state is made within one month of expiry of the opposition period.

There exist certain disadvantages such as limited membership, assignment of rights cannot be made to states which are not members of the Madrid Protocol, among others.

Some of the other key features of the protocol is as follows. For instance, Article 7 provides for renewal of the international registration of the trademark after every 10 years upon payment of fees for the same. Similarly, fees for registration of the mark include a basic fee, a supplementary fee for different classes of the mark mentioned in the application and a complementary fee for request for extension of the application of protection of the trademark. This is provided by Article 8 of the Protocol. The International Bureau of the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) is charged with the responsibility of preparation for revision of the Protocol in accordance with the direction of the Assembly and also for the international registration of trademarks. The Assembly of the Union, under Article 10 is the main institution which has to deal with all matters concerning implementation of the Protocol and any amendment proposed to be made with respect to the working of the Assembly or the International Bureau or financing of the Union shall be introduced by the Director General or the member states.

Very recently, India became the 90th member state to submit its instrument of accession for joining the Madrid Protocol, effective from 8th July, 2013. With this achievement, India became eligible for obtaining the benefits offered by the Madrid Protocol as are mentioned above. Concluding, it can be said that the objective with which the Madrid Protocol was introduced was to simplify the procedure for obtaining a registration of a trademark and thereby reduce time and cost spent on getting a registration, which would ultimately encourage more players in the area of intellectual property and thereby encourage competition and the Madrid Protocol has gone a long way in achieving this objective.

Posted By Aurobinda Panda

For Biswajit Sarkar – Advocates – IP Attorney

TRADE MARKS IN WORLD TRADE

The system of registration succeeded in most countries due to the pressure of the traders. Because it was difficult to negotiate bilateral arrangements with other countries, when their nationals could not be offered the protection of a registered right. The first step in the world scenario came up with the Paris Convention on the Industrial property of 1883.The Paris Convention at no stage provided any form of international application for registration in a number of countries. But as early as 1891, some Paris participants were prepared to take this step in the subsidiary Madrid Agreement. This allows an applicant who has registered a mark in his home or business country to deposit an international registration with an international office (now WIPO). The mark will then be registered in each other Member State designated by the applicant, unless that state raises an objection, under its national law, within 12 months.

For countries such as the United Kingdom, which have a full examination of applications, the Madrid Agreement in its original form has remained unattractive. It gives advantages to those with easier access to their home registers and as a consequence its fee structure has been unacceptable. In 1989, however, a Protocol to Madrid was negotiated which offered an alternative method of using the Madrid scheme. This Protocol attracted British approval and is being given effect under the 1994 Act.

Another such agreement was the TRIPS Agreement. It imposes an obligation on its participant states to apply the Paris Convention standards relating to the trademarks. It also cross-refers to those provisions at a number of points, supplements some of them in significant respects and imposes its own obligations in addition.

Authored by Anisha Pal

Posted By Aurobinda Panda

For Biswajit Sarkar

Patent in USA

This post is a case comment on the much-awaited decision Mayo v Prometheus. Main question posed before the Supreme Court was "Whether the claims of Prometheus preempt patent law?" The Court, in my view delivered a promising judgment disallowing the patenting of natural laws. Personal life science invention is a growing market in US. It is likely that following days will show the positive or negative repercussions of the decision. However, a lime light for Justice Breyer, who had been a minority in similar cases, found his war against monopolizing freethinking.

The United States Supreme Court on 20 March decided unanimously that patent of Prometheus claiming methods to administer thiopurine drugs to treat autoimmune diseases is void.

Prometheus was the sole licensor of thiopurine drug “When in­gested, the body metabolizes the drugs, producing metabolites in the bloodstream. Because patients metabolize these drugs differently, doctors have found it difficult to determine whether a particular pa­tient’s dose is too high, risking harmful side effects, or too low, and so likely ineffective. The patent claims here set forth processes embody­ing researchers’ findings that identify correlations between metabo­lite levels and likely harm or ineffectiveness with precision. Each claim recites (1) an “administering” step—instructing a doctor to ad­minister the drug to his patient—(2) a “determining” step—tellingthe doctor to measure the resulting metabolite levels in the patient’s blood—and (3) a “wherein” step—describing the metabolite concen­trations above which there is a likelihood of harmful side-effects and below which it is likely that the drug dosage is ineffective, and in­forming the doctor that metabolite concentrations above or below these thresholds “indicate a need” to decrease or increase (respective­ly) the drug dosage.”

Petitioners Mayo introduced their own method, which according to Prometheus violated their patent claims. The district court held that patent claims constituted principles of natural law, which preempts the patent law. Federal Circuit Court overturned the decision based on Machine or transformation test held in Bilski v Kappos. Now the Supreme Court of the United States has affirmed the decision of district court and held that patent claims are void.

The Court held that, “The “wherein” clauses simply tell a doctor about the relevant natural laws, adding, at most, a suggestion that they should consider the test results when making their treatment decisions. The “determining “step tells a doctor to measure patients’ metabolite levels, through whatever process the doctor wishes to use. Because methods for making such determinations were well known in the art, this step simply tells doctors to engage in well-understood, routine, conven­tional activity previously engaged in by scientists in the field. Such activity is normally not sufficient to transform an unpatentable law of nature into a patent-eligible application of such a law.”

Section 101 of US Patent Act has an explicit exemption that “Laws of nature are not patentable.” The same idea was followed in various celebrated precedence like  Funk Brothers Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co., 333 U. S. 127, 130 (1948), Dia­mond v. Diehr, 450 U. S. 175, 185 (1981); Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U. S (2010); Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U. S. 303, 309 (1980); Le Roy v. Tat­ham, 14 How. 156, 175 (1853); O’Reilly v. Morse, 15 How. 62, 112–120 (1854). 

The Court in Chakrabarty held that patentable subject matter includes anything under the sun that is made by man. “Made by man” is an important criterion for patentability because the cardinal patent eligibility criterion for a “principle of natural law” is that it must undergone substantial human intervention. The decision in Diehr is in direct relation to the facts of the case. In Diehr the claimed invention was a known mathematical formula, the Arrhenius equation, applied to identify the time to open a rubber press. The invention worked on the information about the temperature inside the mold, the time in which the rubber was inside the mold and thickness of the rubber. However, the court identified that invention as a whole had undergone substantial human intervention and hence patent eligible. To quote “installing rubber in a press, closing the mold, constantly determining the temperature of the mold, constantly re- calculating the appropriate cure time through the use of the formula and a digital computer, and automatically opening the press at the proper time” (at p.187 of Diehr).

In the present case, court identified that the claims only reinstating a process of natural law and there is no substantial human intervention to make the invention patentable.

By Aurobinda Panda

For Biswajit Sarkar

Bollywood copying Hollywood: Protection of Intellectual Property in Film Industry

The phenomenon of remaking and borrowing ideas is not new to the film makers around the world. It has been present in the film making process since the birth of cinema. Earlier the audience reach of film industries was restricted to certain geographical areas. As Hollywood[i] was restricted to English speaking countries, likewise Bollywood[ii] was restricted to India and its neighboring countries. But globalization and the record breaking developments in Information Technology and the worldwide reach of internet has taken the films beyond nations.

At present, copyright infringement of the protected film scripts has become the main conflict between the two largest film industries of the world Hollywood & Bollywood. Hindi films have often been accused of copying entire frames from their Hollywood predecessors; leading legal scholars recognize this practice as copyright infringement. Until the summer of 2008, no lawsuit was ever filed by a US studio against an Indian film for violation of the studio’s intellectual property rights. The reason was Bollywood’s lack of profitability, India’s status as a third world country and traditionally distinct audiences, which never allowed Bollywood movies to get surfaced on Hollywood’s radar. But recent boom in Indian economy, increase in the profitability of Bollywood and overlapping audiences reversed the views of Hollywood studios towards Bollywood movies.

A long list of Bollywood movies is present where they have been accused of being copied from some Hollywood blockbuster. In 2007, Sony Entertainment, holding the copyright of Hitch (2005), threatened a lawsuit against Partner (2007), a Bollywood film, for infringing content.

In August 2008, Warner Bros. filed suit against the producers of a Bollywood film Hari Putter: A Comedy of Terrors, claiming that the title was too similar to the Harry Potter brand. The Delhi High Court ruled in favour of the defendants largely on Warner Bros. delay in filing the suit[iii].

In 2010, for the first time, a successful suit was filed by Twentieth Century against Sohail Maklai Entertainment for the unlawful remake of Twentieth Century’s 2002 thriller Phone Booth, into Knock Out. It was for the first time when an Indian court ruled that Bollywood infringed a Hollywood copyright. The Bombay High Court awarded Twentieth Century injunctive relief until Sohail Maklai Entertainment paid $340,000 in damages[iv].

On being accused of copyright infringement by Hollywood studios, Indian filmmakers argue that when they adopt a Hollywood film for remake for the Indian audience they make the film undergo a transitory process of “Indianisation” by adding songs, dance and other Indian stuffs which in all together results in an inherently distinct product from the original. 

Legal framework available

India’s copyright law, as laid down in the Indian Copyright Act, 1957 later amended by Copyright (Amendment) Act, 1999, is compatible to the Berne Convention on Copyrights, to which India is a party. Copyright consists of the following rights:

1. Economic Rights – Right of reproduction, public performance, adaptation, broadcasting, translation etc.
2. Moral Rights – Right of author against any alteration in his work that might be injurious to his reputation.

 The following come under the purview of copyright protection:

1. Original literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works
2. Cinematograph films
3. Sound recordings
4. Computer programmers 

The Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (1883) and the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (1886) are the two conventions which serve as the basis of current international standards regarding intellectual property rights. The Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement, 1994, is built on these century old principles. United States and India being a member of World Trade Organization (WTO) are bound by the TRIPS[v] Agreement.

The relevant provisions of Berne Convention which is embodied in the TRIPS Agreement provide exclusive rights to author to grant or allow for reproductions and adaptations of their original work. When a film’s storyline is borrowed which is recognizably borrowed is known as “derivative work”.[vi],[vii] But when it is used without the knowledge or authorization of the author/creator it is known as unauthorized derivative works which is not only harmful for the author/creator but it will adversely affect the demand for the original work.

In both the U.S. and India, infringement of copyright takes place when a party engages in actions reserved for the copyright owner. In US, for copyright infringement the copyright owner needs to prove that he holds the ownership of the copyright and that substantial matter has been copied from his protected material. In India, copyright infringement takes place if the work of the defendant is a substantial and material copy of the first. Substantiality is measured by weighing both quantity and quality of the work copied.

The Indian and U.S courts had used the “ordinary observer” test to determine the presence of substantial similarity between two works. According to the “ordinary observer” test two works are considered as substantially similar if an ordinary viewer of reasonable attentiveness concluded that the defendant unlawfully encroaches the protected expression of the plaintiff.

The U.S. courts originated the “ordinary observer” standard from the audience test in Daly v. Palmer (1868)[viii]. In this case the Court observed, “If enough random original elements are copied, even if individually insubstantial, they may constitute copyright infringement in the aggregate”.

The Supreme Court of India established the same standard test in the R.G.Anand vs. Delux Films (1978)[ix]. The Supreme Court observed that, “...in order to be actionable, a copy must be a substantial and material one that immediately demonstrates that an infringement has occurred. While simple additions, omissions, or modifications to the original work do not defeat the infringement claim, if the similarities between the two works appear coincidental and enough dissimilar elements exist to negate the intention to copy the original, infringement cannot be said to have occurred”. Courts in both countries thus analyze the quantity as well as quality of the copying in applying their respective versions of the ordinary observer tests.

Article 9.2 of TRIPS confirms that copyright protection shall extend to expressions and not to ideas, procedures, methods of operation or mathematical concepts as such. This concept has been incorporated in both the legal system of US and India.  This Agreement empowers the author/ creator to bring private cause of action for infringement in any member country where the infringement is occurred or occurring. Further, this Agreement says that member countries are bound to accord same rights to the author/ creator of other member country as it gives to their own[x]. Hence, it can be understood that Indian or American film-makers could bring a suit of infringement in either nation’s domestic courts.

Conclusion

Bollywood’s appeal is no longer limited to the South-Asian subcontinent. Bollywood’s international appeal is on the rise. The success of recent movies pertaining to South-Asian themes and culture such as Slumdog Millionaire and Bend It Like Beckham, while not Bollywood productions, have helped Bollywood receive more international attention. Therefore, Bollywood’s reputation and viewership among international audiences will benefit from original scripts and productions. Originality will ultimately lead Bollywood to greater revenues than copying does. Remaking and borrowing ideas from other countries is nothing new and is not altogether a bad phenomenon, so long as proper authorization is obtained from the right holder. Borrowing ideas, scripts and remaking them in different cultural contexts are a part of international cinema but the right way to do it is to obtain the proper license. It should also be noted that mere copying of idea cannot be considered as copyright infringement, as under TRIPS agreement only expressions are protected and not the ideas. So, for proving the infringement the plaintiff should prove that there is copying of both ideas and expression.

By Arvind Kumar

For Biswajit Sarkar

---

[i] Film industry of USA.

[ii] The mainstream Indian film industry based in Mumbai, formally Bombay.

[iii] Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. v. Harinder Kohli and Ors. [IA No.9600/2008 in CS(OS) 1607/2008]

http://delhicourts.nic.in/Sep08/WARNER%20BROS%20ENTERTAINMENT%20VS.%20HARINDER%20KOHLI.pdf

[iv] Twentieth Century for Film Corp. v. Sohail Maklai Entm’t Pvt. Ltd., NM-2847 (Bombay H.C. 2010)

http://bombayhighcourt.nic.in/data/original/2010/NMS284710141010.pdf.

[v] TRIPS: A More Detailed Overview of the TRIPS Agreement

http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/TRIPS_e/intel2_e.htm

[vi] 17 U.S.C. Section 106- copyright owner has exclusive rights to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;

Copyright Act of 1957 Section (14)(a)(vi) (India)-a copyright owner has the exclusive right to authorize adaptations of the work.

[vii] 17 U.S.C. Section 101-Defines a derivative work to be one based upon one or more preexisting works;

Copyright Act of 1957 Section 2(a)(v) (India)-defines an adaptation as:  “in relation to any work, the use of such work involving its rearrangement or alteration.”.

[viii] Daly v. Palmer, 6 F. Cas. 1132 (C.C.S.D.N.Y. 1868) (No. 3,552)

[ix] R.G. Anand v. Delux Films (1978) 4 SCC 118

[x] Article 5 (1) of Berne Convention. This requirement is in compliance with the WTO’s goal of guaranteeing most-favored nation status to member countries and non-discriminatory treatment by and among members.

Registration and Protection of Designs in India

In India registration and protection of Designs are regulated by Designs Act 2000 and Designs rules 2001. Design is defined under Section 2 of Designs Act 2000 as only the features of shape, configuration, pattern, ornament or composition of lines or colours applied to any article whether in two dimensional or three dimensional or in both forms, by any industrial process or means, whether manual mechanical or chemical, separate or combined, which in the finished article appeal to and are judged solely by the eye; but does not include any mode or principle of construction or anything which is in substance a mere mechanical device, and does not include any trade mark as defined in clause (v) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 (43 of 1958) or property mark as defined in section 479 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) or any artistic work as defined in clause (c) of section 2 of the Copyright Act, 1957(14 of 1957).  A design is prohibited from registration on the grounds mentioned under Section 4 of the relevant Act, i.e.,

a) that the design is not new

b) that it has been previously published in India or in any other country by publication in tangible form or by use in or in any other way prior to the filing date, or where applicable, the priority date, or where applicable, the priority date of the application for registration; or 

c) that it has been significantly distinguishable from known designs or d) comprises or contains scandalous or obscene matter.   Further, a design is subject to cancellation on the grounds mentioned under Section 19 of the relevant Act, i.e., a) that the design has been previously registered in India, 

b) that it has been previously published in India or in any other country prior to the date of registration or c) that the design is not a new or original design or c) that the design is not registrable under this Act; or 

e) that it is not a design as defined under clause (d) of section 2. 

Although in India design has not been classified further into categories according to Designs Act 2000, but it has been observed that Indian Courts classify the design in question into aesthetic and functional. An aesthetic design is one which is applied to any article, whether for the pattern or the shape or the configuration or the ornamentation thereof, or for any two or more of those purposes, and by whatever means it is applied, having features which appeal to and are judged solely by the eye, irrespective of the aesthetic quality thereof. A functional design means any design applied to any article, whether for the pattern or the shape or the configuration thereof, or for any two or more of those purposes, and by whatever means it is applied, having features which are necessitated by the function which the article to which the design is applied is to perform. In India the landmark judgment which acted as precedent for subsequent cases was passed in Bharat Glass Tube Limited v. Gopal Glass Works Limited. In this case the the Court gave interpretation of Section 2 (d) stating “Designs has been defined in Section 2(d) which means that a feature of shape, configuration, pattern, ornament or composition of lines or colors applied to any article whether in two dimensional or three dimensional or in both forms, by any industrial process. That means that a feature or a pattern which is registered with registering authority for being produced on a particular article by any industrial process whether manual, mechanical or chemical or by any other means which appears in a finished article and which can be judged solely by eye appeal.  The definition of design as defined in Section 2(d) read with application for registration and rule 11 with form 1 makes it clear that the design which is registered is to be applied to any finished article which may be judged solely by eye appeal. A conjoined reading of these three provisions makes it clear that a particular shape or a particular configuration is to be registered which is sought to be produced on any finished article which may be judged solely by eye appeal.[1] However the judgment passed in Interlego v. Tyco Industries,[2] the landmark British case which was pertaining to designs of toy bricks originated in Hong Kong and eventually was filed before the Privy Council in the United Kingdom acted as guiding principle for cases in India. In that the Privy Council observed that the bricks qualified for registered design protection, and thus did not qualify for copyright protection. Lord Oliver observed as follows -

“Inevitably a designer who sets out to make a model brick is going to end up by producing a design, in essence brick shaped. […] There is clearly scope in the instant case for that argument that what gives the Lego brick its individuality and the originality without which it would fail for want of novelty as a registrable design is the presence of features which serve only the functional purpose of enabling it to interlock effectively with the adjoining bricks above and below”.

The court further held that design drawings were a combination of both artistic and literary works. The written matter on such a drawing comprised the literary matter, and the graphics the artistic matter.

The only changes made to the drawings were alterations to some radii and to the dimensions of some elements. Lord Oliver further observed-

“Take the simplest case of artistic copyright, a painting or a photograph. It takes great skill, judgement and labour to produce a good copy by painting or to produce an enlarged photograph from a positive print, but no-one would reasonably contend that the copy, painting, or enlargement was an "original" artistic work in which the copier is entitled to claim copyright. Skill, labour or judgement merely in the process of copying cannot confer originality.”

In India designs are protected by two legal rights, they are as follow:

1)      Registered Designs

2)      Artistic Copyright

 

Design registration in India gives the owner, a monopoly on his or her design, i.e. the right for a limited period to stop others from making, using or selling the design without the owner’s permission and is additional to any design right or copyright protection that may exist automatically in the design.

           Under Section 6 

           (1) a design may be registered in respect of any or all of the articles comprised in a prescribed class of articles. 

        (2)Any question arising as to the class within which any article falls shall be determined by the Controller whose decision in the matter shall be final.

         (3)Where a design has been registered in respect of any article comprised in a class of article, the application of the proprietor of the design to register it in respect of some one or more other articles comprised in that class of articles shall not be refused, nor shall the registration thereof invalidated—

Under Section 7 the Controller shall, as soon as may be after the registration of a design, cause publication of the prescribed particulars of the design to be published in such manner as may be prescribed and thereafter the design shall be open to public inspection.

           Under Section 11when a design is registered, the registered proprietor of the design shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, have copyright in the design during ten years from the date of registration.

           To conclude with, a design is entitled to be registered and protected from being copied and applied on the same article and of the same class of articles which is not merely functional but has an aesthetic appeal to eye. At the same time a design is entitled of copyright which is absolutely original and has not been copied from any other class of articles.

By Ranidipa Ghosh

For Biswajit Sarkar

---

[1] 2008 AIR 2520

[2] [1989] AC 217

Licensing Agreement

A License is a contractual right that gives someone permission to do a certain activity or to use certain property that is owned by someone else. In an Intellectual property license, one company grants permission to another to use its Intellectual property, to which it has exclusive rights.

A License allows an intellectual property rights holder (the licensor) to create a business from an invention or creative work by charging a user (the licensee) for product use. It also helps to control, manage and protect the intellectual property.

In Intellectual property, Licensing agreement is a written contract under which the owner of a copyright, know how, patent, service mark, trademark, or other intellectual property, allows a licensee to use, make, or sell copies of the original. Such agreements usually limit the scope or field of the licensee, and specify whether the license is exclusive or non-exclusive, and whether the licensee will pay royalties or some other consideration in exchange. While licensing agreements are mainly used in commercialization of a technology, they are also used by franchisers to promote sales of goods and services.

A variety of such licensing agreements are available, which may be broadly categorized as follows:

·         Technology licensing agreement: By a technology licensing agreement the licensor authorizes the licensee to use the technology under certain agreed terms and conditions. It is, therefore, a contract freely entered into between two parties and contains terms and conditions so agreed. Therefore, if any Small and medium size enterprises (SME) is interested in improving the quality of its product or manufacturing a new product by using the rights owned by others in the form of a patent, utility model, or know how protected by a trade secret then acquiring such rights through a licensing agreement is the right solution.

·         Trademark licensing and franchising agreement: A trademark license is an arrangement by which the licensor consents to the use of its trademark by the licensee on agreed terms and conditions. A franchising agreement is granted by the franchisor to the franchisee to use its trademark and the franchised system. Therefore, if any SME is interested in marketing the product or service, and the brand (trademark) of that product, is owned by others or, entering and expanding the existing market for the product or service for which the SME owns the right conferred by a trademark then considering a trademark license or a franchise agreement is the right solution.

·         Copyright license agreements: The Copyright License Agreement is an agreement between the owner of the copyright in any existing work or the prospective owner of the copyright and the company or individual in any future work in writing to another person for a limited time. This license should not be mistaken with an assignment. Therefore, if any SME is interested in manufacturing, distributing or marketing the results of the literary and artistic efforts of creators or, entering a market or expanding or extending the existing market for the literary and artistic efforts of the enterprise, then considering a copyright license agreement is the right solution.

However, in practice, all or some of these agreements often form part of one single contract, since, it involves not only the intellectual property rights but many other rights also.

Under the Trademark Act 1999, the assignability and transmissibility of trademark are covered from Section 37 to Section 45.Section 37 of the said Act deals with the power of the registered proprietor to assign the trademark; and the assignability and transmissibility of registered and unregistered trademark whether with or without the goodwill of the business concerned is covered under Section 38 and Section 39 of the Act respectively. The registration of the assignment comes under the purview of Section 45 of the said Act.

In International context, a formal licensing agreement is possible only if the intellectual property right that is wish to license is also protected in the other country or countries, and, if the intellectual property is not protected in such other country or countries then the property would not be license and also there would be no legal right to put any restriction on its use by anyone else.

By Biswajit Sarkar