Welcome to the latest edition of BananaIP’s Weekly IP Insights, published on November 21, 2023. Our dedicated team at Banana IP has meticulously researched and compiled key developments in the intellectual property domain to keep you informed and up to date. This week, we bring you significant updates from the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Office of CGPDTM, and notable decisions in the realm of privacy, data protection, domain name, and accessibility. Our commitment is to provide reliable and comprehensive information for our readers, contributing to a better understanding of the ever-evolving IP landscape.
MoIB invites comments on the Draft Broadcasting Bill 2023
Ministry of Information and Broadcasting has published the Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill, 2023 for public comment. The Bill replaces the Cable Televisions Networks (Regulations) Act of 1995 and caters to the evolving needs of the broadcasting sector. It recognizes a wide range of broadcasters, from traditional or conventional broadcasters to those utilizing the latest technological advancements. Broadcasting services under the Bill are divided into four parts: Part A covers broadcasters and cable and satellite broadcasting networks, Part B deals with radio broadcasting networks, Part C pertains to internet broadcasting networks, and Part D relates to terrestrial broadcasting networks.
The Ministry has invited stakeholders to provide their comments/suggestions on the proposed draft of the Bill. The suggestions/comments may be sent to [email protected] by 9th December 2023.
The draft of the Bill is available at: https://mib.gov.in/sites/default/files/Public%20Notice_0.pdf
IP Office invites inventions furthering Sustainable Development Goals
The Office of CGPDTM is inviting applicants/inventors to submit details of their inventions that have been created to address Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). These inventions must be invented in India, patented in India and adequately commercialized. A selection committee will review the submissions and select 78 of these inventions to be featured in a compendium published by the Office. Additionally, 10 of the chosen inventions will be featured in a BRICS compendium to showcase India’s success in IP-driven solutions for SDG.
Details may be sent by 29th November 2023 to [email protected] or by post to the following address: Bhoudhik Sampada Bhavan, Head Post Office, Shaikh Mistry Rd, Near Antop Hill, Dosti Acres, Antop Hill, Mumbai, Maharashtra – 400037.
The Public Notice is available at:
Personal Data Protection Commission imposes a penalty of $82,000.
Tokyo Century Leasing (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. operates a website that facilitates customers to submit applications to enter into a hire-purchase agreement. A ransomware attack on the employees’ computers resulted in the encryption of the personal data of 141,412 individuals. The Plaintiff Tokyo licensing informed the Singapore police within the designated time of 72 hours. Now, the issue pertains to whether the Plaintiff can be held liable for the breach even after it has complied with the guideline. However, upon review of the facts, the Personal Data Protection Commission noted that the Plaintiff’s devices were unpatched for 3 years and had also failed to conduct regular ICT monitoring, alerts, security audits, scans, and tests to detect vulnerabilities and non-compliance with organizational standards. Hence, the commission held the plaintiff liable and imposed a financial penalty of $82,000.
Source: In the matter of an investigation under Section 50(1) of the Personal Data Protection Act 2012 and Tokyo Century Leasing (Singapore) Pte. Ltd., Personal Data Protection Commission, Case No. DP-2206-B9897.
Domain Name Disputes
WIPO’S administrative panel enumerates criteria to be considered for bad faith and use in domain name disputes.
The present case, G4S Limited, filed a complaint against the Respondent, Milen Radumilo, alleging that the Respondent’s registration and use of the domain name was confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark and that it was intended to mislead and divert customers from the Complainant’s website. The main point of discussion in this case was whether the contentions of the complainant were true.
While deciding the case, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)’s administrative panel noted in order to determine the case, G4S had to demonstrate Milen’s bad faith in the registration and use of the domain name. Bad faith can be proved if the following conditions have been satisfied –
- The domain name was registered to prevent the owner from having a matching domain.
- The domain name was registered primarily to disrupt the business of a competitor
- The domain name was registered with the intent to sell, rent, or transfer the domain name to the complainant or his competitor for a valuable consideration
- Used the domain name to intentionally cause a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark.
The panel noted that the Complainant had trademark rights before the domain registration. This suggested that the Respondent knew of the Complainant’s activities while the domain was chosen since the Respondent was previously involved in UDPR proceedings against the Complainant regarding the domain name and the same trademarks that are invoked in the current proceedings.
The Administrative Panel found that the Respondent lacked rights, used the Domain Name to divert users for commercial gain, and had a history of abusive domain registrations, indicating bad faith. It also found that the Complainant had substantiated its claims and that the Respondent had failed to rebut the case established by the Complainant. Therefore, concluded by directing the domain name to be transferred to the Complainant.
Source: G4S Limited v. Milen Radumilo Case No. DME2023-0010, WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center, October 31, 2023
CCPD directs to replace the term “mental retardation” with “intellectual disability”.
Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities (Divyangjan) (CCPD) received a complaint against the Railway Board’s use of the derogatory term “Mentally Retarded Person” in Concession Certificate Forms. The Complainant was a person with 48% intellectual disability and urged to replace use of such language in official documents and rules, aligning with United Nations’ inclusive language guidelines.
The Complaint was filed against the secretary of the Railway Board (Respondent 1), the Joint Secretary of the Department of Divyanjan (Respondent 2), and the Secretary of the Ministry of Health (Respondent 3). The Court had expressed concern over Respondent 3’s failure to respond to notices, emphasising the punishable offences under s.75 and 77 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act. Respondent No. 2 had informed about replacing “mental retardation” with “Intellectual Disability” and changing the name of the National Handicapped Financial Development Corporation. Whereas Respondent No. 3 claimed “Mental Retardation” to be a medical term to which the court disagreed, demanding prompt corrective action.
In view of the same, Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities pointed out the need to “mental retardation” with “intellectual disability” in all the laws, rules, instructions, schemes, and policies under the railway and Divyangjan board.
We hope this edition of BananaIP’s Weekly IP Insights has provided valuable insights into the current trends and developments in the field of intellectual property. As we continue our journey to explore and report on the dynamic world of IP, we invite you to join us in this ongoing conversation. Stay tuned for our future weekly updates, where we will persist in delivering factual, unbiased, and thoroughly researched information. Your trust and readership are paramount to us at BananaIP, as we strive to be your go-to source for intellectual property news and analysis.