Well I am guessing the title of this post may have piqued your interest. ‘Sipping on IP’ is an initiative taken by BananaIP Counsels, where everyone gathers over coffee and lets ideas, discussions and conversations about intellectual property brew. There are no ground rules and the conversation can be about varied topics from more current pressing issues to any IP related concept. It is a great way to connect, take a break and learn from your peers.
Anchita, Sudha, Subhashree and Nithin discussed about the denial of a John Doe order with respect to the film ‘Dishoom’. The court had denied the order stating that it will not grant an injunction or order to block entire websites unless it is shown that the websites contain only the infringing material. However, the John Doe was granted when a fresh application was submitted by Eros with a revised list of verified links. Further, we discussed the commercial importance of obtaining a John Doe order and how it can have a positive effect on a film’s box office collections.
Today was a relatively longer Sipping on IP session, where Anchita, Nitin, Sudha, Subhashree, Anjali, Nikhil and Aniruddh Singh discussed the recent copyright battle between Getty Images and photographer Carol Highsmith. The case was definitely one its kind where Getty Images had initially sent a legal notice to Highsmith asking her to pay $120 fine to compensate online distributor Alamy. This led to Highsmith filing a copyright suit against Getty Images as she found out that they were unjustly enriching themselves off 18,755 of her photos, which were donated “copyright-free” to the US Library of Congress. Talk about tables turning!
Sudha (Sudhesh) then told us about the recent copyright dispute between Microsoft and Girnar. Microsoft had alleged that Girnar, a software company was using Microsoft windows without a license and had sought for an Anton Piller order. However, the raid revealed that these allegations were false and that material facts were suppressed.
We then went on to discuss whether strategically it is viable to send a legal notice to a potential infringer before the grant of a patent.
Lastly, Nikhil led the discussion about the recent win of Toyota for the use of the mark ‘PRIUS’ and Aniruddh told us about the take down of Kickass Torrents site.
Today was a fun sipping on IP session (also the coffee was great). Nithin, Anchita, Sudha, Subhashree, Anjali, Aniruddh Singh and Nikhil discussed about a ridiculous case of copyright claim in a museum piece alleged by one woman in Germany. Well the case was as follows- an elderly woman visited a museum in Nuremberg where a partially filled crossword puzzle was on display, with the words “Insert Words” in the title. This was literally interpreted by the woman and she scribbled on the puzzle. The museum restored the work to its original state and this led to the woman claiming that as she had scribbled, it had become a collaborative work and was claiming copyright in it.
We then discussed the worlds new addiction (or fad) Pokémon Go, and the copyright implication of using the game in countries where Freedom of Panorama is not allowed, as the game has a feature where one can click a photo of a place or building and the said photo gets stored in the gallery of the phone. We also discussed the Section 52, Copyright Act, 1957 fair use exceptions related to the same concept. Further, we discussed about the concept of nominative fair use in trademark law.
Today Anchita, Sudha and Nithin discussed about the recent copyright infringement case surrounding the film Mohenjo Daro, where the Bombay High Court dismissed the suit owing to lack of substantial evidence. We also discussed the slew of recent frivolous suits surrounding other big banners films.