PROTECTION OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY (Article Sample)

PROTECTION OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY 1 Evolution of modern definition property is vast to the extent of owning ideas and even opinions, Copyright thus can be used to refer to the legitimate rights of an owner on abstract ideas creative art , authorship to preserve ownership and the originality of the piece of work . You are a copyright owner by the virtue of creating and coming up with a certain book, poem or even film , this is commonly defined as fixed ownership of a copyright. Originality of a work means there is creativity involved . Work of art , has a vast domain involving photos , engravings on walls and objects . In case of Memes, the work that forms the basis of the Meme, is often, capable of being classified as an 'artistic work', . A Meme, when analysed factually , is an apparent scenario where an infringement of someone else original piece of at and idea Without their consent . Fair use is often used as a defence when a mem creator is faced with infringement issues . Memes as a piece of work has less economic value and this attributes to rare scenarios where the original creator goes after the meme maker . However it is possible to be followed for example Getty Images called upon Get digital blogger to stop using Socially Awkward Penguin that was attributed to George F. Mobley, and as a result he was compensated for the three year use of the image. From the Copyright Act,1957 it is lawful “to make a copy of the film, including a photograph of any image forming part thereof…” The implies that the producing of memes should always involving the original owners of the piece of work to be credited and attributed thus in effect transferring some rights of the usage of the image and this means not to change the title of the original work In scenario where the author has designed an original a meme with no inclusion of pre-existing material art sharing the meme does not amount to the infringement of copyright since he has full ownership of legal rights that can be enforced by the law. Fair use as a legal doctrine can be used as a legal defence where infringement of the art by the second possessor is put into question .Internet contains a lot of memes and images that could be termed as derivative work such that it is an aggregate of numerous flavours and as such the legal rights on such an object can only be enforced by the original owner . Copyright of an owner cannot be treated in an absolute manner . Whoever generates a derivative work can fair use as a defence when claiming for the copyright infringement. Fair use has a set of guidelines to other work creators to harness the legal rights copyrighted without the necessity of looking for legal consent from holder thus cannot be termed as violation intellectual property law. Sec 54 of Copyright laws Act , advances equitable dealing in any work .Often could be used by individual or private use for researching , revision and critiques This legal principle cannot not transfer the legal right to use someone’s art work but in fact it is an immediate defence to the accused that the copyright was just being used in consideration to the existing guidelines and not based in any way . Cases to determine if someone has engaged in copyright infringement and violation can seem sophisticated but there are a few paradigms that are used to gauge the facts in case to case scenario putting aside the fact that the alleged plagiarized / copied material art has been used generatively in an economic activity for commercial purposes or for other non-commercial purposes. This includes[.= Sec (2) Copyright Act 1957.] [Sec 14 (d) (i) Copyright Act, 1957] [Sec 54 Copyright Act 1957] The nature and quality of copyrighted art work The quantity and scope of using the work The impact of using the product on the market on the original value Sec 54 of the Copyright Act, does not mean that unlawful use of other peoples art can qualify as fair use doctrine in defence ,in the case of Kerala in Civic Chandran v AmminiAdds to the contention and paradox , that imitates the initial work for critique , can not count as unlawful .. in the above image University student .org is the original owner of the work as a result the meme creator derives it for use with no consent of the owners and this could factual qualify this case as a copyright infringement . This makes it unlawful to use such image and the doctrine of fair use cannot be used as a defence .[Kerala HC in Civic Chandran v Ammini Amma [1996 PTR 142]] [https://thedailyguardian.com/analysing-copyright-issues-associated-with-memes-in-india/] 2 With the modern globalised economy and cross-border trades, copyrights also become relevant in multilateral and bilateral trade since the issues are not at a domestic or national levels only. In this scenario the company X from Brussels has filed for the copyright in advance as opposed to the Company Y from Madrid but in different classes. However, we note that both of these countries are in The Europe and thus under the common shield for European Union. So the main issue to be determined is whether the Items in different classes could be necessarily the same as per the guidelines of European Union Trade Mark (EUTM). The Filing of an opposition and ultimate possibility to win in such a contestation is determined by diverse factors The guidelines for filing an opposition include ; The opposition time-line is set to be 3 months , which is can be extended to 22 months An opposing party must file in that time frame from the moment it is officiated by the EUTM portal in which the application is to be conflicted which officially publicized But in case , in which EUTM is designed in global domain , the 3 months threshold period will be counted from the first month the EUIPO republished . Opposing persons must clearly show the justification on which it seems likely reasons for opposition can be the opposed mark applied relative to an initial registered trade symbol and includes identical services or goods in the same class. Opposed application will, if was confirmed and registered, be identical to initial “sign" which cannot be of trivial domestic significance. The divergent position had been initiated by a third party without the consent of such an agent The contrastive mark distinct with a "well-known" mark Note that divergent party can only be asserted on relative explanation , that is, on the basis initial legal rights. It is not possible to rebut on absolute justifications , The opponent should have a direct interest in such an application and the doctrine of privity shall not apply Opposition can only be filed by: The applicant of an earlier trademarks and earlier rights If opposition is justified on a initial EUTM, the conflicting party must be a registered proprietor bearing an initial interest in the EUTM before the time of entry of opposition. In the event the opposition claims on a local trademark and sign the laws and statutory provisions of that country must confer to them the right to bar use of the conflicted EUTM.[Article 6 bis of the Paris Convention] A licensee of European Union Trade Mark need not to have been registered, however the licensee needs to prove his legitimacy and authority to do the work . In the scenario of a licensee of domestic trade symbol , the country statutory provisions checks licensee’s legitimacy to act’s People conferred with authority under the relevant country norms to exercise the legal rights of initial non-registered trademarks. Thus in this case considering the timeframe where the EUTM established for making opposition is far gone by more than a year, it is a routine that within three moths the published trademarks are publicized by the EUIPO in there bulletin and thus an extensible period may apply in this scenario given the distance apart and the geographical setting of these regions. The trademark classes however are not identical and this sets a parameter to decline the similarity of this two different Marks and Consequently Company X in Brussels may fail to successfully file and opposition again Company Y in Madrid for the different class 9 since it had it’s trademark in class 20. 3 There exists numerous industrial design of different types of products . Sec 2(d) Designs law is clear on the abstract characteristic of a object that can used to define an official...