01 January 0001

IPR Amicus: March 2017


Design infringement – Liability of intermediary & Information Technology Act

Article in this issue of IPR Amicus discusses a recent decision of the Delhi High Court involving liability of an intermediary in a design infringement case. The Single Judge has rejected the contention that e-commerce site being an intermediary within the meaning of Information Technology Act, 2000 is required to devise a mechanism to verify whether a product infringes the IPR of any other person before hosting the same for sale on its system/website. The author highlights the decision of the Court that merely because an intermediary is required under the IT Rules to remove the infringing content on receipt of complaint, it cannot be read as vesting in the intermediary suo motu powers to detect and refuse hosting of infringing contents. According to the author, the intermediaries are further not equipped to screen all information being hosted on their portal.


Ratio Decidendi

  • Trademarks – Delhi High Court while interpreting Section 124(1)(a)(ii), sets aside the Order of Single Judge rejecting application seeking stay of suit till the time rectification proceedings before IPAB are finally adjudicated
  • Copyrights – Advertisement Standards Council of India not barred from entertaining complaint – Delhi High Court holds Section 60 as inapplicable when proceedings before ASCI already initiated
  • Patent infringement – Bioequivalence is not the test for infringement – US District Court for the District of Delaware
  • Trademarks – Goodwill and not reputation of the mark in India required in a case of passing off – Delhi High Court


Statutory Update

  • Trade Marks Rules, 2017 notified – New Rules considerably reduce number of forms and provide incentive for filing these electronically


March, 2017/Issue-68 March, 2017/Issue-68

Browse articles