Intellectual Property Rights

Leemizing Food & I R Octopus Pvt Ltd is one of the famous trademark infringement case in India. Bisleri International Pvt. Ltd. in the year 2009.for More information it is visit website = http://www.bisleri.com. In this case, common legal principles on cross-border relations to trademark infringement, as well as questions of jurisdiction have been highlighted.

Case Overview:-
Parties Involved:
Coca Cola company was the claimant while Bisleri International Pvt. Ltd – a famous Indian company engaged in production of packaged water products was the defendant.

Background:-
Huge mistakes However, in the 1990s Coca Cola bought the Indian soft drink brand maaza from Parle Agro including the trademark rights. The business firm Bisleri International, which created the Maaza drink and had the right to the Maaza trade mark, attempted to dispose of the trade mark right of Maaza in Turkey to a Turkish party. Coca-Cola said this action was in violation of trademark laws.
– Key Issue:
If Bisleri sold the Maaza trademark to be used in Turkey when Coca-Cola boasted the trademark across the world including India where Bisleri was operating from then this must have been against Coca-Cola’s global standards.

Court Ruling:

The Delhi High Court was also satisfied with the arguments given by coca cola and it provided the direction for restraining Bisleri through an interim injunction. The court summarized the findings as follows:

1. Ownership of Trademark:
Maaza trademark along with the related goodwill belonged to Coca-Cola Company, at least in India. The effort by Bisleri to sell the trademark in Turkey was detrimental to the rights of Coca-Cola undertaking.

2. Jurisdiction:
The Delhi High Court participated in this case because the infringement raised implications in India as the trademark belonged to Coca-Cola.

3. Trans-Border Reputation:
The court accepted the theory of trans-border low, stating that Coca Cola had the right not only in India but throughout the world since they are a international brand.

Legal Implications:-
1. Reinforcement of Trans-Border Reputation:
In the case, it was pointed out that reputation does not at all stop at country borders, particularly as far as distinctive trademarks are global ones.

2. Jurisdiction in Trademark Disputes:
The courts of India can claim jurisdiction over the trademark disputes having international connection but having operative facts in India or relating to the Indian market or in terms of legal rights.

3. Protection Against Unauthorized Transfers:
This helped to put beyond doubt that rights that an owner of a trademark enjoys cannot be cut down by other independent sales or assignments to others, including in foreign territories.

4. Consolidation of Interim Relief:
The fact that the court was not squeamish about making the interim relief underlines that the judiciary is ready to protect the rights of intellectual property under the keepership of litigation.

Business Relevance:
Any businesses must safeguard their trademarks and other rights as necessary in all jurisdictions where they operate or are planning to start their operations.
Any business undertaking engaged in international operations through the use of trademarks needs to be most cautious not to infringe on the existing trademark rights.
The judgment also sets the framework to handle trademark cases in a World Trade liberalised economy.

Coca-Cola v. Bisleri would be one of the most memorable judgements in the history of Indian Judicial system especially in the field of trademarks. This has underlined the need to protect TM in the currently globalised market and also the readiness of the Indian courts to handle such nature of disputes.

Conceptual Frameworks Underlining Intellectual Property Rights

Intellectual property (IP) rights are defined as the set of privileges granted by the provisions of law that are designed to protect creations of the mind that are intangible. There are quite a number of theories that justify the existence of these IP laws:

1. Natural Rights Theory
– Main Tenet: Intellectual creations go hand in hand with the personal character of the creator.
– Justification: In the same way people have claims over physical lodgings, there should be claims over their thoughts. This theory expounds on the right of an individual to control his or her creative works.

2. Utilitarian Theory
– Main Tenet: The existence of IP rights can be defended on the basis that they promote greater utility.
– Justification: It works as an economic engine creating demand, therefore supply and then economic and social development. This is a benefit oriented theory seeking protection of IP.

3. Personality Theory
– Main Tenet: All intellectual creation exists because it is a need of social life and every person’s personality is expressed in such creation.
– Justification: Protection of IP rights is protection of the identity and freedom of the creator. This theory is concerned with the ethical and social importance of the creation of ideas.

4. Labour Theory
– Main Tenet: Contrary to popular belief, the creator’s effort labor transcends the person into intellectual property.
– Justification: As a result of a monopoly right, the authors will receive a return on their efforts and capitalization. An economic conceptualization of intellectual properties is what this perspective on IP rights gives.

5. Social Contract Theory
– Main Tenet: The very notion of IP rights constitutes a social relation between the creator and the community at large.
This theory clamors for a justification as rights are given only to the creators in acceptance for their contributions to the society. This theory also brings in the aspect of individual rights and collectivism.
These theories are distinct but often, they merge and cross each other to fit the multifaceted understanding of the rationale behind IP rights.