Just in Bollywood Style: Barfi!

“I am very proud to say Barfi is a completely original story. It’s very difficult to make original cinema and I take a lot of pride in saying Barfi is original. It baffles me why people are not appreciating the original plot, screenplay, characters and situations.” 

These were the words of the director of the Bollywood masterpiece Barfi!, Anurag Basu, after he faced a recent allegation of plagiarism post success of Barfi!.

Further, he said:

"Martin Scorcese and Quentin Tarantino have done the same. Does that make them a thief? Great moments of cinema that you’ve watched through the years, stay in your mind and they come out in your work. It doesn’t mean you’re copying anyone. Thank God The Artiste was not made by an Indian. If it had, it would have never gone to the Oscars.”

The Controversy. 

Since its release two weeks ago, several videos have spread through YouTube and social media sites highlighting a number of scenes that appear to draw heavily from international classics. 

Some scenes from the movie show stark resemblances with clips from Gene Kelly's hit " Singin' in the Rain" (1952), Jackie Chan's " Project A" (1983), Buster Keaton's " Cops" (1922) and " The Notebook" (2004) starring Ryan Gosling among others.

The plot has been likened to "Benny & Joon", the 1993 film starring Johnny Depp, while the soundtrack has drawn further comparisons with the musical score from "Amelie", the 2001 hit starring Audrey Tautou.

One of the clearest sources of inspiration is Charlie Chaplin: one scene shows Barfi dodging a policeman through a sliding door, just as the king of silent film did in 1917's "The Adventurer".

News from HT 

News from TOI 

Garcia registers copyright for “Innocence of Muslims”

After making an unsuccessful attempt of last week to convince a California state judge to order YouTube to remove the movie trailer, Cindy Lee Garcia, the actress in the anti-Muslim film “Innocence of Muslims” refiled her case in federal court on Wednesday. In the Wednesday's filing, Garcia added copyright claims to her suit of unfair business practices, fraud and slander.

She also demands the YouTube to take down the 14-minute trailer for the film. According to her pleadings in the suit, it is stipulated that YouTube cannot couch itself in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act because the company did not remove the video, even though the copyright owner, Garcia, demanded such removal. She’s also suing the hundreds of people who have reposted the video on YouTube.

A representative for YouTube didn’t immediately return a request for comment.

This is a strange case, wherein, someone is trying to prove that by acting in a film and “authoring” a performance, she is entitled to a slice of the copyright. Typically, actors do not bring forth this type of lawsuit because, especially in Hollywood, they sign release forms before working. Such an agreement grants producers various rights. 

Some of those rights include freedom from libel claims. Such rights disallow actors from attempting to halt both the distribution and presentation of a film.

Garcia’s lawyer, says that the only thing her client signed was a document that would authorize Garcia’s participation in the film on the Internet Movie Database, a film content site. 

Prior to re-filing the lawsuit, Armenta registered Garcia’s performance at the U.S. Copyright Office. In her registration, Garcia noted that she delivered “a dramatic performance and it was fixed to film,” versus a work specifically made to hire, and thus she became a copyright holder. 

News Link

Amazon urges the US court to remove charges of false advertising

In a filing yesterday before a US court, Amazon asked the judge to remove an allegation of false advertising imposed by Apple last year. Last year, Apple launched legal action against the Amazon Appstore for Android, alleging that the it is a trademark violation of Apple's App Store. Apple had also also alleged that Amazon's use of the word Appstore in marketing material is false advertising.

Apple's App Store provides iPhones, iPads and iPods powered by Apple's iOS operating system and a huge range of software for the reassuringly expensive gear. On the other hand, Amazon's Appstore solicits programs for its Kindle tablets and other manufacturers' devices powered by Google's Android system.

Amazon asked the judge to throw out the false advertising allegation, claiming that it had no proper place in a trademark suit, and that "app store" is a generic term.

A hearing on Amazon's motion is due at the end of October. 

News Source 

Beijing to give IPR protection to brands

For long China has been the hotspot for creating fakes of many international brands.  But that is set to change. Dongcheng District of Beijing will enhance IPR protection in Wangfujing Shopping Street to protect brands by governmental service and supervision. 

Nowadays, 53 out of the top 100 world famous brands have set up stores in Dongcheng District, particularly Wangfujing Shopping Street where local and international brands converge. 

“By governmental service and supervision, on the one hand, the district will provide overall protection for these brands, on the other hand, Dongcheng District will create enabling environment for the development of these brands in the district and Wangfujing Shopping Street,” said a principal from Dongcheng District.

It is a welcome move on the part of Chinese  government. This move will restore the faith of many international brands in China.

Contributed by: Abhishek 

Source 

No to GM foods!!

Parliamentary Standing committee on Agriculture has laid before RajyaSabha its report titled " Cultivation of Genetically modified foods crops: prospects and effects".

The panel has strongly rejected use of GM crops in India and even considered that currently using BT cotton as a failure. The 506 page exhaustive report was completed in two and half years with panelists travelling across the nation consulting various stake holders including farmers, trade union representatives, relevant departments in State and Union Government as well as members of civil society and NGO's .

Basudeb Acharya, chairman of the committee said that the committee has come to a come to the conclusion that the concerns raised against GM Crops as to impact to environment, people, farming and health turns out to be true.

The report  denies granting of any exclusive monopoly rights in the form of patents and states that performance of private sector in this area is pathetic and need public interference.Report in several area raises concern as to applicability of patent laws in relation to GM foods

Report Parlimentary Standing Committee on Agriculture Gmcrops 2012

Trademark for music icon refused to Apple

In a setback to Apple, it lost an appeal to protect its famous music icon after trademark judges ruled that consumers were likely to confuse it with a mark now owned by MySpace. 

On Tuesday, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) upheld an examiner’s decision to refuse Apple trademark protection for the famous orange music mark that appears on iPhones and computer screens. It refused on the grounds that it was too similar to another mark:

 According to sources, the mark on the right was issued in 2008 to a music service called iLike which let users download and share music. In 2009, MySpace obtained iLike and shuttered it earlier this year. 

Refusing the contentions of the Applicant, the Board performed a “likelihood of confusion” analysis to conclude that an average consumer would muddle the marks:

"In view of the facts that the marks are similar, the goods and services are related and are encountered by the same classes of consumers, we find that applicant’s double musical note and design for “computer software [..]” is likely to cause confusion with the registered mark comprising a double musical note and design [..] for listening to MP3’s and for sharing MP3’s and music playlists with others".

However, Apple can still appeal against this decision to a federal district court. 

News Link

Judgment Copy

Michigan Singalong faces copyright issues

The producers and sponsors of the “The Pure Michigan Statewide Singalong” are facing the copyright infringement allegations from the creators of the platinum hit song “Good Time” on which it is based. However, they say that they hope to resolve a copyright dispute with the creators.

On Friday, a copyright claim from Songs Music Publishing led YouTube to take down the popular video of a statewide sing-along shot for Michigan’s tourism promotion agency. The song was intended to promote travel in the state.

The video of the singlong was produced by Jeff Barrett and Rob Bliss of Grand Rapids-based Status Creative. It uses the melody and adapts the lyrics of “Good Time,” written by Brian Lee and Matthew Thiessen. 

Mr. David Lorenz, the spokesman for Pure Michigan, (the nonprofit agency that promotes travel in the state) said he hopes talks between the producers and copyright holders will let Pure Michigan post the video again.
Source 

Just in Bollywood Style: Jodi Breakers

The iP aroUnd, from today has started a string of posts for movies' lovers- Just in Bollywood Style.

Just in Bollywood Style is the name given to posts that will reveal the Bollywood movies which are or were under scanner for being alleged as a direct-lift or facelift of some other original movie. 

The first post begins today with the movie Jodi Breakers. The movie was allegedly the copy of the year 2010 French film 'Heartbreakers'. 

According to the sources, the French producers have filed the case against five people - the producer, Prasar Visions Pvt Ltd, director Ashwini Chaudhary, the writer, the processing lab and Dariwala who claimed that the producers stole her idea. The first hearing took place on February 10 and today is the second hearing." 

The makers of Jodi Breakers had offered to let the Heartbreakers team read the entire script, provided they agree to sign a Non Disclosure Agreement (NDA), which the Heartbreakers team declined to sign.

News Link

IIPA demands changes under Canadian Copyright law

After a huge tussle over reforms under the Canadian copyright law, in June 2012, the debate came to an end when the Bill C-11 received royal assent. But, in a strange scene that appeared, despite the bill, being labelled as a “vital building block,” the copyright lobby that pressured the government to impose restrictive rules on digital locks and tougher penalties for copyright infringement, is already demanding further reforms that include rolling back many key aspects of the original bill.

This time, the manner of securing reforms is quite different from that of the last round of copyright reform, wherein national consultations and open committee hearings were adopted by the lobby groups. But this time, they are hoping to use secretive trade negotiations to forge legislative change. The International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA), an umbrella organization that represents movie, music, and software associations, will urge the U.S. government to put some pressure on Canada to enact further reforms as part of the Trans Pacific Partnership trade negotiations.

Recently, the IIPA submitted its position on Canada’s entry to the TPP as part of a U.S. regulatory process. It takes the concern of the role of Internet providers in enforcing Canadian copyright law. The Canada follows the “notice-and-notice” approach, which requires providers to forward thousands of infringement allegation notices to their subscribers. It strikes a balance between effective enforcement and free speech, while preserving users’ privacy. This approach has attracted a global attention, with the countries like Chile adopting it under its domestic law. Despite this, the approach has been criticized by the IIPA, thereby calling for dramatic reforms. It argues that Canadian law “fails to provide meaningful incentives for network service providers to co-operate with copyright owners to deal with copyright infringements that take place in the digital network environment.” 

The copyright lobby demands Canada to implement measures that would require Internet providers “to take action to prevent recidivists from repeatedly using their services to commit copyright infringement.” In other words: a termination system that would cut off Internet access for subscribers accused of infringement.

Further, the IIPA also wants Canada to revert the statutory damages changes from Bill C-11, through which, it created a liability cap of $5,000 for non-commercial infringement. It claims that the non-commercial cap renders statutory damages “ineffective in achieving its goals of full compensation and deterrence in the online environment.”

Bayer's petition against NACTO Compulsory license dismissed

In a yet another historic legal battle Intellectual Property Appellate Broad has dismissed Bayer's request for a stay order against last year grant of compulsory license by the patent controller to Natco.

The compulsory license issued by patent controller earlier last march allowed Natco to make and sell the generic version of  Multinational pharmaceutical company Bayer's patented drug Nexavar - used for treating liver and kidney cancer, after paying 6% royalty .

As Economic Times reports that, Justice Prabha Sreedevi of IPAB rejected Bayer's petition on the ground that the company did not even make a prima facie for grant of a stay against the order. She considered that a stay to the order will hamper the interests of the public as the company even admits that the drug is intended to improve the quality of life of patients in the later stages of disease.

Bayer was selling the said drug in Indian market for Rs 28,000 for a month's dose while Nacto's version offered to sell them at Rs 8,800 per month which is only 3% of Bayer's rate. Patent controller in his decision found that the medicine was available only to a small percentage of population and does not meet the requirements of the public. 

India's first ever compulsory license and the latest development were viewed with great concern by generic industries in developing countries  as a prospective watershed for affordable access to patentable medicines as well as  developed nations like US who opposes the move. 

India is currently in middle of raging patent battles in pharma industry with Novartis appeal  currently in supreme court and Delhi High court's Judgement on Cipla v Rosch.

Amar Remedies accused of “passing off”

Dabur Ayurvedic Natural Health Care Products India has filed a case against Amar Remedies, for infringing on the intellectual property rights (IPR) to its brand Meswak. Dabur in the has alleged that Amar Remedies manufactures a toothpaste under the brand name  Siwak and exports it to Algeria.

Along with IPR infringement, Dabur in the suit has also alleged that Amar Remedies has attempted to "pass off" Siwak as Meswak. Passing-off in IPR law means making a false representation that is likely to induce a person to believe that the goods or services are those of another.

In the petition Dabur has alleged that Amar has dishonestly adopted the the said mark Siwak on the toothpaste only with a view to trade on its  goodwill and  reputation 

Contributed by Abhishek Kukreti

The second China-US International Cooperation Forum on IPR begins

The 2nd China-US International Cooperation Forum on IPR kicked off Wednesday in Washington DC, with the objective of promoting bilateral exchanges on intellectual property rights (IPRs) protection. Government officials and representatives from the private sector participated in the Forum.

Addressing the Forum, the Deputy China International Trade Representative Chong Quan said "For China, encouraging innovation and protecting IPR not only cater to the need of restructuring its economy at the moment, but will also promote future development of its society. China has established a profound legal framework and law enforcement mechanism in dealing with IPR protection. And the government is deepening and broadening its work in the field. The Chinese government has set the target of building an innovation-oriented country and has therefore put IPR protection at a national strategic level."

The Chinese representatives also enlisted the past effective actions taken by the government for IPR protection. For example, in 2010, the central government launched a 10-month-long campaign in China to suppress the manufacturing and selling fake and shoddy goods. In 2011, the central government set up a national leading group led by Vice Premier Wang Qishan to deal with IPR infringement. All these efforts have achieved effective results.

David Kappos, the US Under Secretary of Commerce for intellectual property, praised China's efforts in this regard. The prime focus of this Forum will be on the information industry, particularly the internet. 

The Chinese deputy trade representative Chong Quan pointed out the challenges presented by internet industry, as he said that:
"The internet industry has entered its golden era. In China, to date, the volume of online transaction has reached six trillion yuan per year. That accounts for 13% of the total GDP. It has no doubt become a new economic growth point. Meanwhile, the protection of internet IPR has become an outstanding issue. At the recent China-US legal exchange conference, experts from both countries acknowledged that in the face of rapid technological innovation, IPR protection is more dependent on international cooperation. Only cooperation can bring development as well as create a win-win situation for both countries. Such a cooperative concept is not only conducive to our bilateral diplomatic relations, but will also benefit our cooperation in the fields of economy and trade, as well as IPR protection."
"By May 2011, all agencies of the Chinese central government were using legitimate software only. By June 2012, all provincial governments were doing so," he said, adding that municipal and township governments across the country are expected to catch up by the end of 2013.

Source 

Significant changes on the anniversary of AIA

In 2011, when the America Invents Act (AIA) was given the shape of law on September 16 last year, some significant changes were introduced to U.S. patent law, including changes to patent litigation rules and U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) procedures. While some changes - particularly those related to patent litigation (such as limitations on joinder of defendants, the elimination of the best mode invalidity defense, an expansion of the prior use defense, and provisions regarding proof of willful and induced infringement) - went into effect immediately, some additional aspects of the Act, including significant changes to procedures within the USPTO, were implemented on September 16, 2012.

Source 

Apple embarks on a winning spree

In a setback for Google and another win for Apple, a German court has found Google-owned IT company Motorola guilty of infringing Apple patents on the design of smartphones and tablets, a court spokesman said on Thursday. The court ordered Motorola to pay a yet-to-be-specified fine and pull the infringing devices, from the market.

This particular patent involves a feature known as "overscroll bounce" or "rubber-banding" that pulls a written text or image back to the centre of the screen to signify to the user that the end of a list or menu has been completed. Motorola had won a similar patent case in western Germany last July and has one month to appeal the decision.

 It would be interesting to see, what would be the outcome of the appeal. On the other hand for Apple, it has been a winning spree, till now. In August, a California court decided in favour of Apple in a patent case against Samsung, awarding the iPhone maker about one billion dollars in damages.  

The case is just one of many patent battles that technology companies have waged worldwide, but especially in Germany where patent protection laws are particularly strict. This case might just give Apple, the required boost to sell its latest IPhone, which has got a mixed review.

Contributed by

Abhishek Kukreti

Ek tha Tiger in copyright controversy !!

After a series of movies like Jannath 2 and Desi Boyz, now it is the turn of Salman Khan starrer Ek Tha Tiger. According to reports Salman's blockbuster has met with a copyright infringement case after one Mr Anand Pande has filed a complaint with Mumbai police alleging that the producers have stolen his script and made it into a movie without providing him adequate compensation.

However Hindustan times report that Neelesh Mishra, Co-writer of Ek Tha Tiger has vehemently denied the charges of copying and even challenged Anand Pande to prove his charges.

Mumbai Police have already lodged an FIR against the producer Aditya Chopra and Director Kabir Khan. Anand Pande has also filed  a complaint against them with the Film Writers Association.

Pnade has earlier approached the Mumbai Highcourt who directed the police to launch an FIR on the issue.

Source

Barfi ! faces the Murfy Trademark issue.

A day before release of Barfi !, the upcoming movie of Anurag Basu, the British manufacturers Murphy Radio sent the notice to the producers UTV group and Ishana films, alleging trademark infringement. In the notice, the company has claimed that the makers have used 'Murphy', 'Murphy Radio' and 'Murphy Munna' in the title song as well as in the film without taking an NOC (no objection certificate) from them. 

The notice, sent through advocate Sujeet G Kurup, says, “The company Murphy Enterprises owns at least 32 trademarks under several classes. If the notice is not taken seriously, the company will file a legal suit against the Barfi team, bringing a stay on the movie release, or further perusal claiming damages worth Rs. 50 crore.”

The main point of controversy is over the song Ala Barfi, the lyrics of which are: “Barfi jo amma ji ki kokh mein tha soya/ Amma ne murphy ka radio mangaya/ barfi munna jaisa lalla/ amma ka tha sapna/ Munna jab haule haule duniya mein aaya/ Baba ne Ceylon wala station lagaya/ Radio on hua, amma off hui/ Toota har sapna.”

However, UTV responded positively, by saying “We are clear there has been no infringement whatsoever, and are in the process of responding to the notice.”

 

Source

Draft of National Intellectual Property Rights Strategy prepared

The Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion under the Industry Ministry has prepared a draft National IPR Strategy. The Sectorial Innovation Council on IPRs had given its recommendations. It may be mentioned here that this council was set up in April, earlier this year to come up with a national IPR strategy. 

Based on the recommendations, this draft has been prepared.  However, the draft has not yet been circulated for inter-Ministerial consultation, Minister of State of Commerce and Industry Jyotiraditya Scindia said in a written reply to  Rajya Sabha on Wednesday.

In accordance with TRIPS Agreement India’s IP laws were amended to incorporate  provisions of the said Agreement and in 2010, the Trademark Act was  amended to enable accession to the Madrid Protocol which is a filing treaty and will allow companies to register their trademark in the Member-countries of the Protocol through a single application. Similarly, the Copyright Act, 1957 was amended in 2012. 

The amended Act which came into force on 21st June 2012, inter alia includes provisions of the WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) and WIPO Performance and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT). 

 It is a welcome step on part of the government as it would give a boost to the creation of new ideas with industrial applications.

Source

Contributed by: Abhishek Kukreti

Shock in store for Indian pharmaceuticals ???

Hyderabad based Natco Pharmaceuticals may lose its license to manufacture a low cost version of the cancer drug Nexavar for India, originally developed by Bayer AG, a German pharmaceutical major, if, the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB), gives a decision in favour of Bayer Corp.  Bayer Corp had earlier filed an appeal with the IPAB against Natco Pharma and Indian Patent Office against an order of Patent controller granting compulsory license on its cancer curing drug Nexavar.

IPAB on Tuesday concluded its hearing on the appeal this Tuesday and has reserved its order for a further date.

 Compulsory license, first of its kind, was awarded to Natco Pharmaceuticals in February, by the Patent Controller, P H Kurian, for  manufacturing a low cost version of cancer drug, Nexavar.

Natco’s counsel argued that the compulsory license should not be stayed, as it would be against public interest and be detrimental to the 30,000 cancer patients, in India, who are dependent on this drug. Further the counsel argued that Bayer had not fully exploited the drug to its full potential.

It would be interesting to see whether Bayer’s capitalist motives win or the cancer patients in India, win.

Contributed by: Abhishek Kukreti

Sources: www.livemint.com

Mirror Worlds lost the patent infringement suit

It was again a victorious day for Apple Inc. (AAPL), when it won in an appeal against a verdict regarding the issue of U.S. patent-infringement of the invention by a professor of Yale University on how documents are displayed on a computer screen.

The question arose in the case was, whether Apple was responsible for infringement of patents owned by Mirror Worlds LLC. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington gave the verdict, upholding a lower-court decision that tossed the 2010 jury verdict.

The suit began in 2008, when Mirror Worlds, founded by Yale University computer-science Professor David Gelernter, sued Apple’s alleging that its Mac computers infringed its patents. Apple challenged the validity of the patents and argued against the infringement. The jury held Apple responsible for infringing three patents and awarded damages of $208.5 million for each, (a total of $625.5 million). In court papers, Apple argued that the amount was too high and that it was improper to add the damages.

Later the U.S. District Judge Leonard Davis in Tyler, Texas, overturned the October 2010 verdict, holding that Apple was not liable for infringement of the patent and that Mirror Worlds had failed to establish its case. The court also said the damage award was too high, while also upholding the validity of the three Mirror Worlds patents.

The trial looked into the Spotlight, Time Machine and Cover Flow features in Apple’s Mac operating systems.

The case can be found by searching Mirror Worlds LLC v. Apple Inc., 11-1392, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Washington) and Mirror Worlds LLC v. Apple Inc., 08cv88, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Tyler). 

Source 

Time for Trademark Oppositions

After a number of patent battles now its time to watch how Samsung and Apple fights over trademark.

Apple on May 2010 filed a TM application vide application no with USPTO for International registration  of a logo titled "Made for iphone" vide application no: 85025627 which contains a small image of an iphone along with the word mark "Made for iphone".

Now after two years of registration with the USPTO, Samsung along with Acer has challenged the registration of the mark in the Canadian Trademark Office

According a document provided by the Canadian Trademark office Samsung and Acer has filed their opposition on October 2011 and has been granted an extension for formally making their case which is due for 20th of November.

Source: Patently apple

Photocopying unit faces copyright infringement suit

Cambridge University Press, along with Oxford University Press and an online journals company Francis and Taylor have filed a copyright infringement suit against Delhi University and Rameshwari Photocopy Services, a photocopying shop located on the premises of Delhi School of Economics. The trio (Big P), alleges that the shop has been involved in creating illegal, pirated versions of books originally published by them. The shop has been accused of copyright infringement.

Big P has asked for damages amounting to sixty lakhs. Damages sought is on the assumption that every photocopy is a lost sale but aside from this dubious assumption inflated sums are usually a part of the shock and awe tactics that copyright owners use to establish a test case.

DU students have put forth the argument, that many of the courses just prescribe one or two chapters from the books, so it is not feasible for them, to buy the books, which are most of the times, exorbitantly priced. Most of the students come from economically weaker sections of the society.  
This is not the case, just with DU. Almost all college going students across India, get the books photocopied.  Sec. 52(1)(i) of Copyright Act of 1957,   allows for ‘the reproduction of any work by a teacher or a pupil in the course of instruction’ or as a part of questions or answers to questions. Further a fair dealing with any work  (except computer programs) for the purposes of private or personal use, including research is also excepted from provisions of infringement.  Therefore, reproduction by photocopy for educational purposes is allowed under the Copyright legislation.

In this war between the publishers, and the shop, the ultimate losers are the students, who for no fault of theirs have to suffer.  As a student of DU, rightly puts forth, “You just cannot produce scholars with a ban on photocopying course material.” It would be very much interesting to watch now how courts are going to handle the situation.

Contributed by: Abhishek 

Source

IPAB orders removal of trademarks

The Hindu on 29th August reported that IPAB has ordered removal of two conflicting  trademarks from  TM register. Fight between two cosmetic giants, Chandrika and Calvin Care Private Limited has  resulted in removal of their potentially conflicting trademarks "Fair ever" and "Chandrika For ever". 

Wipro's Chandrika and Calvin care have been fighting over these trademarks for cosmetic and soap products. Wipro launched Chandrika forever in 2007 and obtained registration for the same in respect of all kinds of soaps, toiletry preparations, shampoos, hand wash and sanitisers. On the contrary Calvin care have been trading since 1998 under their well known trademark "Fairever" in relation to cosmetic products. 

In 2010, Calvin care filed a civil suit seeking permanent injunction to restrain Chandrika from using "Chandrika Forever". As a response to this Chandrika had approached the IPAB seeking removal of Calvin care's trademark "Fair ever".

IPAB now in its orders asks the Registrar to remove both the marks from the register as both marks tends to create confusion among the public and was wrongly entered in the register and hence deserves to be removed

Source:  The Hindu

EBC granted injunction against Westlaw for infringing copyright

Thomson Reuters, the multinational information conglomerate based on New York along with its Indian operations- Westlaw India and Indlaw have been restrained by an ad interim injunction from infringing the Copyrights of EBC in their law report "Supreme Court Cases" known as SCC. 

EBC's right over head notes and editorial notes in SCC were earlier upheld by the Supreme Court in Eastern book company v D B Modak

In a lawsuit filed against Thomson Reuters / Westlaw India / Indlaw, the Lucknow District Court Judge, has passed an Interim Injunction on 22/8/2012 restraining the defendants, their assignee's, business franchises, licensees, distributors, agents etc from selling, distributing or otherwise make available to people either as CD- ROM's or through their website or any other means which would infringe the copyright of SCC during the pendency of the suit.

The learned judge after taking into account the affidavit filed by EBC and the contentions raised by them felt that there is a prima facie case as well as balance of convenience  in favour of the plaintiff  due to "exact tallying" of editorial notes by the defendants in their online journals 

14th September has been set out as the date for filing written statements and framing issues.

EBC v Thomson Reuters Order

Source