Intellectual Property Infringement
Intellectual Property (IP) Infringement occurs when someone unauthorizedly uses, copies, reproduces, or exploits the intellectual property rights of another person or entity. IP rights protect creations of the mind, including:
Copyright – literary, artistic, musical, and software works
Trademarks – distinctive signs, logos, names identifying goods or services
Patents – inventions, processes, or designs with novel and non-obvious features
Designs – aesthetic or functional design of products
Trade secrets – confidential business information
Forms of IP Infringement
Copyright Infringement
Unauthorized reproduction, distribution, or adaptation of creative works.
Trademark Infringement
Using a similar mark that can cause confusion in the market.
Patent Infringement
Manufacturing, selling, or using a patented invention without permission.
Design Infringement
Copying the shape, pattern, or overall look of a registered design.
Trade Secret Misappropriation
Stealing or leaking confidential business information.
Legal Remedies
Injunctions (preventing further infringement)
Monetary damages (compensation for loss)
Account of profits (profits earned from infringement)
Criminal liability in certain jurisdictions (counterfeit goods, piracy)
Relevant Laws
India: Copyright Act 1957, Trade Marks Act 1999, Patents Act 1970, Designs Act 2000, Trade Secrets protected under common law
U.S.: Copyright Act, Lanham Act (Trademarks), Patent Act
U.K.: Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, Trade Marks Act 1994
International: TRIPS Agreement, WIPO treaties
Landmark Cases on Intellectual Property Infringement
Below are 7 detailed cases across copyright, trademark, patent, and design law.
1. Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios (1984) – U.S. (Betamax Case)
Facts
Sony manufactured Betamax video recorders. Universal sued, claiming Sony was liable for copyright infringement because consumers could record TV shows, allegedly infringing copyrights.
Issue
Is the manufacturer of a device liable for infringement if the device is capable of substantial non-infringing uses?
Judgment
The U.S. Supreme Court held Sony not liable, as Betamax had substantial non-infringing uses (time-shifting of TV shows).
Introduced the concept of “substantial non-infringing use” in copyright law.
Significance
Manufacturers of technology are not automatically liable for indirect infringement.
Key precedent for future tech cases like Napster and streaming platforms.
2. Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. (2012–2016) – Design & Patent Infringement
Facts
Apple sued Samsung, alleging copying iPhone design, interface, and features in Galaxy phones.
Key IP issues:
Design patents (shape and rounded corners)
Utility patents (scrolling, pinch-to-zoom)
Judgment
Courts in the U.S. awarded Apple hundreds of millions in damages for design and utility patent infringement.
Samsung appealed; damages were later reduced after multiple retrials.
Significance
Reinforced protection for design patents.
Highlighted the complexity of overlapping utility and design patents.
Showed global IP disputes in the tech sector.
3. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. v. Aereo, Inc. (2014) – U.S. Copyright
Facts
Aereo allowed users to stream broadcast TV over the Internet using tiny antennas for each subscriber. ABC argued this violated copyright.
Issue
Does Aereo’s technology constitute public performance under the Copyright Act?
Judgment
Supreme Court held that Aereo infringed copyright, as it transmitted copyrighted material to the public without license.
Despite technological loopholes, the Court prioritized substance over form.
Significance
Modernized copyright law for digital streaming.
Technological innovation does not exempt infringement.
4. Cadbury India Ltd. v. Neeraj Food Products (2007) – Trademark Infringement
Facts
Neeraj Food Products used a chocolate bar wrapper similar to Cadbury’s Dairy Milk, including color and design.
Issue
Whether the similar packaging causes confusion among consumers.
Judgment
Delhi High Court held Neeraj Food Products liable for trademark infringement and passing off.
Emphasized “get-up” of the product and consumer perception.
Significance
Highlighted protection of trade dress and consumer goodwill.
Established that even non-verbal elements can be protected under trademark law.
5. Novartis AG v. Union of India (2013) – Patent Infringement / Novartis v. India
Facts
Novartis sought a patent in India for Gleevec, a cancer drug. Indian Patent Office denied it under Section 3(d), claiming it was a new form of a known substance without enhanced efficacy.
Issue
Does incremental innovation qualify for a patent?
Judgment
Supreme Court of India denied the patent, ruling that it lacked significant efficacy improvement.
This prevented “evergreening” of patents in pharmaceuticals.
Significance
Balanced IP protection with public health interests.
Clarified limits of patentability in India.
6. Tata Sons Ltd. v. Greenpeace International (2011) – Copyright & Trademark
Facts
Greenpeace used Tata’s logos and trademarks in a campaign protesting environmental issues related to Tata Steel.
Issue
Whether Greenpeace’s use of Tata logos constitutes infringement or is protected as fair use / freedom of expression.
Judgment
Delhi High Court held Greenpeace’s use qualified as fair use, aimed at criticism and advocacy.
Significance
Clarified the boundary between trademark infringement and permissible commentary / criticism.
Reinforced the principle of public interest vs. IP rights.
7. Delhi High Court – Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. v. Entertainment Network (India) Ltd. (2008) – Copyright
Facts
ENIL was broadcasting music copyrighted by Super Cassettes (T-Series) without authorization.
Judgment
Court held ENIL liable for copyright infringement.
Awarded damages for unauthorized use of copyrighted sound recordings.
Significance
Reinforced protection for sound recordings.
Set precedent for radio, TV, and online streaming infringement in India.
Key Legal Principles from Case Law
Direct vs. Indirect Infringement
Direct: using/copying the IP.
Indirect: providing devices or services facilitating infringement (Sony case).
Consumer confusion is critical in trademarks
Trade dress and color schemes are protected (Cadbury case).
Fair use and public interest defenses
Commentary, criticism, or advocacy may be exempt (Tata vs Greenpeace).
Patentability requires novelty and efficacy
Incremental modifications alone may not be enough (Novartis case).
Technology cannot bypass copyright law
Streaming platforms, online tools, or software are liable (Aereo case).
RELATED Blog
0 comments