.png)
INTRODUCTION:
The collocation of laws that seemingly operate in different realms of India has posed a challenge persistent to the adjudication, generally, in the form of concern over arbitrability, connote the notion that a squabble to be arbitrated beyond the colloquy through private tribunals as chosen by the parties.
The most common disputes over intellectual property comprise infringements, wherein the intellectual property is appropriated by others without the owner's consent. Infringement applies to different types of intellectual properties such as copyrights, patents, and trademarks. These violations generally occur in the form of logos engaged in similar trades, creating logos with the motive to confuse people from differentiating a particular product from its original, thereby defrauding them and other similar practices. A dispute over IPR could also occur through business espionage, greasing the palm of the employees of a particular competing company to disclose the secret of that firm.
The willingness to defend such issues has indeed become stronger with time. These tiffs on intellectual properties are predominantly dealing with before the National Courts. Yet, in neoteric times, there is a plenteous shift towards adjudication.
THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY MECHANISM IN THE INDIAN CONTEXT
The cognizance that national courts are not always the befitting caucus for the disputes related to intellectual properties, is generally driven by the verity that comprehensive technical knowledge is required to decide these cases. Coupled with, the ever more common multi-state components of such squabbles, firms prefer these tiffs to get resolved through the arbitral panel instead of the state and national courts.
CRITICAL ANALYSIS WITH INDIAN PERSPECTIVE:
In India, intercession befitting the standard for resolution for business tiffs, the modern discussion is – whether disputes relating to IPR could be signified and solved via arbitration?
To comprehend this narrative in a better way, through delving into the judicial opinions of three major Indian High Courts that is, Delhi, Bombay, and Madras, which have indeed dealt with the subject and held divergent outlooks. To intensify the anagram, different Benches of the same High Court held contrasting observations, a glimpse of which could be seen further through its scrutiny.
DELHI HIGH COURT: The case Mundipharma A.G v. Wockhardt Ltd[i]., deal with the provisions of Chapter XII of the Copyright Act, 1957, relates to the civil remedy to be provided upon the infringement of copyrights. The court opined, "Every suit under the above-mentioned chapter on the breach of any right convened through the Copyright
Act, should be established at the District Court within its jurisdictions and provides the remedies available against the violation of Copyrights in the form of injunctions, damages, etc., as per the subject matter of intercession.”
In another case of Ministry of Sound International v. M/S Indus Renaissance Partners[ii], the court believed that the tiffs related to IPR could adjudicate on the premise that there is no absolute ceiling on the intercession involving questions that would concern IPR.
BOMBAY HIGH COURT: In Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. SKS Ispat and Power Ltd[iii]., the court entertained the suit filed by the petitioner against the defendant for the infringement of registered trademark, wherein the appellant demanded an unending injunction and claimed damages against the respondent. The accused filed a notice of Motion under Section 8 of the Act with reliance upon the arbitration clause in the contract.
On the contrary, it took a different stance in EROS International media v. Telemax Links[iv], which dealt with the breach of copyright, suit being filed against Telemax. Here again, like the previous case, the defendant filed a notice of motion under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, and surprisingly, the bench in contrast to the previous ones agreed with the contention of the respondent and concluded that the case is a commercial dispute and parties willing to settle it through the private tribunal, the case was, this proved to be arbitrable one. Actions arising from it were referred to as actions in personam.
MADRAS HIGH COURT: In RK Production v. M/s NK Theatres Pvt. Ltd[v]., another case dealing with arbitration and certain other issues related to the infringement of copyright and non-payment of considerations, etc. The bench opined that the issue before the court could not be separated, therefore, the squabble could not have been referred to the arbitration. The court didn't consider ornating justifications.
In a current case, Lifestyle Equities CV v. QD Seatoman Designs Pvt. Ltd[vi]., the court got the chance to deal with the case meticulously, where it referred to the precedents by the Delhi and the Bombay High Court. The bench upon considering everything concluded that the case is a matter of ultimate adjudication by the arbitration forum.
CONCLUSION:
Having a glimpse of the cases mentioned above, and other related judgments, an unassailable conclusion, is made that the matter of IPR squabbles is arbitrable and yet, elegant because of the dearth of dependable pronouncement on behalf of the Apex Court. The rulings of the Court of Original Jurisdiction have simply dealt with IPR as the right in rem, and leaving the matter open to interpretation.
An extensive variety of squabbles where IPR enmeshed needs to be envisioned clearly. The study done so far is the prequel to the conclusion that a certain demeanor should be kept in mind while dealing with the nature of disputes. If it deals with the registration of IPR, then it won't be coming under the ambit of arbitration, while on the contrary, if it is contractual, thenceforth, it would fall under arbitration.
~MITALI ARYAN
[i]ILR 1991 Delhi 606
[ii] 156 (2009) DLT 406
[iii][Notice of Motion (L) No. 2097 of Suit No. 673, 2014]
[iv] 2016 (6) Bom CR 321
[v] O.S.A. No. 307 of 2012
[vi] O.S.A. No. 216 and 249 of 2017