INDIA FOCUS: INTRODUCTION
“WITH A BOOMING TECHNOLOGY INDUSTRY AND A LARGE WEB-SAVVY POPULATION, INDIA MIGHT SEEM LIKE THE OBVIOUS PLACE TO EMBRACE ICANN’S NEW GENERIC TOP- LEVEL DOMAINS PROGRAMME.”
However, the Semiconductor Integrated Circuits Layout-Design (SICLD) Act, 2000 can provide a handy alternative, which, while not quite offering the same scope of protection as a patent right, can nonetheless provide companies with 10 years’ protection for their layout designs and integrated circuit topographies.
As India continues to develop economically, its influence on the world stage will only
continue to grow. And despite the positive things coming out of
the country, there are
still clear improvements to be made in the IP sphere. In December 2012, the Global Intellectual Property Center (GIPC), part of the US Chamber of Commerce, published a report, Measuring Momentum, which assessed the status of IP protection across the globe.
For those interested in India, it makes grim reading and provides a neat counterpoint to the arguments that the onus should be on businesses to adapt to the situation as they find it on the ground in all circumstances. Te key concerns identified were as follows:
• Regulatory data protection not available. • Patent term extension not available.
• Use of compulsory licensing for commercial and non-emergency situations.
• Limited takedown mechanism in new Internet service provider notification system.
• Limited digital rights management legislation.
• High levels of soſtware piracy, music piracy, and counterfeit goods.
• Poor application and enforcement of remedies and criminal penalties.
• No copyright infringement.
• Not a contracting party to any of the major international IP treaties referenced in the GIPC Index.
In fact, of all the countries assessed by the GIPC, India came last in terms of IP protection, behind China, Brazil and Russia, the three other members of
the so-called BRIC group of developing
economies. Te US, perhaps unsurprisingly, came top of the list of 11 countries, followed closely by the UK and Australia. Tat said, according to the report, India was the sole ‘lower middle income country’ assessed. All the others were classed as middle income or higher.
Te report raises three major questions. Does India have the capability to match international standards in IP protection? Does it have the political will to implement the reforms necessary to do so? And should it make those changes?
Businesses looking to operate in the country will be hoping the answer to all three questions is ‘yes’.
civil civil statutory damages available for
www.worldipreview.com
World Intellectual Property Review September/October 2013
37
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172 |
Page 173 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176 |
Page 177 |
Page 178 |
Page 179 |
Page 180 |
Page 181 |
Page 182 |
Page 183 |
Page 184 |
Page 185 |
Page 186 |
Page 187 |
Page 188 |
Page 189 |
Page 190 |
Page 191 |
Page 192 |
Page 193 |
Page 194 |
Page 195 |
Page 196