Banarasi Silk receives GI rights [India]

Banarasi silk products have been registered under Geographical Indication (GI) rights with the name ‘Banaras Brocades and Sarees’. This is the first ever GI status that any product in Eastern UP has received. Malihabadi Dussehri mango is another product that is enjoying GI status in the state of Uttar Pradesh. The GI rights curb others from processing or marketing any product under the same name and are as good as intellectual property rights. The GI certificate for Banarasi silk products have been received by the office of Assistant Director (Handloom) and other applicants.

The certificate will prove to be advantageous for the exporters and consumers, along with the handloom weavers, said Mr. Rajni Kant, President, Human Welfare Association (HWA) who is also one of the applicants.As GI status is the measure to restrict the misuse of Banarasi sari brand, it would benefit around 12 lakh people who are directly or indirectly associated with handloom silk industry of the region. According to the certificate issued by the registrar of GI, Banaras Brocades and Sarees come under four classes (13-26) that include silk brocades, textile goods, silk saree, dress material and silk embroidery. This registration is for 10 years, which can be renewed further. Organizations such as UK based Find Your Feet, Department for International Development and United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) India offered support to secure the GI status, said Mr. Kant. Nine organizations had applied for the GI registration of world famous Banarasi saree and brocade, to the Chennai-based Geographical Indication Registry in July 2007 and they received the GI status on September 4 this year, nearly after two years.

The nine organizations were, Banaras Bunkar Samiti , Human Welfare Association (HWA), joint director industries (eastern zone), director of handlooms and textiles Uttar Pradesh Handloom Fabrics Marketing Cooperative Federation, Eastern UP Exporters Association (EUPEA), Banarasi Vastra Udyog Sangh, Banaras Hath Kargha Vikas Samiti and Adarsh Silk Bunkar Sahkari Samiti. Banaras, which is among the premier weaving centres in the country, is very popular for its glamorous, colourful and exclusive varieties of saris such as Jangla, Tanchoi, Vaskat, Cutwork, Tissu and Butidar, and also for brocade and dress materials.

Indian MDH loses to Pakistani MDH in website dispute case [WIPO]

Leading masala-maker Mahashian Di Hatti Ltd, popularly known by its brand name MDH, has lost a website address dispute case against a Pakistani firm engaged in a similar business at the World Intellectual Property Organisation.Mahashian Di Hatti had approached the Geneva-based WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center objecting the ownership of an Internet site 'mdhfoods.com' by Pakistan's MDH Food Company.

The Indian firm contended before the Center that disputed domain name is identical and confusingly similar to its MDH mark, since it incorporates the mark in its entirety and the addition of "foods" does not detract from its distinctiveness.

FT Facsimile Edition Crosses The Title Hurdle; May Launch Sooner Than Expected [India]

The Registrar of Newspapers in India (RNI), in its latest list approved yesterday, has granted the title ‘Financial Times Facsimile’ to Financial Times India Pvt. Ltd, the Indian unit of Pearson (NYSE: PSO) Plc., the publisher of the respected British pink paper. A facsimile edition is an exact replica of a newspaper published abroad and is not allowed to carry local news or advertising that is not part of the original edition.

The title ‘Financial Times’ is owned in India by The Times of India publisher Bennett, Coleman & Co. Ltd. Early last year, shortly after it emerged that Financial Times was in talks with the Network18 Group to launch a daily in India, a BCCL subsidiary, Times Publishing House Ltd, registered several titles, such as Asian Financial Times, Financial Times Asia, Daily Financial Times, Emerging Financial Times, Financial Times of Asia. FT, FT Asia, FT Network, FT South Asia, FT World, FT Worlwide, WFT, World Financial Times and Worldwide Financial Times, according to the information on the RNI website. Financial Times India has approached the Intellectual Property Appellate Board, a government body that settles disputes over trade marks, to obtain rights to its globally recognized title. The case is next scheduled for a July hearing.

FT has also received clearances from the Foreign Investment Promotion Board to make the necessary investments. Final clearances from the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting may be the only remaining procedure required before the paper can hit the stands.

FT’s global competitor, The Wall Street Journal, launched a facsimile version of its Asian edition last month.

Global trademark activities grew 5.3% in 2008 [International]

Activities related to filing international trademarks have recorded a growth of 5.3% in 2008, with 42,075 applications filed during the year, UN agency World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) said on Tuesday.

However, trademark filing activity has been affected by the economic slowdown and grew a mere 3.9% in the second half of 2008, compared with 6.9% in the first half of 2008, the Geneva-based WIPO said in a statement. “The continued growth in the use of the international trademark system underlines the pivotal importance of trademarks to business, particularly within challenging economic times,” WIPO director general Francis Gurry said. The member countries, under WIPO’s Madrid system for the international registration of trademarks, had filed a total of 39,945 trademark applications in 2007. “Even in economically difficult times, businesses continue to recognise that a trademark is a smart investment in a company’s reputation and long-term sustainability,” Gurry added. “Trademarks play a key role in engendering consumer confidence, an important factor for businesses facing the challenges of the current economic slowdown,” he added. Applicants from Germany topped the list of filers in 2008 for the 16th consecutive year, followed by users in France and the US, WIPO said.

India is not a member of the Madrid system, which offers a trademark owner the possibility to have his trademark protected in several countries by simply filing one application directly with his own national or regional trademark office. Lidl, a discount supermarket chain from Germany, was the largest filer in 2008, WIPO said. Nestle (Switzerland), Henkel (Germany), Boehringer Ingelheim (Germany), Novartis (Switzerland), Janssen Pharmaceutica (Belgium) and BSH Bosch und Siemens (Germany), were other top applicants.

Bills Creating Performance Right for Recording Artists Are Reintroduced in Congress [United States]

Senators Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Orin Hatch (R-UT) and Representatives John Conyers (D-MI) and Darrell Issa (R-CA) introduced bills -- S. 379 and H.R. 848, each referred to as the "Performance Rights Act" - that, for the first time, would require United States broadcast radio stations to pay licensing fees to performers of music. If passed, the bills would constitute a long-awaited change to the current broadcast licensing regime, in which broadcasters make payments to the owners of copyrights in musical compositions, but not to the performers (and record labels) that own copyrights in and/or contribute to sound recordings. The current bills are an attempt to bring the United States into conformity with the rest of the world. Nearly every industrialized nation other than the United States already requires radio broadcasters to compensate performers. However, because the United States does not provide compensation for foreign performers, many foreign broadcasters do not pay for publicly performing songs recorded by U.S. performers.

Upon introducing H.R. 848, Representative Issa remarked that "we have a opportunity to show the rest of the world that the United States practices what it preaches in protecting intellectual property.... Our ignorance of intellectual property rights on this issue is a worldwide embarrassment and it must end now." The absence of a public performance right in sound recordings has inspired a long string of failed attempts to create parity among songwriters and performers. Ironically, in 1995, these attempts to obtain parity resulted in a more fragmented legal regime. At that time, Congress passed the Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act, which requires digital "webcasters," but not radio broadcasters, to compensate performers. As a result, performers currently are compensated when their songs are played online but not over the radio, while songwriters are compensated in both instances. In their current form, S. 379 and H.R. 848 would amend sections 106(6) and 114 of the Copyright Act, which grant limited public performance rights to sound recordings and establish statutory licensing schemes to determine rates applicable to public performance of sound recordings, respectively. In order to curb criticism and opposition, the House and Senate versions of the Performance Rights Act contain provisions limiting the scope of the new right provided to performers.

These limitations include:
Available statutory (i.e., "compulsory") licensing with rates set by the Copyright Royalty Judges, who also currently set rates for online digital public performances of sound recordings, among other things.
Exemptions for nonsubscription transmissions of services at places of worship or other religious assembly, as well as "incidental" use of sound recordings.
An annual $1,000 blanket statutory license for noncommercial (i.e., public, educational, or religious) radio stations.
An annual $5,000 blanket statutory license for commercial radio stations that generate less than $1.25 million in annual revenue (which the bills' sponsors believe will cover over 75% of the commercial radio stations in the U.S.).
Available "per program" statutory license rates for broadcast radio stations that make "limited feature uses" of sound recordings.
Provisions to ensure that songwriters and composers continue to receive fair compensation for public performances of their works despite the increased costs to broadcasters associated with paying performers.
Retention of a distinction between musical works and sound recordings such that venues that play recorded music (such as clubs and bars) would continue to pay songwriters but not performers.
Provisions requiring 50% of the royalties paid through statutory licensing of sound recordings to go to "featured" performers and "non-featured" musicians and vocalists rather than solely to copyright owners of the sound recordings. (The House bill would also require 50% of royalties earned through voluntary licensing of sound recordings for public performances on broadcast radio to be paid to "featured" performers and "non-featured" musicians and vocalists, whereas the Senate bill would not.)The bills face some opposition, especially from radio broadcasters. The National Association of Broadcasters ("NAB"), an opponent of the bills, maintains that requiring radio stations to compensate performers "will harm your local radio stations [and] threaten new artists trying to break into the business." NAB also claims that the bills will undo the promotional "symbiotic relationship" that currently exists between radio stations, record labels, and performers. In the last Congress, such arguments inspired 227 members of the House of Representatives and 14 Senators to support Congressional resolutions (H. Con. Res. 244 and S. Con. Res. 82) opposing radio royalties for performers. However, organizations that speak for musicians contend that the promotional value of free radio play does not justify the absence of protection for sound recordings. For example, Ann Chaitovitz, the Executive Director of Future of Music Coalition, has argued that "the promotional claim is irrelevant. Authors often see sales spikes when their books are made into movies, but no one would suggest that the writer shouldn't be paid when their work is translated to the screen because the film is 'promotional'."

The bills' sponsors have publicly stated that they are willing to work with all interested parties to see these bills through to law even if that requires amendments. So the final form of the bills may differ significantly from their current form. In the meantime, the bills have a strong base of support, and many believe that the bills have a strong chance of becoming law.

International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA) asks the US Administration to place India under watch for piracy [India]

A group of American copyright trade associations has asked the US to put India, along with a dozen other nations including Pakistan and China, on its 'Priority Watch List' for intellectual property violations.
The recommendation has been made by the International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA) -- a coalition of seven trade associations representing American copyright-based industries -- to the office of US Trade Representative.
The 13 countries, which have been recommended by the IIPA to be placed in 'Priority Watch List' in 2009, include Argentina, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Egypt, Indonesia, Mexico, Pakistan, the Philippines, Russia and Thailand.
In its report on India to the USTR, the IIPA has said that "piracy, physical, Internet and over mobile devices worsened in 2008".
"With the US economy shedding jobs at an alarming rate, our government needs to redouble it efforts to stem massive global theft of US-copyrighted works in physical form and on the Internet," IIPA said in a statement.
"Piracy causes significant economic losses to our country, undermining industries and companies that historically have generated new jobs at a rate two to three times greater than that of our economy as a whole," it noted.
According to IIPA, India suffered an estimated trade loss of 1.09 billion dollars in 2008 due to copyright piracy. The same stood at 1.19 billion dollars in the year-ago period.
It also pointed out that in India, "while pockets of some progress can be in the enforcement system, it remains ineffective to deter piracy".
Placing a trading partner country of the US under the 'watch list' indicates that there are particular problems with respect to intellectual property rights protection, enforcement or market access for people relying on IP.
Further, nations coming under the 'Priority Watch List' would be the main focus of bilateral attention related to the problematic areas.
The member associations of the Washington-based IIPA represent more than 1,900 US companies producing and distributing materials protected by copyright laws worldwide including computer and entertainment software, theatrical films, television programmes and music.
The seven associations that are part of IIPA are Association of American Publishers, Business Software Alliance, Entertainment Software Association, Independent Film & Television Alliance, Motion Picture of America, National Music Publishers' Association and Recording Industry Association of America.
The IIPA's submission discusses copyright piracy, the legal and enforcement reforms needed to fight it and other market access barriers in 48 countries.
The IIPA's review of the 'Special 301' report for 2009 on Copyright Protection and Enforcement has asked the American government to place 39 out of the total 48 to be named to an "appropriate USTR watch list".
The US government's 'Special 301' report pertains to intellectual property protection and market access issues in foreign countries.
"The US creative industries -- business and entertainment software, film, television and home video entertainment, music and recording, and book and journal publishing -- are important drivers of the US economy, contributing substantially to domestic growth and employment, including over 110 billion dollars annually in revenue from foreign trade," it said.
IIPA has also called for greater global law enforcement cooperation to tackle piracy.

Thanjavur Dolls acquire GI Status [India]

The dancing dolls (thalai aatti bommai) of Thanjavur can now boast of one more feature the Geographical Indication (GI) mark. The doll has been included in the Government of India's GI Registry, a statutory recognition of the toy's geographical origin to the Thanjavur region. From now on, the term dancing doll of Thanjavur' would refer only to the authentic Raja-Rani' pair, which stand on a curved pedestal.

The GI-registered dolls, which are believed to have come to Thanjavur during King Sarafoji's regime in the early 19th century, are unique as they remain vertical and upright always, thanks to a clay tablet placed inside the round curved pedestal.

Among the other products registered with the GI registry are Darjeeling tea, Chanderi saree, Kancheepuram silk, Mysore sandal soap, Solapur terry towel and Kangra tea. Under the Geographical Indication of Goods (registration and protection) Act, 1999, agricultural, natural or manufactured goods originating or manufactured in the territory of a country, or a region or locality in that territory, are registrable as geographical indications. This gives to the registered proprietor and its authorised users the legal right to the exclusive use of the GI and also the right to obtain relief in case of its infringement. It also ensures that only genuine products are marketed. Putting the Thanjavur dolls under GI protection is no mean achievement as it is common for the entire world. Just like trademarks, the GI mark too are source-identifiers. Besides ensuring monopoly for the association or group the Thanjavur Chamber of Commerce in this case the GI mark shields a product from bogus claims and poor quality. In the case of the Dancing Dolls, the GI registry has taken note of the unique production method involving plaster of Paris, papier mache, wood pulp and sago. It recognized the raja-rani' motif of the doll tradition and attributed the dolls to the skills of artisans in and around Thanjavur.

Now that it has been registered, artisans cand register themselves with the Chamber to become GI-recognised craftsmen. The membership will also entail inspection by internal and external experts, who are mandated to audit the quality of the dolls in keeping with the culturally rich tradition of Thanjavur.

Companies [Appontment and Qualifications of Secretary] Amendment Rules, 2009 [India]

The Ministry of Corporate Affairs has vide notification dated January 5, 2009 [please refer to the text below] has raised the limit of paid up share capital for compulsory appointment of a company secretary (under wholetime employment) in an Indian company, from Rs. 2 crores to Rs. 5 crores.

This notification shall come into force from the 15th day of March, 2009.

Companies [Appointment and Qualifications of Secretary] Amendment Rules, 2009 - Amendment in Rule 3

NOTIFICATION NO. G.S.R. 11 (E), DATED 5-1-2009
In exercise of the powers conferred by clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (1) of section 642 read with clause (45) of section 2 and section 383A of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), the Central Government hereby makes the following rules further to amend the Companies (Appointment and Qualifications of Secretary) Rules, 1988, namely :—

1. (1) These rules may be called the Companies (Appointment and Qualifications of Secretary) Amendment Rules, 2009.

(2) They shall come into force from the 15th day of March, 2009.

2. In the Companies (Appointment and Qualifications) of Secretary) Rules, 1988, in rule 2,
(i) in sub-rule (1) and in the proviso to sub-rule (4), for the words "rupees two crores" the following words shall be substituted, namely:—
"five crore rupees";
(ii) in sub-rule (3), the second and third proviso shall be omitted;
(iii) after sub-rule (3), the following sub-rule shall be inserted, namely:—

"(3A) A company having a paid up share capital of two crore rupees or more but less than five crore rupees may appoint any individual who possesses the qualification of membership of the Institute of Company Secretaries of India constituted under the Company Secretaries Act, 1980 (56 of 1980), as a whole-time secretary to perform the duties of a secretary under the Companies Act, 1956:

Provided that where a company has appointed under sub-rule (3) or this sub-rule, a whole-time company secretary, possessing the qualification of membership of the Institute of Company Secretaries of India, such a company is not required to obtain a certificate from a secretary in whole-time practice under rule 3 of the Companies (Compliance Certificate) Rules, 2001."

Raju, Satyam Directors could face a ten-year jail term [India]

A team of officials from market regulator Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) will arrive in Hyderabad on Thursday to begin a probe amid speculation that police might arrest Mr. Raju, but nobody knows his whereabouts. Mr. Raju became incommunicado after sending a letter to the Satyam Board of Directors on Wednesday morning. There was utter confusion after a TV channel reported that he had left either for the US or Dubai.

Mr. Raju is believed to have met nobody in the last two days. It is also possible that he might have handed over his letter to company officials before becoming incommunicado.
Some of the more serious penalties that Raju and others are likely to face under various laws are:
* Section 23 of the securities contract regulation Act 1956, that imposes a penalty of imprisonment up to 10 years and fine up to Rs 25 crore. The adjudicating officer of Sebi is empowered to award such punishment to directors and management executives for violating the listing agreement by making false and inaccurate disclosures in the company's quarterly and annual results. The penalty is severe because of the enormous damage that the investors are liable to suffer on account of false disclosures.
* Section 24 of the Sebi Act 1992 that imposes a penalty of imprisonment up to one year for infringement of any provisions of the law or rules and regulations, including fraudulent and unfair trade practices (FUTP).
* Section 477-A of the Indian Penal Code, that imposes a penalty of imprisonment up to seven years. The police may on their own or on the recommendation of the serious fraud investigation office (SFIO) invoke this IPC provision meant to punish those found to have falsified accounts "...willfully and with intent to defraud."
* Section 211 of the Companies Act that imposes a penalty of imprisonment up to six months. The company law board is empowered to punish those who are found to have "willfully" failed to comply with the requirements of law relating to the annual financial statement.

Significantly, the job of the prosecuting agencies has been made easier by the damaging admissions made by Raju in his resignation letter to the board. Having taken responsibility for cooking the Satyam books to the tune of Rs 7,136 crore, it is just as well that Raju said, "I am now prepared to subject myself to the laws of the land and face the consequences thereof." For all his exertions in his resignation letter to save the skin of other directors, they have reason to worry because the Companies Act does not only hold the board to account for any such failure of due diligence, it also makes no distinction in the liability of executive and non-executive or independent directors. The onus is on them to prove the action they had taken to discharge their fiduciary responsibility.

Corporate India, Regulators 'stunned' by Satyam fraud [India]

Terming disclosures of financial wrong-doings at Satyam as an event of 'horrifying magnitude,' the Securities and Exchange Board of India on Wednesday said it would take all steps under the law for which it has started discussions with government and bourses. "We are in touch with Ministry of Corporate Affairs. We are also in discussion with them as to what steps need to be taken from the perspective of power they have under the law and Sebi has under the law," Sebi chairman C B Bhave said.

Sebi was also forwarding the letter written by Satyam's chairman B Ramalinga Raju on his stepping down with the confession that the profits in the company were inflated over the years, leading to wide gap between real and imaginary assets.

Govt to refer Satyam case to Serious Fraud Investigation Office
The government has decided to refer the Satyam case to Serious Fraud Investigation Office, an official of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs said.
All regulators and government agencies will make coordinated efforts to get to the bottom of the Satyam wrongdoings, the official said, adding that the 'company management not been fair to the shareholders'.

Satyam plunges to all-time low
Meanwhile, the Satyam Computer stock nosedived nearly 70 per cent to an all-time low of Rs 58, following the resignation of the company's chairman B Ramalinga Raju and Managing Director B Rama Raju.

Shares of Satyam plunged as much as 67.71 per cent to a low of Rs 58, but was later trading at Rs 73.50, down 58.96 per cent in the afternoon trade on the Bombay Stock Exchange.
The scrip, which had opened at Rs 179.10, plunged within minutes of Satyam chairman and managing director tendering their resignation.

Raju had been under attack over the $1.6-billion acquisition fiasco of firms promoted by his family. The counter saw frantic selling after the announcement and nearly 13 crore (130 million) shares had changed hands on both the bourses within an hour.
Satyam stock holds a 1.56 per cent weight in the 30-share bluechip index Sensex. Following the same, the benchmark index also plunged over 400 points and was trading down nearly 4 per cent at 9,922 points in the noon trade on the BSE.

On the National Stock Exchange, the scrip plunged 55.63 per cent to an all time low of Rs 79.40. It was later trading at Rs 80, down 55.29 per cent in the afternoon trade.
In a regulatory filing, the company said Raju would continue to be the chairman till the board is expanded.

Satyam Chairman Raju resigns, admits to fraud [India]

Satyam Computers founder and chairman Ramalinga Raju had resigned from the Satyam board.
Raju has written a letter to the board giving details of the balance sheet. Balance Sheet has inflated cash balances of Rs 5040 crore and accrued interest of Rs 376 crore is non-existent. Rs 1230 crore was arranged to Satyam and is not reflected in the books.

While Ram Myanpati will act as Interim CEO, Merrill Lynch can be entrusted to explore. As per the revelations, second Quarter numbers were inflated to Rs 2700 crore vs Rs 2112 crore actual numbers. No board member had any knowledge of the real situation of the books. Shares in Satyam Computer shed all gains to turn negative after the embattled Indian outsourcer said its chairman has resigned from the board. Shares were down 16.81 percent at 149 rupees. (11.22 a.m.)

HC relief for foreign law firms on tax payment [India]

In a significant order, a division bench of the Bombay high court has ruled that foreign law firms, even though working as solicitors for multinational corporations with operations in India, will pay tax only in those countries where they give legal advice and not in India.

The appelant before court was Clifford Chance, a top-notch legal firm from London which acted as solicitors for several multinational corporations interested in four major power projects in India. The clients included big names such as GEC Alsthom Group, and Electricite de France. Clifford Chance told court that it billed its clients on an hourly basis and maintained detailed "time sheets'' that showed whether the legal advice was given in India or abroad.

On that basis, the firm calculated that it had earned a little over Rs 5 crore from its India operations during 1996-97. Ispat Industries was the only Indian firm involved in one of the four power projects. On the contrary, the income tax department said that Clifford Chance had received more than Rs 17 crore in legal fee for acting as advisors on the four power projects and it was immaterial whether the advice was given in India, UK or any other country. It said that the whole income was taxable in India as the projects from which it was derived were in India. However, Salve argued that legal service given by a solicitor from his home country to a client who was overseas could be taxed only in the country of residence of the solicitor. Finally, justice S Radhakrishnan and V C Daga ruled that under statutory provisions, services which are to be taxed must be both "rendered in India'' and "utilized in India'' for them to fall under the income tax bracket. The court held that this was not the case with Clifford Chance's earnings which came from giving legal advice to its clients in other countries, even though the power projects were in India. Thus it said that tax could be levied only on Rs 5 crore that the solicitors had earned by giving legal advice to firms in India.

Evalueserve Study: India to Emerge as Global Innovation Hub

India will emerge as the next global hub for innovation, according to a study on "R&D Ecosystem in India" conducted by Evalueserve and released by the British High Commission and the Canadian High Commission in India.

India targets to increase its R&D spend from less than 1 percent of GDP to 2 percent by 2012 under the 11th Five-Year Plan. The move will catapult India to the league of developed nations that spend 2.5 percent of their GDP on R&D on an average.

The Indian R&D ecosystem comprises various supporting infrastructure, government departments, research organisations, funding institutions and industry associations. The government is focusing on public-private partnerships, such as knowledge parks and incubator programmes, to promote commercialisation, transfer and diffusion of technology.

Angel investors and venture capitalists also have an important role in the commercialisation process, given the limited availability of funding for early stage companies and innovators. Further, venture capitalists are also providing a lot of late-stage funding. The number of private equity/venture capitalist deals in late-stage funding rose from 33 in 2005 to 104 in 2006, while the number of early stage funding deals rose from 19 in 2005 to 59 in 2006.

That India is becoming increasingly conducive to innovation is evident from the fact that the total number of patents filed in the country has increased significantly. The number of patent applications filed grew at a CAGR of 23.3 percent, from 10,592 in 2001-02 to 24,505 in 2005-06. The growth accelerated after India became Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) compliant in 2005.

Some IPR issues currently faced by India include low awareness on IP protection and longer patenting process. The Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI) drafted the Public Funded Research and Development (Protection, Utilisation and Regulation of Intellectual Property) Bill, 2007, an indigenous version of the Bayh-dole Act, to address these issues. The new legislation will emphasise education opportunities in science, technology, engineering and mathematics, and help R&D institutions and scientists to own the intellectual property they create.

Access the complete report at http://www.evalueserve.com/Media-And-Reports/WhitePapers.aspx.

Evalueserve provides custom research and analytics services to a client base of Global 5000 companies, in the following areas - Financial and Investment Research, Business Research, Market Research, Intellectual Property, Expert Network, Data Analytics and Modelling and Knowledge Technology Services. We currently have 2,475+ professionals in our research centres in India, China, Chile & Romania.

India - United States - Copyright Treaty [Intellectual Property]

Protections granted under the Indian Copyright Act apply to U.S. citizens just as it applies to Indian nationals. The current Indian Copyright Act entered into force in 1957 but it is based on the 1911 Copyright Act, which in turn was based on United Kingdom copyright laws. Traditional international copyright principles are part of the Indian copyright legislation. For instance, India grants automatic copyright protection (no registration is required) to literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works, computer software, and cinematograph films and sound recordings for sixty years- some term variations apply. Even though copyrights are automatic, authors may register their works in the Copyrights Register maintained by the Copyright Office of the Department of Education. Ideas are not protected under Indian copyright law nor are titles or names, short word combinations, slogans, short phrases, methods, news, and plots or factual information. To receive protection, works must be original; the joint authorship concept is recognized; and copyrights may be assigned for 5 year if no other time-limit is set. Usually, the author is the owner of the copyrighted work; the government is considered the author of government works. An author is the creator, composer, producer, or photographer -depending on the case, - of the work. In the case of employment-related works under contract of service or apprenticeships, the employer will be the copyright owner unless otherwise provided. Translations are afforded copyright protection just as the original work provided that they are authorized by the author of the original work. Computer programs are protected under Indian law as literary works, and their authors enjoy the right to sell, offer to sell, or give on hire "regardless of whether such a copy has been sold or given on hire on earlier occasion." In general, foreign works mentioned on the International Copyright Order are protected in India as well.

As opposed to the U.S., India grants protection of moral rights. This means, infringement exists when a copyrighted work is distorted, mutilated, modified and these or similar acts affect the author's honor or reputation. Moral rights remain with the author even after the author's death or assignment of the work.

India is signatory to the following international copyright agreements- this means U.S. citizens enjoy the rights and privileges afforded by these international agreements adopted by the Indian legislature,- (a) the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic works; (b) the Universal Copyright Convention; (c) the Convention for the Protection of Producers of Phonograms against Unauthorized Duplication of their Phonograms; (d) Multilateral Convention for the Avoidance of Double Taxation of Copyright Royalties; and (e) the Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement.

Indian International Copyright Order grants protection to foreign works from the following 116 countries. Indian protection of foreign works from these countries is relevant for U.S. businesses registered under the laws of any of them. E.g. if a U.S. business registered in St. Kitts & Nevis produces a copyrighted work and outsources some activity related to this work to India, India is going to protect that work as a foreign work. The International Copyright Order includes Albania, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Barbados, Belarus, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia & Herzogovina, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica , Cote d'Ivoire, Croatia , Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Estonia, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Holy See, Honduras ,Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kenya, Latvia, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Lithuania , Luxembourg, Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Namibia, Netherlands, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Kitts & Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Senegal, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Suriname ,Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, The Former Yugoslavia Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States of America, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yugoslavia, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

WTO Ministerial Meeting: IP Compromise Remains Elusive

Compromise on intellectual property issues remained elusive at last week’s World Trade Organization ministerial meeting. An initial statement by the European Union initially identified GIs as a "poltical must have," along with agriculture, non-agricultural market access, and services. However, the US later announced that it does not intend to engage in negotiations on GI extension. "These TRIPS issues are important to many members, but we think it's vital to keep the focus of this meeting on agriculture, (manufactured goods), services. This meeting is not the time to create new mandates on the TRIPS issues," a spokesperson for US Trade Representative Susan Schwab reportedly said at a press briefing on 22 July.

Norwegian Foreign Minister Jonas Støre is continuing informal consultations on three intellectual property issues: 1) the multilateral register for wines’ and spirits’ geographical indications (GIs), 2) extending geographical indications protection beyond wines and spirits (“GI extension”), and 3) proposals to require patent applicants to disclose the origin of genetic material and traditional knowledge. Støre told Intellectual Property Watch late Thursday that movement on these issues would depend on progress on agriculture and non-agricultural market access.

The WTO's goal for this so-called "July 2008 package" was to agree on “modalities” in agriculture and non-agricultural market access (NAMA) — ie, the formulas and other methods to be used to cut tariffs and agricultural subsidies, and a range of related provisions — and to look at the next steps in concluding the Doha round of negotiations.

Foreign Outsourcing of Application Preparation May Require Export Administration Review [US}

According to the USPTO on July 23, 2008, applicants and registered patent practitioners are reminded that the export of subject matter abroad pursuant to a license from the United States Patent andTrademark Office (USPTO), such as a foreign filing license, is limited to purposes related to the filing of foreign patent applications. Applicants who are considering exporting subject matter abroad for the preparation of patent applications to be filed in the United States should contact the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) at the Department of Commerce for the appropriate clearances.

If an invention was made in the United States, technical data in the form of a patent application, or in any form, can only be exported for purposes related to the preparation, filing or possible filing and prosecution of a foreign patent application, after compliance with the Export Administration Regulations (governing exports of dual-use commodities, software, and technology, including technical data, which are codified at 15 CFR Parts 730–774) or following the appropriate USPTO foreign filing license procedure. See 37 CFR 5.11(c). A foreign filing license from the USPTO does not authorize the exporting of subject matter abroad for the preparation of patent applications to be filed in the United States.

Information regarding the EAR may be obtained from the BIS Web site at http://www.bis.doc.gov. Questions regarding the EAR should be directed to the BIS’s Outreach and Educational Services Division at (202) 482–4811.

WIPO for private-public role to fight software piracy in India

The World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO), a specialised agency of UN, has said that the best solution to stop the software piracy in India, which has reportedly led to a loss of about two billion dollars in revenue last year, is public-private coordination.

Software piracy is a huge problem in India. As a result of which many global computer giants are facing the heat worldwide. The best possible way to put an end to software piracy in India is a close coordinated scheme between private and public sectors in the country, Director of Copyright Law at WIPO Jorgen Blomgvist told PTI.

A study by the Business Software Alliance (BSA), an international association representing the global software industry, in May showed that computer software piracy rates in India registered huge monetary losses in 2007.

Talks But No Breakthroughs Yet On IP Issues For Ministers At WTO [International]

Intellectual property issues have been a topic of debate at the World Trade Organization ministerial negotiations since Friday and while there have been no changes in positions there has been some talk of looking for compromises, according to sources attending the event. Ministers from some IP-proponent countries raised the issues as critical to the heads of delegation meeting on Monday, the first day of the mini-ministerial in Geneva, while opponents held a meeting of like-minded countries reinforcing their position against the inclusion of IP issues in the talks, sources said.

WTO Director General Pascal Lamy began on Friday to talk with officials about IP issues in an attempt to find a way to navigate the standstill on them, sources said. Lamy held meetings on Friday, Saturday and Sunday, they said. However, on Monday evening, the issue was not a primary topic of the Green Room meeting, the smaller, closed gathering held in Lamy’s office. The ministerial is scheduled to run from 21-27 July.

The focus in the next few days is expected to be squarely on the issues of agriculture and non-agricultural market access (NAMA) before IP issues become critical, if at all, according to several sources. But the outcome of the mini-ministerial (about 40 of the WTO’s 153 members) will be tied to addressing demands from the European Union, Switzerland, India, Brazil and others on issues related to intellectual property and trade.

The IP issues are: the creation of a mandated register on geographical indications - product names associated with a place and characteristics - for wines and spirits; extension to other products of the higher-level GI protections currently enjoyed by wines and spirits; and an amendment to the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) to require the disclosure of origin of traditional knowledge and genetic material in patent applications, intended to bring TRIPS in line with the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).

A draft modalities text has been prepared by proponents, claiming support from a majority - over 100 - of WTO members (IPW, WTO/TRIPS, 18 July 2008). The text, TN/C/W/52, is now posted as a document to the WTO website. The opponents’ longstanding position favouring a voluntary register and database for consultation, referred to as the joint proposal, has been submitted again and posted as document TN/IP/W/10/rev.1.

A possible split in the IP issues may have been suggested by Lamy, according to sources. It generally has been the view that the GI register and the CBD amendment might have more middle ground for negotiating, while the GI extension might be more two-dimensional, sources said.

But such a split would not be acceptable to IP proponents, an official from a proponent country said. And the opponents’ meeting on Monday, which included countries such as Australia, Chile, Costa Rica, Mexico, New Zealand and the United States, reconfirmed the view that none of these issues should be discussed this week, according to a participant.

Indian tech firms eye semi IP business [India]

Indian technology companies facing cost pressures from a global economic slump and domestic competition are seeking a way out by boosting R&D investments to develop semiconductor intellectual property.

Ittiam Systems and Cosmic Circuits are pursuing the pure IP route, having rejected the services business; service providers Wipro and Mindtree are now developing chip IP and are using it to attract new services around their IP products.

Ittiam Systems is India's largest pure IP company, focusing on advanced media communication applications for which software solutions are either unavailable or too expensive. Its IP includes synthesizable RTL cores that can be integrating into an ASIC being designed by its customers.

In 2005, Ittiam began investing in multi-format high-definition video decoder IP. The video decoder can handle most video standards, enabling SoCs for HDTV and HD-DVD applications," said Srini Rajam, Ittiam's chairman and CEO.

"Venture funds and investors believe that IP companies cannot scale in revenue," said Ganapathy Subramaniam, CEO of Cosmic Circuits, an analog semiconductor IP company. "ARM and Rambus have proven them wrong. But it is also a fact that while there are many IP companies in the world, only very few of them have been able to scale in revenue."

Cosmic has created over 75 analog IP cores for portable power management, video analog front-end, WLAN and WiMax analog front-ends. The company works with more than 10 foundries to create IP cores from 0.35 nm to 65 nm.

"India is slowly emerging from services and getting into the business model of licensing IPs," Subramaniam added. Market researcher Gartner Inc. ranks Wipro-NewLogic as the leading global provider of WLAN and Bluetooth IP, estimating that it holds two-thirds of the global market for IEEE 1394 IP cores. Wipro's chip IP arm is focusing on wireless and wireline connectivity.

"Developing IP is an important differentiation for the leading design service houses and...wireless communication, analog components and DSP-based IPs are the areas of promise for Indian companies," said A. Vasudevan, vice president of semiconductor and system solutions at Wipro Technologies.

Mindtree Ltd., which specializes in short-range wireless technologies, said it is focusing on Bluetooth IP. It has invested in ultrawideband technology, and plans to offer UWB IP in future products, according to S.N. Padmanabhan, senior vice president for semiconductors at Mindtree.
Mindtree also has several peripheral IP blocks usually bundled with the Bluetooth or UWB products. "The entry barrier is very low if someone has to build synthesizable IP at the RTL level," Padmanabhan said. "The semiconductor industry needs various IPs [and] smaller players can provide small, standards-based, popular IP blocks." Building IP blocks is the easy part, he added, noting that "marketing them is the toughest."

Sridhar Mitta, who headed Wipro's unsuccessful IP startup EnThink, acknowledged that India's track record for IP development is not good. "The [lessons] of EnThink are that product or IP companies will not get attention in large service companies," he said. "Indian companies will see IP business as an adjunct to their service businesses."

Matta said the best opportunities for Indian success in IP development are in volume markets like PCs or cellphones. Adopting standards and creating new ones will also boost India's IP efforts.

Gartner forecasts that Indian IP development will be dominated by big chip makers here as well as independent IP providers. "Some of the independent Indian IP providers are Wipro, Cosmic Circuits, Mindtree and HelloSoft," said Ganesh Ramamoorthy, Gartners' principal research analyst for semiconductor IP and design.

Big retailers at loggerheads with MNCs over brands [India]

serious conflict is brewing between Indian retailers and multinationals over imports of global brands. To stay afloat in the dog-eat-dog world of retail, local retailers have reached arrangements with overseas players to bring in some international brands, rattling many MNCs who manufacture or market these products locally. In some cases, these brands have not yet been introduced in India. Several major MNCs with a long presence in India are invoking the Intellectual Property Rights (imported goods) Enforcement Rules 2007 to stop retailers from importing foreign brands. Hindustan Unilever, L’Oreal, Lancome Perfumes, Oakley Inc, Nivea and Mico have already registered several brands with the Customs department. Sources said other MNCs are expected to follow suit. Market circles perceive this as a move to prevent Indian retailers from getting first access to these brands. Some of the retailers are debating plans to legally contest the move, since they possess a free sale certificate from the source of import. Retailers like Big Bazaar & Food Bazaar, Reliance Retail, Spencer’s and Sankalp Retail (MyDollarStore), among others, have begun importing sizeable consignments of leading consumer brands and their variants for better fill rates, product variety and higher margins.

However, the multinationals are not amused, and claim that it leads to loss of business opportunity, unfair competition and product cannibalisation. The fundamental issue here, according to analysts, is that the Indian arms of the leading FMCG companies would like to control the way their brands are marketed and sold. They would also like to determine when new products and variants of existing products should be introduced in India. Retailers sourcing directly from abroad disrupt the extent of control the FMCG companies can wield. The legal issue is whether IPR rules can be used to block such imports. The Customs department has the right to confiscate consignments and alert the owner of the IPR — which could be a trademark, design or patent. The 2007 rules are intended to protect IPR owners from violations of intellectual property by way of import of goods.