This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Therefore, the same cannot be protected under Indian Copyright law as a literary or artisticwork but could be protected under passing off law if a case is made for it. Conclusion Indian intellectualpropertylaws and judiciary’s position on the trademark of celebrity catchphrases is a bit shaky.
A third reflection emerges: undoubtedly, Warhol’s work was created based on Goldsmith’s. However, it is important to recognize that all artisticworks are influenced by those that came before them. [1] Brazilian Law Review of Civil Law – RBDCivil, v. The Economic Structure of IntellectualPropertyLaw.
The law doesn’t specify 3D or 2D characters as copyrightable, but they can be covered under artisticworks as per Section 13 of the Copyright Act. To identify such fictional works, we generally rely upon two tests Character Delineation Test [10] and Story being told Test. [11] 10] Nichols v Universal Pictures Co, 45 F.2d
David Vaver is the Acting Director of IP Osgoode and a Professor of IntellectualPropertyLaw at Osgoode Hall Law School. The following is a preview of a paper to be published in the IntellectualProperty Journal. . 2 of the Copyright Act RSC 1985, c. The relevant part of s. 5 reads: .
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 9,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content