Intellectual property (IP) infringement refers to any violation or breach of protected intellectual property rights. Your IP rights may have been infringed upon if your work that is protected by IP laws is copied or otherwise used or exploited without your permission. IP infringement can range from piracy, (unauthorized use), copy, reproduction, or distribution of materials protected by IP rights, to counterfeiting which is the practice of replicating genuine goods with the intent to mislead the recipient. While intellectual property infringement is a serious matter, it is not always easy to identify whether or not this crime has actually taken place.
The Act provides the following remedies for redress IP infringement:
Nonetheless, it is just the initial two cures, common and criminal, which are of any genuine pragmatic significance. Under common cures, one may petition for interlocutory directive, financial cures, Anton Piller orders, Mareva directive and records version, conveyance of encroaching duplicates and harms for transformation. Under criminal cures, one may petition for detainment and fine, capture of encroaching duplicates and conveyance of them to the proprietor. Under managerial cures, one may petition for moving the Registrar to boycott the import of encroaching duplicates and conveyance of the seized encroaching duplicates to the proprietor.
There are explicit solutions for online copyright encroachment also. A court can coordinate that encroaching sites be obstructed by network access suppliers (ISPs) either as a feature of a John Doe request or a site impeding request [RK Productions v BSNL (2012) 5 LW 626]. John Doe or Ashok Kumar orders are ex-parte between time directives gave against infringers. John Doe orders saw a change when the Bombay High Court passed a request dated July 26, 2016 corresponding to the film ‘Dishoom’ [Eros International and Another Vs BSNL and Others, Notice of Motion (L) No. 2147 Of 2016 in Suit (L) No. 751 OF 2016]. This request perceives the effect of Ashok Kumar orders on obscure respondents as it difficulties to adjust the ‘contending rights’. The request sets out a cycle to limit the adverse consequences of Ashok Kumar orders and tailors down impeding from whole sites. The request sets set up a component that accommodates particular hindering of substance, confirmation of the rundown of URLs just as protections for the obscure respondents. Such a system guarantees that the right to speak freely of discourse online isn’t stomped on in the battle against online theft.
The Act says that any individual who dodges a successful mechanical measure applied to secure any of the rights presented by the Act, determined to encroach such rights, will be culpable.
The Act endorses that the purposeful encroachment or abetment of an encroachment of the copyright in a work would be considered as criminal demonstration. Criminal solutions for copyright encroachment include:
Discipline through detainment which may not be under a half year however which may reach out to three years . Fines which will not be under Rs.50,000 and which may stretch out to Rs.200,000
Search and capture of the encroaching products including plates, which are characterized as including blocks, molds, moves, negatives, copying hardware or some other gadget utilized or proposed to be utilized for printing or repeating duplicates of the work. Conveyance up of encroaching duplicates or plates to the proprietor of the copyright
Remedies against Infringement by Vaibhav Sharma @Lexcliq