Download >>> https://tinurli.com/283lmf
It is a challenging thing to stay ahead of the competition and to maintain a strong foothold in the market. To compensate for the lack of originality and creativity, companies and individuals routinely try to use other people's work while passing it off as their own. While this used to be referred to as copyright infringement, it is now classified as "passing-off". The law permits an individual or enterprise selling something as their own if they established ownership of one or more components along the chain of manufacture. These components could include raw materials, ideas, designs or methods for production, aspects such as transporting goods from one business entity to another business entity without payment for transportation services, and commercialization rights including intellectual property rights on commercialized products. Reverse passing off is the process of passing off someone else's product as one's own. In a typical reverse passing off situation, a person or enterprise intentionally misleads another person or enterprise about the nature of a product or service to trick them into believing that it is something other than what it actually is. When this happens, it violates Trade Descriptions Act 1974 and Trade Marks Act 1994 for goods and services respectively. Anurag Software Private Limited v. Kamsoft Solutions Private Limited is a recent decision of Delhi High Court wherein the court held that it is not necessary to prove the intention to deceive as an element for proving reverse passing off.Case : Anurag software v. Kamsoft solutions Court : Delhi high court Decided by : Justice Vibhu Bhakru Date of pronouncement : 10/5/2017 The Anurag case is significant particularly because it was brought by a developer of proprietary intellectual property that had been infringed upon by the defendants, who offered their competing product for free. The court held that the plaintiff had a substantial factual case against the defendants, and it was clear from all the evidence that the development of the plaintiff's product was based on substantial research and development, which was done with due care and attention, and it was sufficiently distinguishable from other software. In other words, the plaintiff got a fair trial under Section 132 of Negotiable Instrument Act 1881. Section 132 of Negotiable Instrument Act 1881 provides for making a complaint before any court within thirty days upon a claim for money or any other claim arising out of negotiable instruments delivered by a party thereto or by an agent thereof in certain situations. The general procedure in such cases is for the person who has delivered the instrument undertaking to declare within thirty days what are his rights under the instrument. The court then has thirty days to determine whether the claim has been properly raised. The Act does not apply to movable or immovable property. The high court observed that it was not open to the plaintiff to adopt a wrong procedure for getting his patent registered. Hence, Section 132 did not apply.Anurag Software Private Limited v. cfa1e77820
Comments