Case no 1
Download as DOCX, PDF1 like932 views
Mr. C.H. Chote created a website called "chahooindia.com" that provided similar services to the renowned website "chahoo.com". The owners of "chahoo.com", M/s C.H. Bade and Company, claimed that Mr. Chote's website was confusingly similar and constituted cyber squatting as internet users searching for their site could be misdirected to his instead. Mr. Chote argued that the plaintiffs trademark was not registered in India so there was no infringement, his site offered services not goods so there was no passing off, and internet users were educated so there was no chance of deception or confusion. The legal rights and claims of the parties must be discussed
Case no 1
- 1. CASE No: ONE Mr.C.H.CHOTE installed a website “chahooindia.com”. This resembles another renowned website – “chahoo.com”. The services rendered by Mr.C.H.CHOTE are similar to the services rendered by the “chahoo.com”. M/s C.H. Bade and Company, which had installed “chahoo.com”, claimed that they are global internet media, rendering services under the domain name “chahoo.com” which was registered with the “Net work solution Incorporation”, since 2000. An application for registration of trademark ‘chahoo’ was pending in India. M/s C.H.Bade and company, further, claimed that they are the first in the field to have a domain name ‘chahoo’, and also to start web directory and provide search services. In June 2000, such directory was named ‘chahoo’. Mr.C.H.Chote adopted the domain name ‘chahooindia.com’ which is closely resembling to the renowned name ‘chahoo.com’.It was found that the internet users, who wanted to use ‘chahoo.com’ may reach to the ‘chahooindia com.’ Hence, they claimed that the act of Mr.C.H.Chote is dishonest and was equivalent to ‘cyber squatting’. Mr.C.H.Chote claims that1. Plaintiffs trademark was not registered in India; therefore, there could not be any action for infringement of registered trade mark.
- 2. 2. There could not be an action of passing off as the defendants were not offering goods but services. 3. The persons using internet and seeking to reach the internet site were all technically educated and literate persons. As such there is no chance of deception and confusion. ***Discuss the claims of the parties and their legal rights with reference to Cyber Laws and I.T. Act. Copyright Case –TWO Shri Anand wrote a play entitled ‘Hum Hindustani’ in 1983. The play was enacted in the next few years in Delhi and Mumbai. It got good reviews in newspapers the play was based on the theme of provincialism & its baneful and divisive effects on the society. A film maker, Mr. Mohan Sehgal become interested in making a film based on the play. He heard the play from Shri Anand in his office. Shri Mohan did not receive further communication from Mr.Sehgal. Thereafter, Mr Sehgal announced the production of a film ‘New Delhi’. The picture was released in September 1986. From comments in the press Shri Anand felt that the film was
- 3. very much like his play, ‘Hum Hindustani’. Thereafter, Shri Anand himself saw the picture & felt that the film was entirely based on his play. He felt that Shri Sehgal had dishonesty imitated the play in the film& violated his copyright. He therefore moved the court. Mr. Sehgal (Relux films) claimed that they had communicated to Shri Anand that the play might have been all right for the amateur stage but it was too inadequate for the purposes of making a full length commercial motion picture. The key argument of Relux Films was that they could be no copyright on the subject or idea of provincialism. Anyone can adapt to in his own way. They claimed that the motion picture was quite different from the play ‘Hum Hindustani’ in its content, spirit & climax. Some similarities could be explained by the fact that both were based on the idea of provincialism. Questions A) Discuss on the above case in the right of provisions of the copy right law. B) Shri Anand wants to take action in court of law Advice Shri Anand. OR C) if you are judge, how will you treat this case?