NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY BHOPAL

CYBER LAW

IX SEMESTER

PROJECT SUBIMMISSION ON

The Evolution of Intellectual Property in the Cyberspace

SUBMITTED TO SUBMITTED BY

PROF. RIDDHIMA DIXIT RADHA CHARPOTA

2019BALLB30
 Table of Contents
CERTIFICATE...........................................................................................................................................3
ACKNOWLEGMENT................................................................................................................................4
OBJECTIVES.............................................................................................................................................5
HYPOTHESIS............................................................................................................................................5
RESEARCH QUESTIONS.........................................................................................................................5
RESEARCH METHDOLOGY...................................................................................................................5
REVIEW OF LITERATURE......................................................................................................................5
INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................................6
IPR INFRINGEMENTS IN THE CYBERSPACE......................................................................................8
INTERPLAY BETWEEN IT ACT 2000 AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY......................................11
Balance Between Right Owners and Users................................................................................................15
Loopholes and Recommendations.............................................................................................................17
CONCLUSION.........................................................................................................................................18
BIBOLOGRAPHY....................................................................................................................................19

2
 CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the project entitled “The evolution of Intellectual Property in the
Cyberspace” submitted by Gaurav Singh for the project work in the subject of Cyber Law
embodies independent and original research work carried out by him under my supervision
and guidance. To the best of my knowledge and belief, it is his original work submitted to
fulfill the project assignment for the seventh semester of B.A.LL.B programmed during the
academic year.

GAURAV SINGH

3
 ACKNOWLEGMENT

I feel highly elated to get to work on the topic “The evolution of Intellectual Property in the
Cyberspace”. “The practical realization of this project has obligated the assistance of many
persons. I express my deepest regard and gratitude for Dr. Pooja Kiyawat, faculty of Cyber Law.
Her consistent supervision, constant inspiration and invaluable guidance have been an immense
help in understanding and carrying out the nuances of this project report”.

I would also like extend my hand of gratitude towards the friends and family, “ without
whose support and encouragement this project would not have been a reality. For any sort of
errors that might have crept in, it is deeply regretted. I shall be grateful if further comments and
suggestions are put forth regarding improvisation of the provisions”.

4
 OBJECTIVES
 To understand the concept of infringement in copyright.
 To understand loopholes in cyberspace.
 To analysis Information Technology acts 2000.
 To understand trademark infringement in cyberspace.

HYPOTHESIS
The hypothesis taken by researcher are that the “Technological developments and the rise in
cyber-crimes have posed new challenges to Intellectual Property in the digital world and
therefore appropriate modifications in legislations are the need of the hour”.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS
 What are the kinds of Intellectual property right infringement in cyberspace?
 How to determine personal jurisdiction in case of infringement in cyberspace?

RESEARCH METHDOLOGY
No non-doctrinal method has been used by the researcher in this project work

REVIEW OF LITERATURE
 Dr. Andreas Rahmatian in his research article titled “Cyberspace and Intellectual
Property Rights (2015) has dug into the intricacies of the complicated relationship
between intellectual property and the cyberspace. The article makes an in-depth study of
the territorial nature of intellectual property” and its implications on the enforcement of
IPR in the cyberspace.
 Mr. Balaji C, in his article titled “Role of IPR in Cyberspace (2017) attempts to portray
the correlation between IPR and Cyberspace. The article examines the Indian cyber
jurisprudence, brings out the relations between the I.T. Act 2000 and the various statutes
for intellectual property” and throws light upon the lack of enforcement measures in India
with respect to cyber-crimes.

5
 INTRODUCTION
Intellectual property denotes the creations of the human mind 1. “The porticoes of intellectual
property that associate to cyberspace are covered under the cyber laws in relation with namely,
Copyright Law, Trademark Law, and Patent Law”.

The budding significance of cyberspace as an intermediate for carrying out business increases
certain burdens on intellectual property. “Some observers submit that the rules and regulations
governing intellectual property in cyberspace must be revised in its entirety; while other
commentators propose that slight alterations in the prevailing rules and regulations shall suffice 2.
Irrespective of the critics’ theoretical take on this matter, it is lucid that the growing numbers of
cases involving intellectual property in cyberspace are setting aside the philosophical notions and
theories of intellectual property enforcement and protection”. The courts of law, “in this period
of transition, are facing with the weight of such a shift and are endeavoring to determine the
questions in issue while considering both the advanced technological reality and the traditional
principles of intellectual property”3.

Prior to an analysis of the kinds of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) infringements in the
cyberspace, “with special emphasis on copyright and trademark laws in India, the article seeks to
bring out an overview of the questions of personal jurisdiction in the virtual world 4. The issue of
personal jurisdiction on the cyberspace is mutual to intellectual property, defamation,
pornography, or even simple contract cases. This article seeks to examine the trends in personal
jurisdiction cases in intellectual property, exclusively”.

The preliminary and fundamental focus of this article shall be on “abuse of an individual’s
private right in the cybernetic world by any medium and what remedy such individual shall
obtain. Along the years Information Technology Act, 2000 (I.T Act, 2000)” has been prevalent,
however due to drastic changes in the dynamics of the cybernetics since its inception, “the Act
requires to undergo certain amendments in order to adapt to the technological advances and in

1
Definition provided by WTO, available at http://www.wto.org
2
Marilyn C. Maloney, Intellectual Property in Cyberspace, The Business Lawyer, Vol. 53 (November 1997) pp. 225-
249
3
Dr. Andreas Rahmatian, Cyberspace and Intellectual Property Rights, Research Handbook on International Law
and Cyberspace (2015) pp. 72-93
4
Supra Note 2.

6
order to expand its applicability in future cases” 5. Hence, for the purpose of limiting and
deterring the offences in the cyberspace, the Legislature, “Executive and Judiciary have to take
apposite measures for revising and amending the rules and regulations for effective protection
against such cyber-crimes”.

The present article also seeks to critically analyze “the Indian cyber jurisdiction in comparison
with the cyber laws in other countries, with respect to IPR enforcement and protection. The
article shall bring out the loopholes and put forth recommendations for improving the protection
and enforcement of IPR in cyberspace”.

5
Balaji C, Role of IPR in Cyberspace, International Journal of Advanced Educational Research, Vol. 2 Issue 5
(September 2015) pp. 136-139.

7
 IPR INFRINGEMENTS IN THE CYBERSPACE
 Infringement of Copyright in Cyberspace

The objective of copyright is to enable writers, composers and directors to produce original,
unique and “innovative pieces of work by awarding them with the exclusive right to publish and
reproduce the works for the benefit of the people. The work, once the term of the exclusive right
is over, belongs to the public which indicates that such work can then be copied by anyone. A
copyright also exists in the original literary, musical, artistic, dramatic, sound recording,
computer program and cinematographic film” 6. Technological advancements have made copying
of copyright content quick and convenient. “Regulation of the copyright infringement is
therefore very difficult and sometimes unlikely. Books, computer programs or video cassettes or
digital tapes of movies can be taken from one country and be reproduced and distributed in
another country without much trouble7. Digital technology has made it possible to take material
from one site, change it or simply replicate it on another site and this has raised new challenges
for the conventional definition of individual rights and security. Copyright law gives the author
the exclusive right to reuse patented works producing derivative works”, distribution etc.8

 Computer Software and Copyright Law

Under section 2(ffc) of the Copyright Act, “a computer program is defined as set of instructions
expressed in words, codes, schemes or in any other form, including a machine readable medium,
capable of causing a computer to perform a particular task or achieve a particular results. 9
According to the Copyright Act, a computer software falls within the purview of the term
computer program” and such software are protected under the Act. “It is included under the
definition of ‘original literary works’ and the owner of the exclusive right is entitled to the right
of granting software licenses”.

6
Available at www.wipo.int
7
DR. GUPTA & AGARWAL, CYBER LAWS, 148 (Premier Publishing Company, Allahabad, 2010)
8
TABREZ AHMAD, CYBER LAW AND E-COMMERCE, 25 (APH Publishing Corp., New Delhi, 2003).
9
Copyright Act 1970, S.2(ffc)

8
  Trademark Laws and Domain Names Issues in Cyberspace

Definition of Trademark- “a mark capable of being represented graphically and which is capable
of distinguishing the goods or services of one person from those of others and may include shape
of goods, their packaging and combination of colors”.10

Definition of Domain Names- To put it quite clearly, a domain name may be understood as the
etymological correspondent of Internet Protocol (IP). “Each computer has a unique IP address
similar to a phone number. But since it is difficult for one to recollect a full IP number such as
212.173.136.24 therefore, a structure was developed in which a title is plotted to the IP address
in question. One simply has to type in www.tata.com instead of the IP number”.

 Trademark and Domain Names:

The Trademark Act, 1999 was passed with the intent of amending and consolidating the law on
trademarks for products and services, and to discourage the usage of fake marks. “Nevertheless,
right owners seeking to use their trademarks as domain names discovered that these domain
names were recognized by unlicensed parties, often as an intentional attempt to infringe the
exclusive rights of the trademark holder. Domain names are usually licensed on the basis of first
come first serve,' which contributes several times to what is widely denoted to be abusive
registrations, i.e. registration by an individual of a domain name comprising” of a trademark with
respect to which that individual has no valid interest or right.11

 Infringement of Trademark in Cyberspace:

Cyber squatting

Domain name disputes are one of the most common and specific forms of disputes which are
addressed by the courts all across the world. “Few of the most severe conflicts have arisen over
Cyber squatting involving a person using a domain name with no registration or intrinsic rights
in respect to the name. Domain names and trademarks are often identical, and have been abused
by certain people who register another individual/entity’s trademarks as their domain names and
offer such domain names to the third parties or even owners of the trademark” at a considerable

10
The Trademark Act, 1999, S. 2(1)(zb)
11
S. K. VARMA& MITTAL, LEGAL DIMENSIONS OF CYBERSPACE, 154 (Indian Law Institute, New Delhi, 2003).

9
profit. This practice is called cyber squatting, “meaning someone sitting on another person's
property12.This conduct is abusive through which one individual registers a domain name which
contains another's trademark. This activity illustrates the significance of the role the domain
names play in establishing online identity. This practice is generally popular for either blocking
the rightful user from registering their most desirable domain name or trying to offer the names
in the market for huge profits”. Such phenomenon has required the courts to scrutinize the
affiliation between the marks and “domain names. In order to lodge a lawsuit in order to avert
cyber squatting, the claimant would have to show the fraudulent purpose, absence of valid rights
and interests and resemblance of the domain name with the claimant’s trademark”.

Reverse Cyber squatting:

It is also known as reverse domain name hijacking. “It occurs when the owner of a trademark
attempts, by legal action to acquire a domain name by making fraudulent cyber squatting charges
against the legitimate owner of a domain name. Sometimes, domain names owners have to pass
domain name ownership to trademark owners in order to escape legal proceedings and expensive
expenditures, particularly if such domain names are that of smaller organizations or individuals
who are not privileged to battle the case”. Reverse domain name hijacking is usually performed
by bigger companies and prominent rich persons.

Meta Tags:

Meta tag or Meta element is a part of every web page. “Meta elements provide details on page
titles, keywords and additional related information. They were first used to define the subject of
the website through search engines while the internet was in nascent stages, to aid in positioning
of web pages in the appropriate groupings. Currently, people have a tendency to misuse Meta
tags to create fraudulent page rankings for poorly built WebPages. They may be categorized into
the title, definition and keywords”.

12
HARISH CHANDER, CYBER LAWS AND IT PROTECTION, 35 (PHI learning Private Ltd. Publication, New Delhi, 2012)

10
 INTERPLAY BETWEEN IT ACT 2000 AND INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY
The Information Technology Act, 2000 covers transfer, “electronic governance, protection of
electronic records and digital signature, recognition and dispatch of electronic documents,
regulation of certifying authorities, duties of subscribers to digital signature certificates, appeals
tribunal on cyber legislation, offenses and liabilities of network service providers”.

Nevertheless, the existing or planned Information Technology Act in India does not allow for
prosecuting cyber-squatters, and at most the domain can be retracted. “While the IT Act does not
offer legal redress, the. IN registry has undertaken aggressive measures to award compensation
to companies falling prey, in order to redress and prevent squatters from stealing further
domains. Regarding jurisdictional questions, IPR-related cybercrimes, cyber bullying, cyber
defamation etc., the Information Technology Act fails”. Similarly, the Indian Trademark Act,
1999 and “the Copyright Act, 1957 still remain uncommunicative on issues resulting from
infringements of electronic trademarks and copyrights. While the Copyright Act covers computer
programs, it does not include redress for online piracy of software.”

Standards of Intermediary Liability in India

The Information Technology Act, 2000

The Indian Information Technology Act, 2000 ('IT Act') was “enacted to provide a boost to the
country's development and usage of internet, computers and apps, and to lay down a lawful basis
for the country's parameters for regulating e-commerce and e-transactions. A main aspect of the
IT Act correlates to supplying intermediaries with safe harbours”. The term ‘intermediary’ is
defined in the IT Act s as follows:

“Intermediary – with respect to any particular electronic message means any person who on
behalf of another person receives stores or transmits that message or provides any service with
respect to that message.”13

Section 79 of the IT Act, “provides for exemptions from liability to network service providers in
specific cases. Network service providers are perceived to be coming within the purview of

13
The Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008, S. 2(1)(w).

11
‘intermediaries’ and any information which is dealt by the service provider in such capacity is
known as third party information. Prior to the 2008 amendment”, it is found that network service
providers were provided with “absolute immunity against any liability arising out of third party
information dealt by the service provider, if it is proven that the infringement was caused without
knowledge and reasonable care was taken by the service provider to avoid such contravention”.

Section 81 of the IT Act provided for a “non-obstante clause which stated that the provisions of
the Act would have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other
law for the time being in force”.14

In 2008 a series of changes were made to the IT Act. “Among other items, the Report of the
Expert Committee on the Possible Changes to the IT Act, 2000 (August 2005) 15 states that in
some situations the provisions relating to intermediary liability have been amended to
specifically specify the scope of an intermediary's liability. The Report recognizes that the
guiding principles of the EU E-Commerce Directive” 2000/3/31/EC issued on 8 June 2000 were
used.16

The provisions relating to an ‘intermediary’ and Section 81 were amended by the Amendment
Act of 2008 to the following effect:

“Section 2(1)(w)17 — “Intermediary for one specific electronic record, denotes any individual
who collects, stores or transmits on behalf of another person who records or provides any service
relating to that record and includes telephone service providers, network service providers,
Internet service providers, web hosting service providers, search engines, online payment sites,
online auction sites, online market places”

Section 7918 — as discussed earlier, “Section 79 deals with the exemptions that are provided to
an intermediary from any liability. Previously, the exemptions were absolute if it was proven that
the contravention occurred without the knowledge of the intermediary or if due care was taken
the intermediary”.
14
Information Technology Act, 2000, S. 8
15
Report of the Expert Committee, Proposed Amendments to Information Technology Act, 2000, August 2005,
available at http://www.prsindia.org/uploads/media/Information%20
16
Id.
17
Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008, S. 2(1)(w)
18
Id., S.79.

12
In Google India Private Limited v. M/s Visaka Industries Limited 19 “the Andhra Pradesh High
Court addressed the applicability of exception under Section 79 of the IT Act as set out above. In
the present case, several politicians alleged they had been defamed by certain articles published
on the search engine, Google. In spite of notification being given, Google India Private Limited
('Google India') did not rescind access to such defamatory articles. Google India based its
arguments on the safe harbour protection under Section 79” and asserted insusceptibility.
Nevertheless, the Court disagreed with Google India, and held that:20

“It is only under the said amendment; non-obstante clause was incorporated in Section 79
keeping application of other laws outside the purview in a fact situation covered by the said
provision. Now, after the amendment, an intermediary like a network service provider can claim
exemption from application of any other law in respect of any third party information, data or
communication link made available or hosted by him; provided he satisfied the requirements
under Sub-section (2) of Section 79.”

The Copyright Act, 1970

Prior to the amendments made in June 2012 to “the Copyright Act, there was an absence of clear
conditions that discussed the question of liability of an intermediary under the Act. Section 14 of
the Act provides for the exclusive rights held by the copyright owner in the categories of
protected copyright works.31 Section 51 of the Copyright Act provides for two broad categories
of legal responsibility for infringements of copyright”, namely- primary and secondary
infringement.21

In Super Cassettes Industries Limited (SCIL) v. MySpace Inc 22. “The Delhi High Court's Single
Judge Bench investigated into the liability of the MySpace, a social networking platform falling
under the primary and secondary violation title. The Single Judge defined the privileges granted
to the copyright owner in furtherance of Section 14 of the Copyright Act as having the right of
authorizing such acts. Following such an interpretation, the judge agreed with the argument put
forth by MySpace that the violation through authorization” allowed the accused person to have
the right or authority to request that a contravening act resulting in copyright infringement be
19
Google India Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S Visaka Industries Ltd and Anr., Crl. P. No. 7207 of 2009 (Andhra Pradesh H.C).
20
Id.
21
The Indian Copyright Act, 1957, S. 5
22
Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. v. MySpace Inc., CS (OS) No. 2682/2008 (Delhi H.C).

13
perpetrated. “Accordingly, the Court found that SCIL had failed to prima facie establish that
MySpace exerted such a degree of control which could amount to sanction, approval or
countenance. However, The Single Judge held MySpace accountable for secondary infringement
under Section 51(a)(ii) of the Copyright Act”.

The Standing Committee Report on the “Copyright Reform Bill, 2010 regarding the proposed
amendments made to Section 52, noted the submissions made by the Department of Higher
Education, Ministry of Human Resource Development” as follows23

According to the Department, “Section 52 deals with fair dealing and certain acts which are not
infringement and it does not deal with infringement per se. Any transient and incidental storage
of any work through the process of ‘caching’ has been provided exceptions as per the
international practice. Any deliberate storing of such works and unauthorized reproduction and
distribution of such works is infringement under Section 51 of the Act attracting civil” and
criminal liability… However, “in order to provide a safe harbor as per international norms to the
service provider to take down such unauthorized works upon receipt of notice from the authors
and right owners and any abuse of suspension, it is provided that an order within 14 days from
the competent court to be produced for the continued prevention of such storage.”

Analyzing the Committee's submissions and recommendations, it appears that the sententia legis
of the amendments made to “Section 52 was mainly to provide for safe harbors for various
intermediaries, although the literal interpretation of the amended section does not bring out the
same. The interpretation would be consistent with the classification of ISPs under the IT Act in
the absence of policy considerations to exempt any particular group of intermediaries”. Under
“Section 79 of the IT Act, safe harbors have been introduced to protect and inoculate different
forms of ISPs and the notification and discharge scheme is the prerequisite for the continuous
application of such safe harbours. However, there exist some variations in the liability of an
intermediary requirement in both statutes. It is noteworthy that the antecedent section to the
current Section 79 of the IT Act put on the intermediary” the burden of demonstrating lack of
expertise and practicing due care in order to avoid the execution of the alleged contravention or
infringement.24

23
http://copyright.gov.in/Documents/227-Copyrightamendment.pdf
24
Information Technology Act, 2000, S. 79

14
 Balance Between Right Owners and Users
The Supreme Court accentuated on the necessity for a “balancing of the conflicting interests of
right owners and users in the sense of copyright law in M/S Entertainment Networks v. Super
Cassettes”.25

The Act seeks to maintain a balance between the interests of the owner of the copyright in
protecting his works on the one hand and “the interest of the public to have access to the works,
on the other. The extent to which the owner is entitled to protection in regard to his work for
which he has obtained copyright and the interest of the public is a matter which would depend
upon the statutory provisions. Whereas the Act provides for exclusive rights in favor of owners
of the copyright, there are provisions where it has been recognized that public has also
substantial interest in the availability of the works”

The Supreme Court's aforenoted stance reinforces the idea that the privileges are not exclusive,
under IP laws and “thus a balance must be maintained between the counteracting obligations for
information to be accessible to the public. The report of the United Nations Special Reporter on
the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion was submitted to the General
Assembly Human Rights Council on May 16, 2011. The report looks at the position of
intermediary liability and states”.26

Intermediaries play fundamental role in enabling Internet users to enjoy their right to freedom of
expression and access to information. “Given their unprecedented influence over how and what
is circulated over the Internet, States have increasingly sought to exert control over them and to
hold them legally liable for failing to prevent access to content deemed to be illegal Any requests
submitted to intermediaries to prevent access to certain content or to disclose private information
for strictly limited purposes, such as administration of criminal justice, should be done through”
an order issued by a Court or a competent body which is independent of any political or
commercial or other unwarranted influences.

25
M/S Entertainment Networks Ltd. v. Super Cassettes, 2008(9) SCR 165.
26
United Nations General Assembly, Human Rights Council [UNHRC], Report of the Special Reporter on the
Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression,

15
The Single Judge affirmed the viability of a John Doe suit in the light of the standards set out in
ESPN Software India Private Limited v. Tudu Enterprise 27 held that they had authority to
pronounce an order in contradiction of unknown persons displayed such as Ashok Kumars in the
present case. It was further noted that the order passed on 22 June 2012; the order issued by him
on 29 March 2012 was later explained by a Division Bench of the court. As the revised order
was not contested and the compromise provided that the order was a feasible resolution without
harming any party's position, the Judge decided to dispose of the appeal of the intermediaries in
relation to the already issued amended order.

Presumably, the aforementioned order was pronounced in the light of the Copyright Act, as it
existed before the amendments of June 2012. The Court was not bestowed with an opportunity to
deliberate the enlisted exceptions under Section 52(1)(b) & (c) to copyright infringements. As
mentioned above, the exemption pursuant to Section 52(1)(b) tends to offer an unqualified safe
harbor for those ISPs implicated in the temporary or accidental storing of a job or output merely
in the procedural phase of electronic transmission or public communication. It is a debatable
theme if the order pronounced by the High Court of Madras Single Judge on 30 October 2012
will be compatible with the said exception today, because any immunity given under this
provision to these intermediaries should be absolute. In other words, before arriving at its
judgments, the Court would have investigated the essence of the roles of these intermediaries (all
of which tend to be pure conduits).

27
ESPN Software India Pvt. Ltd. v. Tudu Enterprise, CS (OS) No. 384/2011 (Delhi H.C).

16
 Loopholes and Recommendations
The contemporary trends in the judiciary mirror the insufficiency of understanding of the
“Internet, especially with regard to the role of the service providers as facilitators and provider of
access to material and information. Imperatively, there exists an ambiguity with respect to the
intermediary’s liability standards under the IT Act and the Copyright Act and also across
jurisdictions”.

The balance between the two countervailing interests i.e., “the interest in protection of thirdparty
rights and the interest of the public in the distribution of information which is a central operation
of the internet, is the foundation or principle forming the base of the two statutes. The
exemptions or the safe harbor provisions as provided under Section 79 of the IT Act confer an
entitlement of censorship on the private intermediaries who act at the demand of an appropriate
government agency or any individual, due to the dread of exhausting the safe harbors than any
neutral valuation” of the legitimacy of the grievances brought forward.28

On the contrary, the safe harbors as provided for under “Section 52(1)(c) of the Copyright Act
bequeath the question of their application to particular intermediaries, to the whims and fancies
of construal and judicial interference”. However, the circumstances are not favorable for the
protection of users’ rights and “the intermediaries with the application of either of the statutes.
Until and unless a redressal being brought about at a legislative level, an inadvertent turn towards
damage and incapacitating of the development of the digital world in India will be taken”.

Although the technological advances and “the internet in India are still in the nascent stages, a
revolutionary development in the jurisprudential aspect will be imperative in the near future
since e-commerce and digital India will be shrinking borders and therefore bring in complex
jurisdictional aspects with regard to territorial nature of IP rights. Therefore, we may find that
that there exist two broad dimensions which require consideration and deliberation”.

 Jurisdiction of foreign courts over the internet and related issues arising.
 The relevancy and “applicability of a decree passed by a foreign court in that regard”.

28
http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/intermediaryliability-in-india

17
 CONCLUSION
Intellectual property is a treasured possession of any person, and therefore it ought to be
safeguarded all possible ways as a “person applies his mind, skill and time into producing
something original and unique which could be classified as an Intellectual Property. Public
Policy research in the legal and economic fields must be carried out for the purpose of
determining the scope of intellectual property being safeguarded in the cyberspace.
Technological developments and the rise in cyber-crimes have posed new challenges to
Intellectual Property in the digital world and therefore appropriate modifications in legislations
are the need of the hour”. “The legislations are required to focus on specific cybercrimes in the
field of Intellectual Property since the only provision regarding the same are the safe harbours
provided to intermediaries, which too is conflicted. Further, jurisdictional aspects need to be
clarified since with growing e-commerce, the internet is shrinking the borders which poses a
challenge to the territorial nature of Intellectual Property and therefore international treaties need
to eliminate the ambiguity in this regard”. The cyberspace inevitably functions world-wide,
whereas “intellectual property rights are territorial in essence. Even though intellectual property
protection has been harmonized by international conventions, especially the TRIPS Agreement,
this harmonization has also relaxed the territorial nature which oversees intellectual property
rights. An international guideline of the cyberspace is the need of the hour to concentrate and
solve the jurisdictional challenges”.

18
 BIBOLOGRAPHY
Books

 Dr Gupta & Agarwal- Cyber Laws (2010)

 Tabrez Ahmed- Cyber Law and E-Commerce (2003)
 Harish Chander- Cyber Laws and IT Protection (2012)

Article

 Marilyn C. Maloney, Intellectual Property in Cyberspace, the Business Lawyer, Vol. 53

(November 1997).
 Dr. Andreas Rahmatian, Cyberspace and Intellectual Property Rights, Research
Handbook on International Law and Cyberspace (2015).
 Balaji C, Role of IPR in Cyberspace, International Journal of Advanced Educational
Research, Vol. 2 Issue 5 (September 2015).

Websites

 https://www.opialaw.harvard.edu/
 http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/intermediaryliability-in-india

19