Kavitha Gupta's blog

DELHI HIGH COURT CLARIFIES THE EXTENT OF ‘SAFE HARBOUR’ PROVISIONS FOR INTERMEDIARIES Article by Khaitan & Co.  On 2 November 2018, the Delhi High Court (High Court), in Christian Louboutin SAS v Nakul Bajaj and Others (Civil Suit No. 344/2018) has laid down certain guiding principles in respect of liability of e-commerce platforms as intermediaries and the ambit of ‘service’ as has been used in the definition of ‘intermediaries’ under the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act). Background The plaintiff claimed intellectual property rights over the name ‘Christian Louboutin’, which is the name of its founder, Mr Christian Louboutin, a designer of high-end luxury products. The dispute pertained to the sale of “Christian Louboutin” products by the defendants on its website (Darveys.com), using the image and the name of Mr Christian Louboutin. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants attracted traffic on their website by using the names “Christian” and “Louboutin” as m

Contract enforcement finally sees relief Nishith Desai Associates  India July 27 2018  AMENDMENTS TO THE SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT - HIGHLIGHTS Courts must grant specific performance of a contract when claimed by a party unless such remedy is barred under the limited grounds contained in the statute. If a contract is broken due to non-performance of a promise by a party, the party suffering the breach has the option of substituting performance through a third party or through its own agency. A suit filed under the Specific Relief Act must be disposed of by the court within 12 months from the date of service of summons to the defendant. Such period can be extended by 6 months after recording written reasons by the court. No injunction can be granted by the court in relation to an infrastructure project if such injunction would cause delay or impediment in the progress or completion of the infrastructure project. On July 23, 2018, the Parliament passed the Specific Reli

Advanced Copyright Issues on the Internet By David L. Hayes   •   May 15, 2018 Publication Profile During recent years, the Internet has become the basic foundational infrastructure for the global movement of data of all kinds. With continued growth at a phenomenal rate, the Internet has moved from a quiet means of communication among academic and scientific research circles into ubiquity in both the commercial arena and private homes. The Internet is now a major global data pipeline through which large amounts of intellectual property are moved. As this pipeline is increasingly used in the mainstream of commerce to sell and deliver creative content and information across transnational borders, issues of intellectual property protection for the material available on and through the Internet are rising in importance. https://www.fenwick.com/FenwickDocuments/Internet-Copyright-Treatise-0518.pdf Ref: https://www.fenwick.com/publication

http://www.accdocket.com/articles/gdpr-employer-interests-and-employee-privacy.cfm A company collects the data of its employees throughout the employees’ lifecycle — beginning with recruitment and concluding with resignation, termination, or retirement. The data is collected and processed at all stages. Many organizations are deploying new digital HR technologies to better manage and support the entire employment life cycle, including in the cloud to analyse data that can lead to HR improvements. The rapid adoption of new technologies in the workplace has been useful in detecting the loss of intellectual property or data breaches by an employee. What’s more, there are now predictive analytics and location data from smart devices that improve employee productivity. However, these technological developments are sometimes seen as intrusive and pervasive ways of cheaper monitoring and have raised concerns and challenges about employee privacy and data protection. Such te

Between a Rock and a Hard Place: Protecting Employee Mobility and Negative Trade Secrets Reference:https://www.law.com/therecorder By  Maxwell V. Pritt  | UPDATEDMar 12, 2018 at 03:02 Boies Schiller Flexner When Judge William Alsup asked the lawyers in  Waymo v. Uber —the recent showdown over self-driving car technology—if engineers really had to get lobotomies before going to their next job, he wasn’t just asking if they had to “forget” what makes their former employers’ technology work. He was also asking if they had to forget what did  not  work for their former employers. Unfortunately for engineers—and their employers and the competitors that want to hire them—there is no simple answer under California and federal law. While the results of R&D that prove a certain process or approach does not work for a technology could be commercially valuable, the law is unclear on whether that information—“negative trade secrets” or “negative know-how” in legal jargon—can be a trade

https://drive.google.com/drive/my-drive Recently, the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Ashok Kumar Singh vs. University of Delhi & Ors., LPA 305/2017 & CM No.15732/2017, after having considered the facts of the case wherein the Appellant (delinquent employee) had challenged the inquiry report of the Internal Complaint Committee (ICC) mainly on the grounds that the reports only give a prima facie conclusion and not definite conclusion as mandated under the Act as well as the opportunity of cross examination of witnesses of the complainant and to lead defense evidence was denied to him by violating the principles of natural justice, has remanded the case back to the ICC for conducting afresh inquiry from the stage of cross examination of complainant’s witnesses whose examination-in-chief had already been tendered, in the following manner to meet the mandatory requirements of Section 11(3) of the Act as well as to comply with the principles of natur

Anti-Money Laundering Risks for Global Companies (Part I of III) BY  MICHAEL VOLKOV  · NOVEMBER 27, 2017 Non-financial institution companies operating in the global marketplace face ever-increasing risks of money laundering. Sophisticated criminal organizations have developed their own mechanisms and strategies to skirt money laundering rules and regulations. The Justice Department has targeted transnational organized crime for investigation and prosecution. As a consequence, non-financial institutions have to examine their policies and procedures to protect against handling proceeds of criminal activity or otherwise facilitating money-laundering operations. Money Laundering Statutes The complex set of money laundering statutes and regulations apply to “financial institutions,” as defined under Title 31 of the United States Code. However, non-financial institutions are subject to two basic AML criminal statutes, 18 United States Code Sections 1956 and 1957. The Departm