Requirements for Granting Copyrights
In the case study as has been discussed and detailed herein, the discussion of this paper shall basically be arranged in two parts specifically dealing with the Intellectual property rights and laws therefore and a practical implementation of the rules and statutes therefore shall be considered for the purposes of deciding reasonable conclusions for the disputAes as has been referred to and is required to be decided in the case studies attached herein with.
1. In the case as has been discussed and referred to herein, the major issue which arises in the case study so descripted herein is the ownership of the copyright in the case of it being created by an Employee under an existing employment contract and the restrictions on registering of patent, the articles and innovation which can be prevented and the parameters which are required to be touched upon in order to prove similarity between a willed patent on a given subject and an already existing patent in the market and industry the entities operate within and the consideration of similarities as material and non-material which directly affects the registration and non-registration of applied patent for a specific innovative technology.
2. The case shall for these specific issues shall be decided by virtue of the United Kingdom an Copyrights Legislation 1988 and the provisions incorporated therein. In this case Morgan herein classified and referred to as the Fashion Engineer and an active employee of Monteiro Corporation herein referred to as the Employer corporation are actually under a dispute regarding the ownership of the copyright. Before deciding the above question, initially the requirement that needs to be fulfilled for addressing the ownership rights over the copyright is whether or not actual copyright existed in this case or not.
The innovative technique which has been disputed under this case and an element of being copyrighted is the “artistic creation” of the fashion engineer herein referred to as Morgan of installation of fabric shapes capable of being converting automatedly from cubes into spheres by virtue of an underlying piece of fabric so prepared and advanced by Morgan for the purposes of facilitating advancement in clothing lines and models and a material change in the industry of clothing sector with the sole use of his fashion engineering skills and intellectuality. By passing off electric current from the fabric, the fabric shall hold a rigid shape which shall facilitate the ease of installation of these shapes for facilitating instant change of user wears and bringing a novel change in the field of clothing industry.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and referring to the basic meaning and application of the concept of Copyrighted works, the copyrights is granted as an exclusive bundle of rights to the creator of the work irrespective of it being artistic, literary or musical or any other work including cinematography works. The only necessary requirement which needs to be fulfilled in order to grant the copyright is novelty in the method of creation of the work and expressing its implementation. The novelty and newness should exist in the work, either in the means and ways of creating it or creation of a completely new work. Any alteration and amendment in the existing process of doing or performing something shall also be eligible and entitled to be copyrighted as it also depicts a new creation of author of the work.
The Dispute over Copyright Ownership in the Case Study
In this case, the installation of the fabric model so created by the Morgan herein referred to as the Fashion engineer being employed by the Monteiro corporation for introducing dynamism in user wear by automating the process of changing rigid shapes and designs according to the comfort and choice of users shall be treated as an art as it includes newness in its creation and hence entitled and the work is eligible to be copyrighted without any problems and obstructions. The subsequent and the most important element which needs to be considered prior to granting of the copyrights is the Publication of the works so stated herein.
It is required for granting of the copyright is that the work needs to be published before acknowledging the same. In this case the willingness and effort of Morgan for publishing the same by virtue of a video presentation upon an application herein named and referred to as Clicklock satisfactorily complies with the requirements for successful grant of copyright. In this case deciding the major question as to the entitlement and recognition of the copyright of the artistic work has been answered in affirmative concerning the relevant statutes and legislations concerning copyright and also the underlying convention herein referred to as Berne Convention responsible for prompting the nations to draft intellectual property laws for securing the mental intellect of individuals, their skills, competencies and capabilities, innovations in the form of Copyrights, Trademarks, Patents, Designs and Geographical Indications being the major intellectual property rights and entitlements.
An active publication of the idea in this case and the newness , novelty and uniqueness in designing an innovative fabric change and dynamic model using own fashion engineering skills and capabilities clearly evidences, complements, supplements and catalyses upholding the rights of Morgan as the first owner of the Copyright and all possession of all the exclusive rights for the tenure under concerned legislation shall imbibe ipso facto in Morgan and decision regarding the further publication and assignment of the rights shall be only done after due consent and authorisation from the sole owner.
A difference shall be seen and analysed in this case as Morgan was under the contract of employment with Monteiro the first ownership of the copyright in this very case shall vest in the Employer entity herein referred to as Monteiro. This concept is alien to the general rule which makes the creator as the sole owner of the copyright which shall not be the case in the situations of employment and the Employer entity as a corporation shall be the owner of the copyright as has been discussed in this case.
3. The vesting of the copyrighted rights shall not be deemed until and unless an application is made to the Registrar concerned and the grant therefore is expressly acknowledged and recognised by the concerned authorities, Registrar being the primary and major one. After hearing and considering the probable implication of granting the copyrights, the novelty and newness for which the copyright application is preferred to Registrar, and statement of objections being filed by the general and concerned parties upon the probable grant therefore, a decision shall be reached and concluded and the sole decision shall lie upon the Registrar whether to grant the copyright or not.
Employer’s Ownership of Copyright in Employment Relationships
As in this case the facts are silent upon, whether an active effort was taken by the employer or employee for specific grant of Copyright it shall be reasonable to assume that no effort has been taken by the employer to seek copyright for the work so created and therefore, the act of Stephanie manipulating the actual video presentation of Morgan and making a mockery of the same shall not be considered as Copyright infringement as no copyright has actually being granted in the case nor any application has been made in reference to the same. This procedural error shall bar Monteiro and Morgan under the employment of Monteiro Corporation to bring or initiate any proceeding or suit against the deemed aggressor herein being referred to as Stephanie.
A criminal suit for Mischief or defamation can be brought against by the corporation as discussed herein, but any other copyright infringement remedy shall not flow in this case and hence prior grant of the right is necessary for being eligible to sue for infringement therefore. Although the Berne Convention recognises automatic copyright entitlement, the moment work is fixed without requiring any kind of registration following a formal procedure but the convention provisions do not supersede domestic legislations of the nations and therefore it directly depends upon the governing statutes on defined subjects of the states and the procedure mentioned therein.
In this case, assuming the adherence of the concerned state to Berne Convention for dealing with the matter of Copyright grant, the copyright grant shall not require any formal registration and hence the publication of the idea of the Employee of the corporation herein referred to as Morgan, shall be enough to be acknowledged having the Copyright and therefore, the false publication and manipulation of Stephanie of the same video shall be considered as Copyright infringement as hurting the innovativeness and newness of the corporation herein referred to as Monteiro and Morgan therefore, and the remedies broadly can be categorised into three broad heads as considered and viewed which are stated as under (Marsico, 2021):
- Civil Remedies
- Criminal Remedies
- Administrative assistance and remedies thereof.
4. Considering the installation and video works of Morgan under the employment contract of service with Monteiro to be copyrighted it can be reasonably inferred and viewing the conventions upon the ownership in copyright, it shall in this case be deemed and considered to vest in the employment corporation herein referred to as Monteiro despite the fact that the same has been created by the employee of the corporation herein referred to as Morgan, the Fashion Engineer, newly recruited in the corporation and having created a new and novel fashion technology for changing the orthodox procedures of trial of designs and shapes therefore.
The ownership in this case of the copyrighted work shall be invested in the Corporation as the first owner of the copyright considering the general rule of the Intellectual property laws. The underlying reason for the same is the creation of the work during the course of service and employment for improving the business edge and intellect of the corporation the employees serve within and caters to. As the employer employee relationship is considered to be an agency relationship, all the acts done by the employee for improving the operations of the firm and corporation an individual is employed in, it shall be lawful and ethical to credit the collective ownership of the same to the corporation as first owner and the further consent to appropriate the benefits and the rights of assignment of the copyrighted works shall vest with the corporation, the corporation being the first owner of the copyrighted work so created by the owner.
In the case study as has been discussed herein, the innovative invention of the employee herein referred to as Morgan, shall not be eligible to be Patented the major reason being the newness and novelty of the technique relating to the electric shapeshifting fabric. Although instances of patents are there for electric shapeshifting polymers, but in this case a piece of fabric has been used by the employee herein referred to as Morgan for the purposes of attributing a rigid shape to the Fabric by passing of current and further mechanism of installation of the same facilitating dynamism in fashion designs and automated adjustment of the same according to the needs and requirements of the user. This technology shall not be eligible to be patented as it does not fulfil all the requisite elements of patentable innovations and inventions. The so claimed technology shall be considered as an add on upon some existing technology rather developing a new process having no existing premise which shall be the major ground for recognition the right of innovative technique and invention to be patented.
Conclusion
In this case so discussed herein, only the implementation of the technique has been novel as it has been brought in Clothing industry but not in consonance with the requirements of granting of patent. In order to be eligible for patent it is necessary on the part of the creator to develop a new process and technique having no existing base which is not in the case in this very discussed case study. Further, this technique shall not be eligible for patent grant as it has been developed for the sole purposes of commercial appropriation and exploitation which simply means privatisation of the technique so developed and fetching out only monetary gains of the technique so developed which is not the sole purpose of patent grant to a corporation or to an individual, in this case the corporation referred to as Monteiro.
Considering the conclusions as have been reached upon from above readings, applications and inferences the claims of already patented organisation in reference to this specific subject shall be considered to be upheld legally and no patent application could stand in the favour of the corporation has been referred to herein. The fabric shall not be patentable for the basic reasons of it not being novel as far as creation is considered. It only is modification of the application of the same technique which are already used by giant corporations and have been already patented therefore. The question of ownership shall therefore not be dealt with herein the major reason being refusal to patent the technology for the reasons as has been discussed and stated above.
- Improver Corporation v. Remington Consumers Products Ltd. (1990)
- Catnic Components v Hill & Smith Ltd (1982)
- Strix Ltd v Otter Controls Ltd (1995)
- EMI Ltd v Lissen Ltd (1939)
- Walter v. Lane[1900] AC 539
These are the major case laws as far as the Patent laws and Copyright laws of United Kingdom is considered and also directly relates to the issues in question and under discussion.
2. This part of the assessment shall specifically deal with the Trademark Law in consonance with the Intellectual property law of United Kingdom and the case study mentioned herein shall be examined and assessed in accordance to the laws and conventions so studies and referred to.
Concerning and considering the Trademarks in the purview of the United Kingdom Intellectual Property law the general rules, definitions are stated and described hereunder:
Commencing with the definition of the word Trademark, it simply is a registered sign which is capable of being represented in a graphical manner which is capable of distinguishing goods and services of one business entity from that of other entity. The basic aim of Trademark registration is ensuring sufficient protection and safety to the monopoly novel business logos, ideas, operations, products, conducts of a business entity and thus immunizes the exposure of such business to any kind of probable duplication.
Registration is the foremost step to get a trademark sanctioned and assigned and concerning the jurisdiction of United Kingdom as is the requirement of this very paper, initially a first application needs to be made to the United Kingdom Intellectual Property office who in turn is responsible for assigning registration to the applicants considering the facts, circumstances and uniqueness of the business as has been required in the Intellectual Property Legislation of United Kingdom, specifically concerning the Trademarks.
The process of registration is a complicated and time investing process which includes hefty cost investments and lack of surety of registration of the same depending upon the already existing trademarks in the industry and the market and the statement of objections and reasons of the persons so concerned therefore. There are certain complications which arise possibly in the registration of the trademarks and they are stated and briefed here under. These are the major procedural problems which an applicant faces at the time of filing the application until the successful completion and satisfaction of the requirements therefore. In this case as has been discussed and referred to herein these problems are bound to arise which the applicant herein referred to as Daniel Craig would have to face certainly.
- The capability of the willed trademark to be represented graphically.
- The capability of the trademark to distinguish the products and services from the similar entities operating with identical products and brands in the market.
- Pending applications before registrar for identical products.
- Probability and potential of the hosted mark to deceive general public and exploitation and violation of their interests.
- Hosted trademarks come under those grounds which shall be absolute for refusal for the grant of same.
These are some general problems which arises during the process of trademark registration and the applicant needs to consider certain factors before applying for the same, except for some extra ordinary cases like in the case of Well-Known Trademarks which do not require formal registration and are automatically recognised as being the registered marks.
There are certain grounds of refusal of trademark which shall be discussed herein and have the potential to frustrate the complete process of application on the part of applicant and waster of finances so invested in the processes and are stated as under:
- These grounds of refusal simply are those grounds which have an coercive potential to de fragment the interests of general public and exploit grossly their consumer interests.
- These grounds basically refer to those grounds which have the potential to damage the already existing patents and harm the interests of already registered business.
In the case as has been discussed herein and directly relating to the same the principles of the trademark law and the elements concerning the same, it can be reasonably inferred and validated from above study and assessment of points that the entitlement of Craig to get trademark for the business of sandwiches catering to the varieties from across the globe shall be dependent upon certain factors which have been discussed in detail in above cases and conditions. Considering the same the actions shall be taken upon and thereafter the case shall be decided, as far as the defined facts as has been mentioned in the case study is considered it can be reasonably inferred that keeping own name as the brand name and registering the same as Craig shall not be considered unique and novel and the chances of entitlement for Trademark shall not be feasible, rest it depends upon the detailed facts on which the case study is silent.
References
Catnic Components v Hill & Smith Ltd (1982)
EMI Ltd v Lissen Ltd (1939)
Improver Corporation v. Remington Consumers Products Ltd. (1990)
Strix Ltd v Otter Controls Ltd (1995)
Walter v. Lane [1900] AC 539
Adibfar, A., Costin, A., & Issa, R. R. (2020). Design copyright in architecture, engineering, and construction industry: Review of history, pitfalls, and lessons learned. Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction, 12(3), 04520032.
Ali, A. H. S., Saidin, O. K., Roisah, K., & Warman, E. (2022, February). Responsibilities of E-Commerce Platform Providers Against Copyright Infringement in Indonesia: Comparison with United Kingdom . In Second International Conference on Public Policy, Social Computing and Development (ICOPOSDEV 2021) (pp. 115-119). Atlantis Press.
Beebe, B., & Fromer, J. C. (2021). The problems of trademark depletion and congestion: some possible reforms. In Research Handbook on Trademark Law Reform. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Birnhack, M. D. (2021). Colonial Trademark: Law and Nationality in Mandate Palestine, 1922–48. Law & Social Inquiry, 46(1), 192-225.
Chang, Y., & Hu, H. (2021). 3D Fabrics with Negative Poisson’s Ratio: A Review. Applied Composite Materials, 1-14.
Conrad, M. (2022). Non-Fungible Tokens, Sports, and Intellectual Property Law Issues: A Case Study Applying Copyright, Trademark, and Right of Publicity Law to a Non-Traditional Ownership Vehicle. Journal of Legal Aspects of Sport, 32(1), 132-152.
Datta, D. B., & Seal, P. (2022). Innovation and technology of knitted intimate apparels. In Advanced Knitting Technology (pp. 307-344). Woodhead Publishing.
Duan, L. (2021, November). Blockchain And Legal Protection of Copyright Technical Protection Measures for Publications in the Internet Era. In 2021 Fifth International Conference on I-SMAC (IoT in Social, Mobile, Analytics and Cloud)(I-SMAC) (pp. 1542-1545). IEEE.
Hutauruk, D. E. H. K. (2022). Technology Transfer, Investment and Indonesian Patent Law. JISIP (Jurnal Ilmu Sosial dan Pendidikan), 6(2).
Liu, K. C. (2022). IP Laws and Regimes in Major Asian Economies: Combing Through Thousand Threads of IP To Peace in Asia. Routledge.
Marsico, S. (2021, July). Copyright: Infringement, Remedies, and Defenses in a Pandemic Environment. In 2021 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access.
Mikos, R. A. (2021). Unauthorized and Unwise: The Lawful Use Requirement in Trademark Law. Vanderbilt Law Research Paper, (21-24).
Morris, P. S. (2019). Trademarks and the Economic Dimensions of Trademark Law in Europe and Beyond. Encyclopedia of Law and Economics.
Mysoor, P. (2021). Implied licences in copyright law. Oxford University Press.
Pasa, B., 2022. Copyright and Data Protection. In Privacy and Data Protection in Software Services (pp. 111-123). Springer, United Kingdom .
Talagala, C. S. (2021). Copyright Law and Translation: Access to Knowledge in Developing Economies. Routledge.
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
