<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Lawmatters.in &#187; Infringement</title>
	<atom:link href="http://lawmatters.in/content/category/intellectual-property/infringement/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://lawmatters.in</link>
	<description>Things that matter in law and more</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Jan 2012 12:43:27 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Is Copyright Infringement Theft?</title>
		<link>http://lawmatters.in/content/is-copyright-infringement-theft</link>
		<comments>http://lawmatters.in/content/is-copyright-infringement-theft#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Sep 2010 08:23:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Nandita Saikia</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Copyright]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Infringement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Plagiarism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawmatters.in/?p=1845</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[This post was revised to include Part II which was first published at 'IndianCopyright'.] Part I: Some time ago, Terry Hart wrote a post on Copyhype which leaned towards characterising copyright infringement as theft, and Techdirt (via @gkjohn) subsequently posted &#8230; <a href="http://lawmatters.in/content/is-copyright-infringement-theft">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawmatters.in/content/is-copyright-infringement-theft/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Pirates Flounder</title>
		<link>http://lawmatters.in/content/the-pirates-flounder</link>
		<comments>http://lawmatters.in/content/the-pirates-flounder#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 Apr 2009 06:28:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Law Matters</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Cases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Copyright]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Infringement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intellectual Property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawmatters.in/?p=860</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[By Shyam Somanadh Entertainment Industry Wins Pirate Bay Case, Loses $390 MN business opportunity By now it is all over the place that Pirate Bay (or at least the four defendants) has lost its lawsuit regarding their enablement of piracy &#8230; <a href="http://lawmatters.in/content/the-pirates-flounder">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawmatters.in/content/the-pirates-flounder/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Yo! China v. Nestle on the Use of &#8216;Yo&#8217; Trademark</title>
		<link>http://lawmatters.in/content/yo-china-wins-injunction-against-nestle-on-use-of-yo-trademark-469</link>
		<comments>http://lawmatters.in/content/yo-china-wins-injunction-against-nestle-on-use-of-yo-trademark-469#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Jun 2008 07:13:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Law Matters</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Cases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[High Court of Delhi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Infringement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intellectual Property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trademarks]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawmatters.in/content/yo-china-wins-injunction-against-nestle-on-use-of-yo-trademark-469.html</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Delhi High Court has granted a temporary injunction against Nestle. <a href="http://lawmatters.in/content/yo-china-wins-injunction-against-nestle-on-use-of-yo-trademark-469">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawmatters.in/content/yo-china-wins-injunction-against-nestle-on-use-of-yo-trademark-469/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Penalties and Remedies under the Copyright Act</title>
		<link>http://lawmatters.in/content/penalties-and-remedies-under-the-copyright-act-291</link>
		<comments>http://lawmatters.in/content/penalties-and-remedies-under-the-copyright-act-291#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 May 2008 08:44:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Law Matters</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Copyright]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Infringement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intellectual Property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal Provisions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Primers]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawmatters.in/content/penalties-and-remedies-under-the-copyright-act-291.html</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In cases of copyright infringement, three types of action can be taken. The person whose name appears on the work as being its author or publisher is assumed to actually be its author or publisher, as the case may be, &#8230; <a href="http://lawmatters.in/content/penalties-and-remedies-under-the-copyright-act-291">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawmatters.in/content/penalties-and-remedies-under-the-copyright-act-291/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Communication to the Public</title>
		<link>http://lawmatters.in/content/communication-to-the-public-60</link>
		<comments>http://lawmatters.in/content/communication-to-the-public-60#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Mar 2008 10:55:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Law Matters</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Copyright]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Infringement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intellectual Property]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawmatters.in/content/communication-to-the-public-60.html</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Note: CS (OS) 1096/2007 is listed in the Delhi High Court website as SUPER CASSETTES INDUSTRIES LTD.Â Vs. MR. SAMEER KUKHREJA &#38; ANR.. This is not the same name which is mentioned in the article I came across the case in &#8230; <a href="http://lawmatters.in/content/communication-to-the-public-60">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawmatters.in/content/communication-to-the-public-60/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Trademark Non-infringement</title>
		<link>http://lawmatters.in/content/trademark-noninfringement-42</link>
		<comments>http://lawmatters.in/content/trademark-noninfringement-42#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Feb 2008 10:32:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Guest</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Infringement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intellectual Property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trademarks]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawmatters.in/content/trademark-noninfringement-42.html</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Eli Lilly and Company and Lilly Icos LLC v. 8PM Chemist Ltd Patients within the USÂ bought Eli Lilly drugs cheaply outside the US. They placed an order in with a Candian company which then placed an order with a Turkish &#8230; <a href="http://lawmatters.in/content/trademark-noninfringement-42">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawmatters.in/content/trademark-noninfringement-42/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Tinker, Tailor, Dentist?</title>
		<link>http://lawmatters.in/content/tinker-tailor-dentist-20</link>
		<comments>http://lawmatters.in/content/tinker-tailor-dentist-20#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Jan 2008 02:45:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Law Matters</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Cases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Infringement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intellectual Property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trademarks]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawmatters.in/content/tinker-tailor-dentist-20.html</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Lacoste lost its trademark dispute with a dental practice which used a (very dissimilar) crocodile in its logo a while ago. The coverage of the case in the media has been hard to miss not least because, I suppose, one &#8230; <a href="http://lawmatters.in/content/tinker-tailor-dentist-20">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawmatters.in/content/tinker-tailor-dentist-20/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

