Monthly Archives: January 2013

Legal Management System In India

In the present modern world professional areas have intermixed. A lawyer is no more an ordinary lawyer but he must be a technology lover too. Similarly, a computer professional is no more a computer freak alone but he must be aware of the legal provisions like cyber law and cyber forensics as well. Similarly, a management professional must also possess technology and law related knowledge as well.

The concept of legal management system in India originates out of this multi discipline approach of today’s professional requirements. Scope of improvement exists in both legal and judicial system of India.

In the legal fields, legal management may be useful for lawyers, public prosecutors and law graduates to not only acquire technology related skills but also to perform their traditional works more efficiently and effectively. Perry4Law’s Techno Legal Base (PTLB) is providing techno legal trainings and legal management services to legal fraternity of India. It is providing trainings and education in the fields like cyber law, cyber security, cyber forensics, e-discovery, e-courts, skills development, etc.

Similarly, Perry4Law and PTLB are also catering the techno legal requirements of Indian judiciary. They provide techno legal trainings to judges and court staff so that they can effectively use ICT for day to day judicial functions. In fact, Perry4Law and PTLB manage and operate the exclusive techno legal e-courts training and consultancy centre of India.

Indian government has sanctioned around Rs 1000 Crore to judiciary for establishment of e-courts. Indian legal and judicial system can be greatly benefited by the legal management system model of institutions like PTLB. Let us hope Law Minister of India would think seriously about using the models suggested by PTLB.

Source: Techno Legal News.

Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) Legal Firms In India

Intellectual property (IP) laws firms in India are playing a major role in the global IP protection and enforcement. Many individuals and companies are utilising the services of Indian law firms and lawyers to protect their respective IP rights.

However, techno legal issues have complicated the traditional IP rights management. These days information technology is increasingly being used world over that is both facilitating and infringing the IP rights of others. Thus, role of traditional IP law firms has significantly changed.

These days an IP rights can be protected only if the law firm or lawyer is/are good at both IP and technical aspects. This is the point where cyber law firms in India assume significant that can manage both IP related and IT related aspects. This requirement has made a clear distinction between traditional and contemporary intellectual property rights services in India.

There are many good IPRs law firms in India that are catering the requirements of various IPRs holders. However, Perry4Law is the exclusive techno legal ICT law firm of India that is providing many techno legal services in India of unique nature. These include corporate, technology and IPRs service as well.

Indian IP law firms and lawyers must adopt the technological revolution that is changing the entire service sectors world over. As more and more IT is being used to protect and enforce IP rights at global level, ignoring IT issues is not a wise option.

International treaties and agreements have further extended the otherwise territorial nature of IP protection and rights. Now even international treaties have recognised that IP enforcement must be made keeping in mind the technological developments.

For instance, with the adoption of Madrid agreement and Madrid protocol by India, trademarks protection in India would be given a new meaning. International registration of trademarks under Madrid agreement and Madrid protocol would also increase in future.

The IP law firms and lawyers of India must change gears now as even the Indian government has adopted technological methods to file and pursue IP rights in India. E-filing of various IP applications along with their online dealing is gradually becoming popular in India. Perry4Law has set the example that others must follow in India.

Source: Cjnews India.

Trademark IP Law Firms And Lawyers In India

Intellectual property rights (IPRs) in India protect variety of IPRs segments. These includes copyright, trademark, patents, etc. Further, there are many good intellectual property (IP) laws firms in India that are providing world class services. In short, IPRs law firms in India are helping in protecting national and international IPRs.

IP law firms of India are also facilitating trademark registration in India. They are also assisting in renewal of expired trademarks in India and United States. With an increase of e-commerce in India, many multi national companies have started exploring Indian territories as well. For instance, recently USPTO granted Apple trademarks for its retail outlets designs and layout. This is a significant trend in the field of e-commerce related trademarks issues in US and India.

The trademarks law of India is incorporated in the Trade Marks Act 1999. The Act prescribes the procedure for registration of trademarks in India, examination of applications, filing of convention trademark applications in India, registration of collective marks in India, etc.

There are many good law firms in India that provide trademark registration and prosecution services. Perry4Law and Perry4Law Techno Legal Base (PTLB) are providing the exclusive techno legal intellectual property rights services in India. Further, Perry4Law and PTLB are also managing the technological issues of IPRs in India and world wide.

For instance, Perry4Law is the most successful law firm in India in getting copyright and trademark violating materials removed through the DMCA proceedings. Further, Perry4Law is also very successful in getting removed “offending materials” from various foreign websites and social media websites. Perry4Law is also helping in managing online brand protection, online reputation management, social media compliances, etc.

Perry4Law is also the exclusive techno legal online dispute resolution provider of India. The ODR centre and e-courts centre of Perry4Law and PTLB are world renowned and are the exclave centers in India.

Further, Perry4Law and PTLB are also managing the domain name dispute resolution in India and are the exclusive techno legal domain name dispute resolution services providers in India.

Legal rights objection assistance for new GTLDs by Perry4Law is also provided. The issues of new GTLDs, ICANN and domain names disputes resolutions would arise in the near future. Perry4Law extends assistance for defending independent objections and legal rights objections for ICANN’s new GTLDs as well.

Clearly, the trademark protection and management, brand protection, online reputation management ad new GTLDs management services of Perry4law are matchless and are simply one of the best in the world. This also makes Perry4Law one of the best trademarks law firms of India and world wide.

Source: Techno Legal Journalists.

Renewal Of An Expired Trademark In India And United States

Trademark law of India is passing through an interesting and developmental phase. Recently Samsung has raised the issue of international exhaustion of a trademark under Indian trademark law. Similarly, trademarks registrations in India have also increased as India is becoming a favourite destination for commercial activities world over.

Trademark registration in India is regulated by the Trademarks Act 1999 of India. A registered trademark is valid for a period of 10 years that can be renewed for another 10 years at a time. Further, international registration of trademarks under Madrid Agreement and Madrid Protocol can also be explored by applicants. However, the Madrid Agreement and Madrid Protocol and its applicability and implementation in India are still in a flux.

There may be cases where a trademark holder fails to renew his/her/its trademark in time. Renewal of an expired trademark is the only option left in such cases. In India even if the mark has been expired, one can apply for its re-registration. If someone else applies for registration of expired trademark as per the prescribed procedure, owner of expired trademark can file objections at the registry, tribunal or appropriate forum.

In United States (US), to keep the registration alive or valid for all trademarks registrations, except for non Madrid Protocol based registrations, the registration owner must file specific documents and pay fees at regular intervals.  Failure to file these documents will result in the cancellation of his/her/its registration.

For Madrid Protocol Based Registration, after the protection is granted to the international registration and a U.S. registration issues, to keep protection in the U.S., the U.S. registration owner must file specific documents and pay fees at regular intervals. Failure to file these documents will result in the cancellation of his/her/its U.S. registration and the invalidation of protection of the international registration by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).

Under Section 8 of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §1058, a §8 Declaration of Continued Use is required to be given by the trademark owner. The Declaration is a sworn statement, filed by the owner of a registration that the mark is in use in commerce. If the owner is claiming excusable nonuse of the mark, a §8 Declaration of Excusable Nonuse may be filed. The purpose of the §8 Declaration is to remove marks no longer in use from the register.

The USPTO will cancel any registration on either the Principal Register or the Supplemental Register if a timely §8 Declaration is not filed by the current owner of the registration during the prescribed time periods.  The USPTO has no authority to waive or extend the deadline for filing a proper §8 Declaration. Registrations finally cancelled after the expiry of permissible period due to the failure to file a §8 Declaration cannot be reinstated or revived.  A new application to pursue registration of the mark again must be filed.

Holders (owners) of registered extensions of protection to the U.S. (also called §66(a) registrations, registrations resulting from 79’ series applications, international registrations extended to the U.S.) who wish to maintain the protection granted their mark in the U.S. pursuant to the Madrid Protocol must file an affidavit or declaration of use in commerce or excusable nonuse to avoid cancellation of protection in U.S. Such affidavits are required pursuant to Section 71, 15 U.S.C. §1141k, of the Trademark Act.  The USPTO has no authority to waive or extend the deadline for filing a proper §71 Declaration.  Registrations finally cancelled after the expiry of permissible period due to the failure to file a §71 Declaration cannot be reinstated or revived.  A new application to pursue registration of the mark again must be filed.

The holder of a registered extension of protection of an international registration to the U.S. must file an application for renewal of the international registration with the International Bureau (IB). Renewal of international registrations is governed by Article 7 of the Madrid Protocol and Rules 29 – 31 of the Common Regulations under the Madrid Agreement and Protocol.

A renewal can be filed during the six months before expiry of the period of protection or in the six months following the expiry of the current period of protection with the payment of a surcharge.

The term of an international registration is ten years, and it may be renewed for ten years upon payment of the renewal fee.

Perry4Law hope this information would be useful to all concerned stakeholders.

Source: IPR Services In India.

USPTO Grants Apple Trademarks For Its Retail Outlets Designs And Layout

Apple has been vigorously protecting its brand and trademark around the world. In one such example, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) accepted Apple’s request last week for trademarks on the minimalist design and layout of its retail outlets.

With a booming e-commerce in India, Apple must be planning to protect its brand and trademark in India as well. Apple has already showed its displeasure for the Asian region, especially in China. In 2011, authorities in the Chinese city of Kunming stopped 22 fake Apple stores from illegally using the company’s trademarks after Apple lodged a complaint with authorities.

Since trademark is territorial in nature, Apple must also protect its interests in the Indian territory. Intellectual property rights (IPRs) in India are well known and India has a strong trademark law in the form of Trademarks Act, 1999.

Further, international registration of trademarks under Madrid Agreement and Madrid Protocol can also be explored by Apple. The Madrid Agreement and Madrid Protocol and its applicability and implementation in India are still in a flux.

Apple said in its application in May, 2010 that it was not claiming color as a feature of the mark. The mark consists of the distinctive design and layout of a retail store, it said.

Apple must be very careful while engaging in e-commerce activities in India. There are well recognised legal requirements to start an e-commerce website in India and the legal formalities required for starting e-commerce business in India. Similar regulatory requirements do exist in other countries as well.

For instance, Apple was recently fined in Beijing Court for unauthorised e-book sales. Similarly, there are many cyber laws due diligence requirements in India that companies like Apple must comply with in India in order to engage in legally sustainable e-commerce business activities.

There are many techno legal compliance requirements that e-commerce portals, including Apple, Amazon, E-Bay and others, must comply with. At Perry4Law and Perry4Law’s Techno Legal Base (PTLB) we believe that cyber law due diligence, Internet intermediary liability and cyber due diligence for Indian companies must be kept in mind by various e-commerce websites and players.

At the end of the day managing techno legal IP a requirement is of great importance to all concerned who are eying upon India as a market.

Source: IPR Services In India.

Legal Rights Objections Under ICANN’s New GTLD Domain Registration Program

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) has proposed registration of new generic top level domain names (new GTLDs) in the past. In order to comply with that proposal, ICANN’s new generic top level domain names (new GTLDs) registration has begun.

There is a time limit within which the applicants must apply for a new GTLD. The new GTLDs application process has already been initiated from 12 January 2012 and it would conclude on 29th March 2012. As on 12-02-2012, the applicants have 46 more days to apply for new GTLDs.

However, in the zest of applying to new GTLDs, the applicants must not forget to do their home works properly. Perry4Law and Perry4Law Techno Legal Base (PTLB) recommend a prior and thorough risks and benefits analysis of applying to new GTLDs registration to ICANN. This should include techno legal analysis, new GTLDs due diligence, possible Legal Rights Objections under ICANN’s New GTLD scheme, etc.

In this work we are analysing the Legal Rights Objections part of the new GTLDs registration procedure of ICANN. Prior to ICANN’s approval of a new GTLD, third parties may file a formal objection to an application on several grounds, including, for trademark owners and Intergovernmental Organisations (IGOs), on the basis of a “Legal Rights Objection.”

When such an objection is filed, an independent panel (comprised of one or three external, neutral experts) will determine whether the applicant’s potential use of the applied-for GTLD would be likely to infringe the objector’s existing trademark, or IGO name or acronym.

To address potential disputes over new GTLD applications, ICANN offers three other types of pre-delegation objection-based dispute resolution procedures. These are “String Confusion Objection,” “Limited Public Interest Objection,” and “Community Objection.” For the latter two types of objections, ICANN is also making available an “Independent Objector” by way of public service. ICANN has furthermore established a process for the ICANN Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) to provide “GAC Advice on New GTLDs” concerning applications identified by governments as problematic.

The independent panel constituted for resolution of Legal Rights Objection will determine whether the potential use of the applied-for GTLD by the applicant:

(i) Takes unfair advantage of the distinctive character or the reputation of the objector’s registered or unregistered trademark or service mark (“mark”) or IGO name or acronym, or

(ii) Unjustifiably impairs the distinctive character or the reputation of the objector’s mark or IGO name or acronym, or

(iii) Otherwise creates an impermissible likelihood of confusion between the applied-for GTLD and the objector’s mark or IGO name or acronym.

The panel will ordinarily determine the merits of the objection based solely on the parties’ pleadings, and may make reference to a range of non-exclusive consideration factors.

For an objection based on trademark rights, the panel will consider the following non exclusive consideration factors:

(i) Whether the applied-for GTLD is identical or similar, including in appearance, phonetic sound, or meaning, to the objector’s existing mark.

(ii) Whether the objector’s acquisition and use of rights in the mark has been bona fide.

(iii) Whether and to what extent there is recognition in the relevant sector of the public of the sign corresponding to the GTLD, as the mark of the objector, of the applicant or of a third party.

(iv) Applicant’s intent in applying for the GTLD, including whether the applicant, at the time of application for the GTLD, had knowledge of the objector’s mark, or could not have reasonably been unaware of that mark, and including whether the applicant has engaged in a pattern of conduct whereby it applied for or operates TLDs or registrations in TLDs which are identical or confusingly similar to the marks of others.

(v) Whether and to what extent the applicant has used, or has made demonstrable preparations to use, the sign corresponding to the GTLD in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a bona fide provision of information in a way that does not interfere with the legitimate exercise by the objector of its mark rights.

(vi) Whether the applicant has marks or other intellectual property rights in the sign corresponding to the GTLD, and, if so, whether any acquisition of such a right in the sign, and use of the sign, has been bona fide, and whether the purported or likely use of the GTLD by the applicant is consistent with such acquisition or use.

(vii) Whether and to what extent the applicant has been commonly known by the sign corresponding to the GTLD, and if so, whether any purported or likely use of the GTLD by the applicant is consistent therewith and bona fide.

(viii) Whether the applicant’s intended use of the GTLD would create a likelihood of confusion with the objector’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the GTLD.

For an objection based on rights in the name or acronym of an IGO, the panel will consider the following non-exclusive consideration factors:

(i) Whether the applied-for gTLD is identical or similar, including in appearance, phonetic sound or meaning, to the name or acronym of the objecting IGO.

(ii) Historical coexistence of the IGO and the applicant’s use of a similar name or acronym. Factors considered may include: a. Level of global recognition of both entities;

(iii) Length of time the entities have been in existence; c. Public historical evidence of their existence, which may include whether the objecting IGO has communicated its name or abbreviation under Article 6ter of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property.

(iv) Whether and to what extent the applicant has used, or has made demonstrable preparations to use, the sign corresponding to the TLD in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a bona fide provision of information in a way that does not interfere with the legitimate exercise of the objecting IGO’s name or acronym.

(v) Whether and to what extent the applicant has been commonly known by the sign corresponding to the applied-for GTLD, and if so, whether any purported or likely use of the GTLD by the applicant is consistent therewith and bona fide.

(vi) Whether the applicant’s intended use of the applied-for GTLD would create a likelihood of confusion with the objecting IGO’s name or acronym as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the TLD.

After closing the application window (from January 12 to March 29, 2012) and posting all applications, ICANN will announce the opening of the objection filing window. Currently, the objection filing window is anticipated to be seven months, from approximately May 1 to December 1, 2012. (More or less in parallel with the latter filing window, ICANN will be undertaking a so-called Initial Evaluation of applications for compliance with ICANN Applicant Guidebook formalities.)

All Legal Rights Objections must be submitted electronically with a copy of the objection to ICANN and the applicant. The objection filing fee must be submitted at the time of filing. An objection must contain at least the following: (i) the names and full contact information of the objector; (ii) a statement of the objector’s basis for standing under the procedure; and (iii) a confirmation of the basis for the objection (i.e., “Legal Rights Objection”) including “an explanation of the validity of the objection and why the objection should be upheld.” Responses must also be submitted electronically with a copy to ICANN and the objector. The response filing fee must be submitted at the time of filing of the response.

A response must contain at least the following: (i) the names and full contact information of the applicant; and (ii) a “point-by-point response to the statements made in the objection.” An applicant’s failure to reply to an objection would be considered a “default” and would result in the objection being deemed successful.

On receipt of an objection or response, an administrative compliance review would be conducted and case filing fee would be processed. Any administrative deficiencies must be corrected within five (5) days of notification. Within 30 days of the close of the objection window, ICANN will publish a “Dispute Announcement” listing all administratively compliant objections. The applicants would be notified of any objections and the applicants will then have 30 days to file a response. Within 30 days of receiving a response, an expert panel would be appointed. Normally the panel will render its determination within 45 days of appointment.

For a case involving an objection to one application (i.e., for one GTLD) to be decided by one expert, the fee will be USD 10,000 for each party (this includes a non-refundable USD 2,000 case administration fee), subject to a refund of the expert fee (USD 8,000) to the prevailing party. Different fee arrangements apply to three-member panels and to possible consolidation scenarios.

Non-payment of fees by an objector will result in rejection of the objection, without panel appointment. Non payment of response fees by an applicant will result in the objection being deemed successful.

The substantive portion of an objection or response is limited to 5,000 words or 20 pages, whichever is less, excluding attachments. The objector or applicant must also list, describe and provide copies of any attached supporting evidence.

The remedies are limited to the success or dismissal of the objection. There are no monetary damages, but the prevailing party is entitled to a partial refund of the panel fee (as described above).

A panel determination is “considered an expert determination and advice that ICANN will accept within the dispute resolution process.” Such determination is independent of any determination under either of the other types of ICANN objection options available.

The availability of the Legal Rights Objection as an administrative dispute resolution option does not preclude court options which either party may have to submit the dispute to court.

Perry4Law and PTLB believe that applying for and getting new GTLDs requires well planned techno legal strategy. A company or individual desiring to apply for the same need to analyse all the possible strengths and weaknesses of his application well in advance. While the strengths must be further improved special work need to be done upon the weakness of such future application. Perry4Law and PTLB wish all the best to future GTLDs applicants.

Source: IPR Services In India.

Legal Issues Of New GTLDs Applications And Registrations

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) has recently approved allotment of new generic top level domain names (new gTLDs). With this brand and trademark owners can now register their brands and trademarks as the gTLDs.

However, this process would also witness many techno legal issues as well. Issues of cyber squatting and domain names violations, brands violations, trademark violations, ensuring security of new gTLDs, etc may arise. Further, many unforeseen challenges that cannot be anticipated and warned against may also arise in future.

If a person or organisation thinks that the filing of a gTLD application would be an easy task he/it would be greatly surprised. ICANN is in no mood of allowing “casual filing” and only the applicants “proving bonfide claims” would be granted the new gTLDs.

Firstly, the application form itself is very bulky that requires a techno legal analysis. Since the fees of US $ 1, 85,000 is a big one, no organisation or individual would like to go it waste. If the application for gTLDs is not properly filed after taking care of various technical and legal aspects, it may be rejected by ICANN. Further, an incomplete or weak application may also face “opposition proceedings” subsequently

In short, with an increase in new gTLDs registrations, issues like domain names protection, brands protection, trademarks protection, cybersquatting disputes resolution, cyber law compliances, cyber security requirements, cyber due diligence, etc would also arise. Brand owners and trademark owners must prepare their “strategy” in this regard well in advance.

The new gTLDs application process would start from 12 January 2012 to 12 April 2012. Brand owners and trademark owners need to ensure “due diligence” in this regard as soon as possible as that would give them additional time to ensure that their applications are accepted. ICANN is also planning a global outreach policy to raise awareness in this regard.

Perry4Law and Perry4Law Techno Legal Base (PTLB) believe that applying for and getting a new gTLDs requires well planned techno legal strategy. A company or individual desiring to apply for the same need to analyse all the possible strengths and weaknesses of his application well in advance. While the strengths must be further improved special work need to be done upon the weakness of such future application. Perry4Law and PTLB wish all the best to future gTLDs applicants.

Source: ICTPS Blog.

Crisis Management Plan (CMP) For Preventing Cyber Attacks On The Power Utilities In India

Cyber security for power energy and utilities in India is a major cause of concern these days. As cyber attacks are increasing against India, power utilities are also vulnerable to these cyber attacks. To effectively tackle the menace of cyber attacks against India, a crisis management plan of India for cyber attacks and cyber terrorism is absolutely required. A crisis management plan (CMP) is essentially part of the anti cyber attack plan of India that is presently missing.

CMP pertaining to information and communication technology (ICT) is also an essential part of national ICT policy of India. The other parts of national ICT policy of India are cyber security policy of India, critical infrastructure protection policy of India, critical national infrastructure protection policy of India from cyber attacks, national security policy of India, etc.

The position of cyber security in India is not very good. There us a lack of cyber security awareness in India. Techno legal expertise to manage cyber security issues of India is also missing. The critical infrastructure protection in India is not satisfactory and we still miss an implementable critical ICT infrastructure protection policy of India. The critical infrastructures around the world like power grids, nuclear facilities, satellites, defense networks, governmental informatics infrastructures, etc are vulnerable to known and unknown malware.

Cyber security challenges for smart grids and utilities in India are well known in India. Realising the cyber security risks of power utilities and sector of India, the Power Ministry of India has directed all state governments to ensure that power utilities are ready with crisis management plans for restoring normalcy in the “shortest possible time” in case of disruptions in generation, transmission or distribution of electricity. Indian government has also recently announced that cyber security awareness brochures would be mandatory for hardware sales in India.

At Perry4Law and Perry4Law’s Techno Legal Base (PTLB) we welcome this move of Indian government and we believe that this is a good step in the right direction. This direction must include cyber security preparedness on the part of power utilities of India as well, if the same has not already been prescribed. As on date, the state government regulated power utilities are grossly deficient in ensuring cyber security for their respective grids.

The proposed CMP for power utilities of India should also have details about “hierarchical set up at various levels” to ensure effective handling of crisis situations. Such plans would be applicable for both public and private sector entities. The Central Electricity Authority (CEA) has already written to all state governments asking them to prepare crisis management plans with regard to power utilities of their respective states.

India must develop both offensive and defensive cyber security capabilities that must be robust enough to detect and nullify cyber warfare against India, cyber terrorism against India, cyber attacks against India, cyber espionage against India, etc. Cyber security of banks in India is still deficient. The business community must also keep in mind the cyber law due diligence requirements in India. Cyber due diligence for Indian companies is now a statutory obligation and failure to observe cyber due diligence can bring serious legal ramifications.

Power grids and utilities cyber security in India and their challenges are not easy to manage. They require a systematic, dedicated and security oriented approach on the part of Indian government. In fact, smart meters are becoming headache for power companies world wide.

With the advent of sophisticated and specially customised malware like Stuxnet, Duqu, Flame, etc critical infrastructures like power grids, nuclear facilities, satellites, defense networks, governmental informatics infrastructures, etc are vulnerable to diverse range of cyber attacks.

Perry4Law and PTLB strongly recommend that Indian government must ensure cyber security of energy and utilities in India as soon as possible. SCADA may be the new cyber attack priority for cyber criminals and rouge nations. We must ensure sufficient cyber protection of SCADA systems in India in general and critical infrastructure in particular.

Source: Cyber Security Issues In India.

Indian Online Gambling: Whether Legal Or Not And Applicable Laws

Running online businesses in India require compliance with e-commerce laws and regulations of India. There are many techno legal issues of online business in India that must be complied with before an online store or platform is opened. The exact nature of such legal compliances depends upon the nature of online business.

Surprisingly, the e-commerce compliances in India are really bad and Indian government and various regulatory bodies have not taken any action in this regard so far. For example, cyber law due diligence, Internet intermediary liability and cyber due diligence for Indian companies are some of the compulsory legal issues that have been ignored by almost all e-commerce players of India.

According to India’s leading e-commerce law firm Perry4Law, the most vulnerable categories that have opened their online shops pertain to online pharmacies, online gambling and gaming, electronics, etc. These e-commerce portals are not at all complying with the respective laws of these segments.

Even the Indian government is lax in implementing the regulatory and compliance requirements against these illegal online pharmacies, gambling portals and other similar e-commerce platforms.

In this entire mess a question that requires urgent answer is whether online gambling and betting is legal in India? According to Perry4Law, the golden rule for deciding whether online gambling in India is legal or not has to be judged by many factors that depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case and upon state to state. There are many states in India where gambling is legal and few where even online gambling and betting is legal. However, there are some states like Mumbai where online gambling is expressly prohibited and made a punishable offense. So it depends upon the state where you wish to carry the online gambling and betting business.

Then there is the rule of skills versus chance as laid down by the courts of India. As a general rule, where the game involves application of skill on the part of the player and the element of chance is minimal, the activity would be considered to be a game and not an act of gambling. However, the applicability of this test of skill versus chance may not be applicable to online or Internet games, betting and gambling as various judicial decisions pertaining to different sets of facts and circumstances and can be distinguished easily in subsequent litigations.

Finally, economic and taxation legislations like tax laws of India, anti money laundering laws, etc are also involved while operating online casinos, online gambling and betting and online gamming platforms.  The provisions of these economic legislations are very stringent in nature and can cause great detriment to the owner or operator of the online casino, gambling and betting website.

Perry4Law recommends that to be on a safer side, it is better to comply with various techno legal laws of India while opening an online gambling, gaming and betting platform rather than facing the punitive provisions of Indian laws.

Source: Techno Legal Thoughts.

Electronic Trading Of Medical Drugs In India

Electronic trading or online shopping of commodities is a fast, efficacious and cost effective method of business and commerce. However, e-trading is not a free ride but is subject to well defined rules and regulations world wide. This is more so regarding pharmaceutical products that require an additional precaution while dealing in an online environment.

We have no dedicated e-commerce laws and regulations in India. However, the basic outline of the same has been laid down in the information technology act 2000 (IT Act 2000). The IT Act 2000 is also the sole cyber law of India that primarily deals with contraventions and offences pertaining to e-commerce and e-trading in India.

While we have basic level e-commerce legal framework in India yet e-health related legal framework is missing. For instance, e-health in India is facing legal roadblocks. Till now we do not have any dedicated e-health laws and regulations in India. In the present environment, the legal enablement of e-health in India is urgently required.

This is so because when technology is used for medical purposes, it gives rise to medico legal and techno legal issues. In United States, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (HITECH Act), etc are some of the laws that take care of medico legal and techno legal issues of e-health and telemedicine.

As far as India is concerned, we have no dedicated e-health and telemedicine laws in India. Even essential attributes of these laws like privacy protection, data protection, data security, cyber security, confidentiality maintenance, etc are not governed by much needed dedicated laws.

Ordinary commodities can be comfortably sold through e-commerce websites. However, health related commodities, especially prescribed medicines and drugs, are not easy to manage in an online environment. This is the reason why we have almost nil e-trading of prescribed drugs and medicines in India as on date.

E-trading of medical drugs in India must be undertaken only after complying with the laws of India. There are many cyber laws due diligence requirements in India that e-traders of medical drugs in India must comply. Similarly, foreign websites targeting India for this purpose must also comply with Indian law in order to do legitimate business in India.

Since the issue is of great public interest, Indian government must formulate a dedicated e-trading law for medical drugs in India so that online illegal sale of medical drugs to Indian residents can be curtailed. Presently, many foreign websites are openly offering sale of medicine drugs to Indian residents through e-mails and other digital channels. Such conduct of these foreign companies and websites must be regulated in India so that harm to public at large can be avoided.

Source: E-Commerce Laws And Regulations In India