The Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2023: changes in the realm of Intellectual Property laws.

The Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2023 aims to decriminalize and rationalize various offences in different legislative enactments to foster trust-based governance and improve the ease of living and doing business in India. It introduces a structured revision of fines and penalties, increasing them by 10% every three years, and modifies specific sections across multiple laws to align with updated governance expectations. The Act's implementation reinforces the governmental commitment to creating a less punitive regulatory environment while maintaining the necessary accountability.

The Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2023 decriminalizes and amends various provisions across different Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) legislations. Specifically, amendments regarding patents, trademarks, geographical indications, and copyright laws are being implemented through notifications issued by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry on July 26 and July 29, 2024 which will take effect on August 1, 2024.



image credit: https://currentaffairs.adda247.com

Key Points

  • The Act is designed to amend several laws to promote ease of business by decriminalizing certain offences.
  • It specifies that fines and penalties will increase by 10% at three-year intervals after the Act's commencement.
  • Amendments apply to various historical legislations including The Press Registration Act and The Boilers Act, among others.
  • There shall be no impact on existing rights or liabilities arising from any actions taken before the amendments.
  • The Act mandates a clear process for adjudication and appeals related to penalties imposed under different statutes.
  • The amended provisions allow for the suspension or cancellation of licenses in clearer circumstances while ensuring due process.
  • The provisions of this Act are in line with government efforts to establish more trust-based governance.

IP Specific: 

Amendments to the Patent Act, 1970

1. Increased Penalty for Unauthorized Patent Claims: The penalty for "Unauthorized claim of patent rights" under Section 120 has been raised to 10 lakh, with an additional fine of 1,000 for each day the claim continues. Previously, the maximum penalty was 1 lakh.

2. Omission of Section 121: The provision in Section 121 concerning punishment for the improper use of the term "patent office" has been removed.

3. Reduced Penalty for Non-Compliance: The penalty for "Refusal or failure to supply information" to the Central Government or the Controller under Section 122(1) has been decreased to 1 lakh, along with a daily penalty of 1,000 for ongoing non-compliance. The previous maximum fine was 10 lakh.

4. Decriminalization of False Information Offence: Furnishing false information under Section 122(2) has been decriminalized. Offenders will now face a penalty of 0.5% of total sales or turnover of the business or gross receipts in audited accounts, capped at 5 crore. Previously, such offenders faced imprisonment for up to six months.

5. Modified Penalties for Section 129 Violations: Amendments in Section 123 have adjusted penalties for violations related to Section 129. Now, individuals may incur a penalty of up to 5 lakh, plus 1,000 for each day of continued default. The former penalties required a fine of 1 lakh for first offences and 5 lakh for subsequent offences.

6. Introduction of Adjudication of Penalties: A new provision, Section 124(A), has been established to allow the Controller to authorize an officer to serve as the adjudicating officer responsible for conducting inquiries and imposing penalties.

7. Provision for Appeals: Section 124(B) introduces the right to appeal for individuals aggrieved by the adjudicating officer's order under Section 124(A), allowing them to present their case before an appellate authority.

8. Rule-Making Authority for Inquiry and Appeals: Amendments to Section 159(2) have added two new clauses, granting the Central Government the authority to establish rules governing the procedures for conducting inquiries and imposing penalties under Section 124(A), as well as the format and procedures for appealing under Section 124(B)(2).

The Trade Mark Act, 1999

1. Removal of Penalty for Certain Violations: Section 106, which prescribed penalties for the removal of goods in violation of Section 81, has been repealed.

2. Decriminalization of False Trademark Representation: The act of misrepresenting a trademark as registered has been decriminalized. According to Section 107(2), the penalty will now be capped at 0.5% of the total sales or turnover of the business, or 5 lakh, whichever is lower.

3. Omission of Penalty for Misrepresentation of Business Locations: Section 108, which included penalties for incorrectly describing a place of business as affiliated with the Trade Marks Office, has been repealed, resulting in decriminalization of the offence.

4. Removal of Penalty for Register Entry Falsification: Section 109, which addressed penalties for falsifying entries in the trademark register, has also been repealed, leading to the decriminalization of this offence.

5. Introduction of Adjudication of Penalties: A new section, Section 112A, has been added, allowing the Registrar to designate an officer as the adjudicating officer to conduct inquiries and impose penalties.

6. New Appeal Provision: Section 112B has been introduced to provide a mechanism for individuals affected by the adjudicating officer's decision under Section 112A to appeal to the appellate authority.

7. Decriminalization of Failure to Provide Information on Imported Goods: The requirement to provide information regarding imported goods with false trademarks within fourteen days has been decriminalized, with offenders now facing a penalty of 10,000, as stated in Section 140(3).

8. Rule-Making Authority for Inquiries and Appeals: Amendments to Section 157(2) have added two new clauses, empowering the Central Government to establish rules governing the procedures for conducting inquiries and imposing penalties under Section 112A, as well as the format and procedures for appeals under sub-section (2) of Section 112B.

Amendments to The Copyright Act, 1957

1. Removal of Provision for Disposal of Infringing Copies: Section 68, which previously addressed the disposal of infringing copies or plates intended for creating such copies, has been repealed.

Amendments to The Geographical Indication of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999

1. Introduction of Adjudication of Penalties: A new provision, Section 37A, has been added, allowing the Registrar to appoint an officer as the adjudicating officer to conduct inquiries and impose penalties.

2. New Appeal Mechanism: Section 37B has been introduced to enable individuals affected by an adjudicating officer’s decision under Section 37A to file an appeal with the appellate authority.

3. Decriminalization of False Representation of Geographical Indications: The act of misrepresenting a geographical indication as registered has been decriminalized. Penalties under Section 42(2) will now be limited to either 0.5% of the total business sales or 5 lakh, whichever amount is lower.

4. Omission of Penalty for Misrepresentation of Business Affiliation: Section 43, which imposed penalties for inaccurately describing a place of business as being linked to the Geographical Indications Registry, has been removed, resulting in the decriminalization of this offence.

5. Removal of Penalty for Falsifying Register Entries: Section 44, which outlined penalties for falsifying entries in the geographical indications register, has been repealed, leading to the decriminalization of this action.

6. New Rule-Making Authority for Inquiry and Appeals: Amendments to Section 87(2) have added two new clauses, granting the Central Government the power to create rules governing the procedures for inquiries and imposing penalties under Section 37A, as well as the format and procedures for appeals under sub-section (2) of Section 37B.

 

Source: https://egazette.gov.in/WriteReadData/2023/248047.pdf

 


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Delhi High Court Emphasizes the Importance of Claim Mapping in Patent Cases

Novartis v. Natco_The abandonment of a divisional patent application does not render the parent patent unenforceable.