#BulletinBoard (October 16, 2018)

Petition filed in Delhi High Court for regulation of content on web streaming services

A petition has been filed in the Delhi High Court for regulation of content available on web streaming platforms such as Netflix, Amazon Prime etc. The petition asks for the intervention of the High Court to clamp down on “unregulated, uncertified, sexually explicit, vulgar, profane and legally restricted content broadcasted on the online platforms…”

Supreme Court reiterates that the court deciding a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act has no jurisdiction to remand the matter back to the arbitrator

In the case of Radha Chemicals v. Union of India, the Supreme Court has reiterated its decision in the Kinnari Mullick & Anr. Ghanshyam Das Damani and held that a court while deciding a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 cannot remand the matter back to the arbitrator.

No Intellectual Property Right in Customer Lists: Delhi High Court Judgment favouring employees

The Delhi High Court in the case of Navigator Logistics Ltd. v. Kashif Qureshi & Ors. has held that there can be no copyright on a client list as it is prepared without employment of any skill, judgment and labour. Unless it is proven that the compilation of the client list involves some amount of originality, a copyright cannot subsist in it.

The second issue to be determined was the confidentiality of client lists and if it can be prevented by confidentiality clauses in the employment agreement. The Delhi High Court ruled that the onus is on the employer to establish the economic and commercial value of the client list and that in this day and age of business directories it is not possible to claim confidentiality in every client list.

Disclaimer

As per rules of the Bar Council of India, advocates are not permitted to solicit work or advertise. By clicking on the “I agree” button below and accessing this website, the User acknowledges that by accessing this website (www.gamechangerlaw.com):