It’s time to break the old copyright rules

Within a year of her death, the Pantone Color Institute created a new shade of purple in her memory called Love Symbol #2. His estate immediately tried to secure the rights to it, so that no one could use that specific shade of purple in concerts. In doing so, it seemed to join a long line of entities that have done what was previously considered impossible – claim exclusive rights over the use of a color.

We may not know it, but many companies already have exclusive rights to the colors they identify with their brands. UPS has a trademark on the shade of brown, colored with its delivery vans, 3M for the unmistakable Post-It yellow, Fisher for the orange of its scissor handle and T-Mobile for the magenta of its logo. And they vigorously prosecute infringement of their trademarks. Mattel sued MCA Records for the use of its trademark pink color on the music video artwork for Barbie Girl by Aqua. Christian Louboutin sued to prevent rival Yves Saint Laurent from infringing on the soles of his trademark red shoes.

You don’t need to be an intellectual property lawyer to understand how self-destructive this can be. There are only so many shades and we’ll run out of colors long before companies that want them. But even before that, brands would claim shades so similar to each other that no one would be able to tell them apart.

To me, this is just another example of how the limits of intellectual property protection are being pushed beyond their tolerable limits.

Take a look at what’s happening in copyright law. The gradual expansion of the copyright terms has allowed royalties to be collected on the use of Mickey Mouse beyond the period of 56 years that was the original right based on when the character was first created. Mickey Mouse will finally enter the public domain on January 1, 2024 – unless copyright law is further amended before that. Even the rights to Happy Birthday are in corporate hands, earning them about $2 million in royalties each time the song is used in a movie, TV show or commercial. Until, a federal judge in the US invalidated his claim on the grounds that the copyright to the song’s lyrics had not been lawfully transferred in the first place.

Patents were originally conceptualized as a way to provide an incentive to inventors to invest in research and development—especially in areas with a historically low strike rate of success. Unfortunately, instead of encouraging research into new molecules, it used considerable resources for pharmaceutical companies to find ways to extend the validity of existing blockbuster drugs—far beyond the original duration of their patents on it. What’s worse is that thanks to the one-size-fits-all nature of patent protection, all inventions are entitled to the same period of protection—whether they took a lifetime to invent or are simple software innovations that every are started in six months. with very little effort.

Intellectual property laws were supposed to encourage creativity, promote innovation and protect brand value. They did this by creating artificial monopolies, which allowed holders of exclusive rights to monetize their artistic creations and inventions, and ensured that no one else was unfairly traded by passing their products under brands other than building their reputation over the decades. Do not benefit from However, monopolies are inherently unfair, and if we are not careful, what was intended to protect artists and inventors will enable aggregators, publishers and large corporate entities to maintain their strong positions.

Thankfully, India has avoided following the path shown by America most of the time. For example, you cannot claim trademark rights on a color in India unless it is associated with a registered mark. And while it is true that the copyright law in India has been extended from time to time, it has been done largely to stay in line with other countries. While there are more than a few software patents granted in India, our Patent Office sets far higher standards than those in force in the US. To its credit, it has stood firm against attempts to ‘evergreen’ existing patents, despite strong pressure brought by Big Pharma.

Today is the time to reevaluate how intangible assets should be protected. We should not be afraid to abandon laws and legal frameworks that are no longer relevant in the light of modern technologies and commercial realities, even if they were understandable when they were first enacted. Where necessary, we should not shy away from creating new classes of intellectual property designed to protect software and digital technologies, instead attempting to forcefully fit them into pigeonholes that never intended to overshadow their framework. Didn’t intend to adjust. Above all, we need to ensure that temporary protections introduced to offer incentives for artistic, intellectual and commercial endeavors, whether by inspection or design, are not permanent.

Rahul Mathan is a participant in Trilegal and also a podcast called Ex Machina. His twitter handle @matthan . Is

first article