File Copyright Online - File mutual Divorce in Delhi - Online Legal Advice - Lawyers in India

John Doe Order

A John Doe order is a type of pre-infringement injunction used to safeguard the creator's intellectual property rights in artistic works such as movies and songs. The Rolling Anton Pillar, Anton Pillar, or Ashok Kumar order is another name for the John Doe order. The concept of a John Doe order was developed by the Court of Queen's Bench in the United Kingdom as an extraordinary equitable remedy in which an injunction order is issued against an unknown defendant, allowing the plaintiff to search and seize the infringer's premises with the goal of preserving evidence that might be destroyed.

The John Doe order concept has changed over time to meet the needs of keeping up with unusual complications. In India, intellectual property rights have been recognised to protect the rights of those who invest in research and development, and the government has enacted various laws to protect the rights of investors and researchers, including the Copyrights Act of 1957 and the Patent Act of 1970.

However, these laws are insufficient to address conflicts of interest in matters involving trademarks, copyright infringement, and personal privacy, among other things. The emergence and acknowledgment of intellectual property rights have prompted Indian courts to intervene in situations of copyright infringement. One notable result of such efforts is the John Doe order.

John Doe Orders in India

Order 30 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure states that if a petitioner has reason to believe that his or her information will be used to infringe on copyrights, or if he or she has reason to believe that his or her works will be copied for financial gain, he or she may petition the court for a John Doe order.

Under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the court has the authority to issue a John Doe order by issuing an injunction order.

The John Doe order has gained international recognition and internal acceptance as a method of enforcing intellectual property rights. Although Indian courts have begun issuing John Doe orders, their usefulness and implementation need to be observed.

In Delhi High Court, Taj Television Ltd. & Anr. vs. Rajan Mandal & Ors. ([2003] F.S.R. 22), The first ex-parte interim order was issued, allowing the plaintiff to search and seize the equipment and gadgets of unknown defendants, kicking off the jurisprudence of issuing orders against unknown defendants, which is known as John Doe's/ Ashok Kumar's order.

This case gave John Doe orders in India due recognition, and since then, other courts have utilised similar principles to defend the rights of intellectual property creators.

In Delhi High Court, ESPN Software v Tudu Enterprises (CS/OS/384/2011), The use of the John Doe order is not limited to the media business; it has spread to other fields as well. One example is when a court orders the seizure of counterfeit products in the possession of an unknown person for infringement of the plaintiff's trademark and copyright.

The John Doe order is based on several instances in which a court must issue such orders even before an infringement occurs. It is done in the form of a Quia Timet injunction to preserve the plaintiff's rights and to prevent threatening or imminent unjust acts by an unknown defendant. In India, the John Doe order has not been extended to include violations of intellectual property rights. People are unaware that it exists, even though it was already included in our criminal laws to safeguard intellectual property infringement.

Conditions to pass John Doe Order

Order 39, regulations 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC), coupled with S. 151 of the CPC and the provisions of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 related to permanent injunctions, are used by Indian courts to issue John Doe orders. There are some requirements that must be met in order for the Court to issue a John Doe order.

The following are some of the conditions that have been mentioned in various legal rulings:

  • A prima facie case must be established by the plaintiff(s).
  • The plaintiff(s) must also show that if the John Doe order is not passed, he or she will suffer real or probable damage or irreparable losses.
  • The plaintiff should win on the balance of convenience.

In Supreme court of India, Laxmikant vs. Patel vs. Chetanbhat Shah and Anr (Appeal (civil) 8266-8267 of 2001), wherein the Supreme Court held in no uncertain terms that a person may sell his goods or deliver his services under a trading name or style that, with the passage of time, may acquire a reputation or goodwill and may become a property to be protected by the Courts, while considering a plea of passing off and grant of an ad interim injunction.

It was decided that a rival who starts selling goods or services under the same name or imitates the name injures the business of the person who owns the property in that name. It was held that in the world of business, honesty and fair play are and should be the basic policy, and that when a person adopts or intends to adopt a name in connection with his business or services that already belongs to someone else, it causes confusion and has the potential to divert the customers and clients of someone else to himself, causing injury.

Conclusion
Although the John Doe order appears to be in the correct path from a security standpoint, its fundamental goal must be protected. The basic goal of the injunction should not be altered by a vague injunction, as this can be an abuse of the legal process, and this type of general and vague anticipatory injunction should never be issued. To preserve the public's interest, the breadth and scope of such directives should be clearly defined to prevent misuse.

In India, the use of John Doe orders has resulted in an unusual increase in knowledge and a sense of protection among Intellectual Property owners. The main point of the John Doe order in front of the court of law is that what if the unidentified defendants are:
  1. unaware of such orders or
  2. unwilling to follow such orders or
  3. avoids and prefers to continue with such infringement even after that, then what is the point of having served such orders as it will be completely useless if the ultimate goal of having IPR protection.
Reference:
  1. Taj Television Ltd. & Anr. vs. Rajan Mandal & Ors. ([2003] F.S.R. 22
  2. ESPN Software v Tudu Enterprises (CS/OS/384/2011)
  3. Laxmikant vs. Patel vs. Chetanbhat Shah and Anr (Appeal (civil) 8266-8267 of 2001)
  4. John Doe Order.
  5. Order 39 rule 1
Also Read:
  1. John Doe Order And Intellectual Property Right

Law Article in India

Ask A Lawyers

You May Like

Legal Question & Answers



Lawyers in India - Search By City

Copyright Filing
Online Copyright Registration


LawArticles

Section 482 CrPc - Quashing Of FIR: Guid...

Titile

The Inherent power under Section 482 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (37th Chapter of th...

Whether Caveat Application is legally pe...

Titile

Whether in a criminal proceeding a Caveat Application is legally permissible to be filed as pro...

How To File For Mutual Divorce In Delhi

Titile

How To File For Mutual Divorce In Delhi Mutual Consent Divorce is the Simplest Way to Obtain a D...

The Factories Act,1948

Titile

There has been rise of large scale factory/ industry in India in the later half of nineteenth ce...

Copyright: An important element of Intel...

Titile

The Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) has its own economic value when it puts into any market ...

Law of Writs In Indian Constitution

Titile

Origin of Writ In common law, Writ is a formal written order issued by a body with administrati...

Lawyers Registration
Lawyers Membership - Get Clients Online


File caveat In Supreme Court Instantly