By: Aastha Arora
Introduction
What liberty means to people is freedom of free speech and expression with a glimpse of freedom to criticize, balancing that all with the right to publicity. In this hyperactive, dynamic, and creative world, every third person wants to be an influencer who wants to gain attention through memes and viral videos or advertising through promotional videos. Publicity is just another way to attract the new community of consumers, which sometimes affects another powerful legal domain – the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression, which also includes freedom to fair criticism.
While IP Laws protect the new inventions and creativity of people’s minds, the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression provides the opportunity to present the true opinions of people and to fairly criticize or sometimes even mock or play cheerful banters to those creations or identity. This creates an uncertainty for the coexistence of both rights side by side.
Understanding Intellectual Property Laws
Intellectual Property flourishes the creations of mind or new innovations and inventions such as literary or artistic works, designs and symbols, or brand names or images or packaging used in commerce or trade. IP Laws include kinds of acts for protecting patents, trademarks, or copyrights which actually help people to gain fame and monetary benefit from their invention or creation.
Basically, IP Laws allow the inventors to make monetary profit as well as build an impeccable image of themselves in society, which will help them to earn royalty over their work in future. This usually encourages them to continue to innovate and create new things for the benefit of society. During these fiercely competitive markets and economies, intellectual property management and protection laws help businesses stand out by establishing a unique identity through various acts included in IP Laws.
Freedom of Speech and Expression: A Constitutional Right
Freedom of Speech and Expression is a fundamental right provided under Article 19(1)(a) of constitutional law, which gives every citizen the right to express their own beliefs and opinions as well as thoughts freely through writing, pictures, word of mouth, etc. When the question arises regarding making fair criticisms, this is also a part of freedom of speech and expression. This is essential because India is a democratic country, and democracy works well when people can actually express their views over any topic or title.
Not only does it provide political as well as social clarity when people are actually heard, but it also includes the right to criticize fairly or within fair limits, which is allowed to citizens in the form of a right that basically motivates them to put forward their personal views over any title of public interest.
The Conflict: When IP Rights Meet Free Speech
Over time, when these two rights are aligned together, it leads towards silencing the right of fair criticism or dissent. As we look towards the bigger picture, every coin has two sides, and every invention or creativity can be looked into two ways – positive and negative. The claims over copyright, inventions, patents, and others can sometimes lead to the suppression of negative points of that particular invention or intellectual property.
Even intellectual properties like patents, copyrights, or trademarks come under the definition of personal assets or private properties, but on the other hand, these are also displayed publicly, which creates a dilemma between identifying this as public or private property. This is the major reason behind suppression of the right to criticize of public within fair limits.
Case Study 1: Coca Cola Company Vs Bisleri International Pvt. Ltd. And Others
This case illustrates the complexities that arise in international trademark disputes and patent rights disputes which must navigate these issues to protect their brand identity. Coca Cola Company sought to prevent Bisleri from selling the product MAAZA, a popular mango-flavored drink, as the dispute arose from Bisleri Company’s registration of selling Maaza drink in Turkey, despite Coca Cola Company holding the trademark and registration of selling the same drink in India.
Bisleri is actually a well-known product of bottled drinking water, and in 1993, Bisleri sold the intellectual property rights to several other companies including Thums Up, Limca, etc., which were primarily associated with the soft drink sector. At that time, Coca Cola Company acquired these brands including Maaza selling rights and began selling it in India.
In 2008, Bisleri began selling Maaza in Turkey by registering its trademark in Turkey. At that point, Coca Cola Company issued a legal notice to Bisleri Company for whether directly or indirectly infringing the trademark rights of Coca Cola Company.
However, the Delhi High Court had jurisdiction over this matter, and the court ultimately ruled the judgment in favor of Bisleri Company by allowing them to sell Maaza drink in Turkey. The court found that Bisleri had legally registered trademark for Maaza in Turkey and that this was not creating any infringement to the rights of Maaza trademark held by Coca Cola in India. The court noted that Bisleri’s activities were confined to Turkey and did not pose a threat to Coca Cola’s trademark rights in India.
Case Study 2: Royal Challengers Sports Private Limited Vs Uber India Systems Private Limited
In another recent case, the Delhi High Court recently dismissed an application for temporary injunctions filed by RCB (Royal Challengers Bangalore) against UBER Company. This case highlights important considerations regarding trademark protections and the balance between permissible advertising practices and commercial free speech under the fundamental right given to every citizen in Article 19(1)(a).
Key issues highlighted in the case include RCB alleging that UBER’s advertisement for using the phrase “ROYALLY CHALLENGED” was accused of exceeding the boundaries of permissible comparative advertising with that misuse of the right of freedom of speech and expression. On the other hand, defendant’s arguments on the issues were that this advertisement was merely humorous wordplay or light-hearted banter which is common in sports and particularly in cricket culture. Furthermore, the intent of the particular advertisement was to showcase Uber’s reliable motorbike services and not to harm RCB’s image.
The court dismissed the plea of RCB by showing the findings as follows: first, there is no Prima Facie Disparagement content in the advertisement which can cause injury to the image of RCB in the first instance. The act of disparagement cannot be concluded on the basis of reviews made by few viewers as there are always two sides of a coin. Playful banters or wordplays in advertising is permissible till it is not causing any serious harm to the other party’s brand image or to their qualitative or quantitative representations. With this judgment, the court also balances the right to free speech and expression in commercial terms with the protection of trademark rights.
The Digital Age Challenge
Article 19(1)(a), which is the right to freedom of speech and expression, must include digitally free speech, commercially free speech, etc., involving freedom for criticism and personal commentary within the basic and reasonable limits because at times preventing the general expression leads to the casualty of legal overreach.
In this digital age, it can also lead to misuse or even use of anything contrary to the writer’s permission or author’s interest where majority of materials or information is openly and freely available online. It is even easy to publish the information, and risks of interferences with author’s intellectual property rights are even more common. But does that really stop the inventions or creativity of people? The answer is no. During the freedom of speech and expression in terms of commercial moments, there are times when playful wordplays or light-hearted banters are the only way to attract people towards advertisements.
Finding the Balance
Generally, the existence of IP Rights is to limit access or interferences, whereas constitutional right to free speech and expression demands the freedom without unreasonable restriction. This leads to clashes when public democratic rights meet private individual rights. Creativity is the back of any private rights, but this can be showcased publicly too, and sweet and small banters are just part of freedom of commercial expression. Limiting the humorous side of comparative marketing can sometimes lead to monopolizing brand initiatives or narratives, can stifle creativity, and prevent consumers from receiving various views on the same product.
Conclusion
There is merely a fine line between protecting IP Rights of an individual or private person and providing fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression to public as a democratic right. That’s why it is in the constant state of tension. Ideas do not flourish in limits and restrictions, and creativity is not born out of silence. It must be remembered that the strength of a democracy lies not in how well it protects property, but in how boldly it defends voices.
The alliance between IP laws and right to free speech and expression does not need a battleground – it can become balanced one, where protection and provocation walk hand in hand. In this new era and world of creativity or innovation, it is not just the creator, inventor, or author who holds the power but also the critic, comedian, storyteller, as well as the citizen.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
What is the main conflict between IP laws and freedom of speech?
The main conflict arises when intellectual property rights, which aim to protect creators’ works and limit unauthorized use, clash with the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression, which includes the right to fair criticism and commentary. This tension occurs because IP assets, while being private property, are displayed publicly and thus become subject to public discourse and criticism.
How do courts balance IP rights with free speech in commercial advertising?
Courts typically evaluate whether the use of IP-protected material in commercial speech constitutes fair criticism or commentary versus actual infringement. They consider factors such as the intent behind the use, whether it causes genuine harm to the IP holder’s brand or reputation, and whether the expression falls within permissible boundaries of comparative advertising or humorous commentary.
What constitutes fair criticism under freedom of speech when it comes to IP-protected works?
Fair criticism generally includes honest reviews, commentary, parody, and light-hearted banters that do not cause serious harm to the IP holder’s brand image or commercial interests. The criticism should be within reasonable limits and not amount to disparagement or defamation that could cause quantifiable damage to the IP holder’s reputation or business.
Can trademark holders prevent all uses of their marks in commercial speech?
No, trademark holders cannot prevent all uses of their marks in commercial speech. Courts recognize that commercial free speech includes the right to make comparative advertisements, engage in fair criticism, and use playful wordplay, provided these uses do not cause serious harm to the trademark holder’s brand image or constitute clear infringement.
How does the digital age impact the balance between IP rights and free speech?
The digital age has complicated this balance by making it easier to access, share, and modify IP-protected content. While this increases the risk of infringement, it also enhances opportunities for legitimate criticism, commentary, and creative expression. The challenge is distinguishing between unauthorized use and protected speech in the digital realm.
What legal remedies are available when IP rights and free speech rights conflict?
Legal remedies include seeking injunctions to prevent alleged infringement, filing for damages if harm can be proven, and defending on grounds of fair use, fair criticism, or protected speech. Courts evaluate each case individually, considering factors such as the nature of the use, intent, potential harm, and the balance between protecting IP rights and preserving free speech.
How can businesses protect their IP while respecting free speech rights?
Businesses can protect their IP by clearly defining the boundaries of acceptable use, focusing on cases of clear infringement rather than all critical commentary, and engaging in dialogue with critics when possible. They should also ensure their legal actions target genuine infringement rather than attempting to silence legitimate criticism or commentary.
What role does intent play in determining IP infringement vs. protected speech?
Intent plays a crucial role in courts’ decisions. If the intent is to engage in fair criticism, commentary, or humorous expression without causing harm to the IP holder’s business, it’s more likely to be protected speech. However, if the intent is to deliberately harm the IP holder’s reputation or to free-ride on their brand recognition for commercial gain, it may constitute infringement.
What are the limitations of Article 19(1)(a) when it comes to IP-protected content?
Article 19(1)(a) guarantees freedom of speech and expression but is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2). When it comes to IP-protected content, the right to free speech must be balanced against the creator’s legitimate interests in protecting their intellectual property. The limitations include avoiding defamation, not causing commercial harm through false statements, and respecting the creator’s moral and economic rights.
How do memes and viral content relate to IP laws and free speech?
Memes and viral content often use copyrighted material, creating a complex intersection between fair use, parody rights, and copyright infringement. While transformative use for commentary, criticism, or humor may be protected under fair use principles, creators must ensure their content doesn’t substantially harm the original work’s market value or reputation.
What is the difference between comparative advertising and trademark infringement?
Comparative advertising involves directly or indirectly comparing products or services with competitors, which is generally permissible under free speech rights. Trademark infringement, however, occurs when there’s unauthorized use of a trademark that causes confusion among consumers or dilutes the trademark’s distinctiveness. The key difference lies in whether the use is for legitimate comparison or creates market confusion.
Can copyright holders prevent all critical reviews of their work?
No, copyright holders cannot prevent legitimate critical reviews of their work. Fair criticism, commentary, and review are protected forms of expression that serve the public interest. However, critics must ensure their reviews are based on actual experience with the work and don’t include false statements that could constitute defamation.
How do international trademark disputes affect free speech rights?
International trademark disputes, as seen in the Coca Cola vs Bisleri case, show that trademark rights are territorial. Free speech rights in one jurisdiction don’t automatically override trademark rights in another. Courts consider the geographical scope of both the trademark protection and the speech in question when resolving conflicts.
What constitutes “prima facie disparagement” in IP-related cases?
Prima facie disparagement refers to statements that, on their face, appear to harm the reputation or commercial interests of an IP holder. Courts look for evidence of actual harm, false statements, and malicious intent. Mere criticism or humorous commentary, even if unfavorable, typically doesn’t constitute disparagement unless it contains false factual claims.
How can content creators avoid IP infringement while exercising free speech?
Content creators can avoid infringement by ensuring their use of IP-protected material is transformative, adding original commentary or criticism, using only necessary portions of the original work, and avoiding commercial harm to the original creator. They should also clearly distinguish between factual criticism and opinion, and avoid making false statements about the IP holder.
What role does public interest play in balancing IP rights and free speech?
Public interest serves as a crucial factor in balancing these rights. Courts consider whether the speech serves legitimate public interests such as consumer information, artistic expression, or democratic discourse. Speech that serves broader public interests may receive stronger protection, even when it conflicts with IP rights.
How do social media platforms handle conflicts between IP rights and free speech?
Social media platforms typically implement notice-and-takedown procedures for IP violations while also providing mechanisms for users to contest takedowns. They must balance their obligation to respect IP rights with their role as platforms for free expression. Many platforms have developed policies that distinguish between legitimate criticism and actual infringement.
What is the significance of the “balance of convenience” test in IP and free speech cases?
The balance of convenience test weighs the potential harm to the IP holder against the harm to free speech rights if expression is restricted. Courts consider factors such as the likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm to both parties, and the broader public interest. This test helps ensure that IP rights don’t become tools for censoring legitimate criticism.
Can influencers and content creators be held liable for IP infringement in their promotional content?
Yes, influencers and content creators can be held liable for IP infringement if they use protected material without permission, even in promotional content. However, they may have defenses based on fair use, transformative use, or commentary rights. The key is whether their use adds original value and doesn’t substitute for the original work in the marketplace.
How do parody and satire fit into the IP laws and free speech balance?
Parody and satire generally receive strong protection under free speech principles because they serve important social functions of criticism and commentary. However, they must be clearly recognizable as parody or satire, should not create market confusion, and should not use more of the original work than necessary for the parodic purpose. The transformative nature of parody often provides protection against IP infringement claims.
Also Read:
