Posted on: November 3, 2020 Posted by: admin Comments: 0

Author : Krati Nama, Student at Manipal University

Co-Author : Jahnvi Bhala, Student at Manipal University


For understanding the problems which cope up at the interface of arbitration and intellectual property disputes, it’s necessary to know the background of what denotes ‘arbitrability’ and how it is understood in various countries across the globe.

In considering whether or not an agreement to arbitrate is legitimate, the general objective of a paper is to review the concept of “arbitrability” of intellectual property rights on two grounds, firstly from the point of view of the character of intellectual property rights as granted by the State and held by the owner in rem, versus subordinate rights which arise from exercise of such intellectual property  rights; and secondly, the importance of public policy considerations in settlement intellectual property  disputes and whether arbitrators are empowered to exercise the identical.

The confusion within the arbitration of intellectual property disputes in India is predicated on the traditionally held notion of  intellectual property  being a non-arbitrable subject combined with a degree of what are often termed as distrust of personal dispute settlement mechanisms, primarily where public policy is anxious. However, a harmonious reading of the judicial decisions lends itself favorably to the view that issues arising inter-se the parties (without involving third-party rights), which have an underlying contract, should be made arbitrable.

keywords : Arbitrality, Intellectual Property Rights [IPR], Public Policy.


Domestic laws very often impose restrictions upon the ‘arbitrability’ of the dispute. However, the definition of ‘arbitrability’ and ‘list of arbitrable disputes’ isn’t universal in nature, and each jurisdiction has its own set of norms during this regard[1]. However, the current article exclusively rotates around the sphere of ‘arbitrability of IP Disputes”. Moreover, the importance of intellectual property in today’s world is unquestioned. It is pertinent to say that intangible assets and rights have grown at pace and hence, the IP disputes[2].

IP disputes can arise from various activities like cross border licensing, technology transfer agreements, joint research projects, adoption of domain names,[3] royalty payment, the validity of IP rights[4] and therefore the newcomer, smart contract and blockchain technology. It is a well-known notion that IP is that branch of law which protects rights of the IP holder. (Samuel 1991) Moreover, it is pertinent to say that the variability of IP rights gives rise to the varied forms of IP disputes. IP is that limb of law which safeguards and protects the foremost crucial human achievements and manifestations in terms of technological developments, inventions, designs, logo, symbol, musical creation, and artistic achievements[5] and their subsequent rights regarding copyright, patents, trademarks, and their know-how, usage and personal confidential information and rights pertaining to it.6[6] The term IP has now acquired global acceptance[7] by means of the definition of IP referred in Article 2 (viii) of the Convention Establishing the WIPO,[8] which is sort of broad and thus, various things constitute the ambit of IP rights. It is quite evident that these days, IP issues form a part of an internationally enormous economic activity. Therefore, they’re the foremost property-related rights. If there are IP rights, then there would obviously be IP disputes. Disputes can arise out of anywhere like during the transfer and procurement of IP rights, issue of licenses[9] or copying of work, disputes associated with the validity, ownership, scope, and infringement. However, the shortage of a pre-existing contract between the parties doesn’t limit the chance of referring an IP dispute to arbitration supported a submission agreement but it’s highly unlikely that when a dispute arises, the parties will close and sign a submission agreement, provided that the dispute per se is arbitrable.


It is all around known that disputes pertaining civil or commercial nature are remediable till avoided impliedly or expressly.[10]Within the case of Ayyasamy, the Court of law held that while the Arbitration Act of India doesn’t draw up the class of disputes which are not arbitable, the courts will do the needful.[11] However, within the cases Vimal Kishore Shah[12] and Booz Allen,[13]the Supreme Court has done quite the requirement full by maintaining a non-thorough record of ceratin disputes that cannot be resolved through arbitration in India (Lim 2015). The Supreme Court made this list by keeping visible the character of the dispute by dividing the disputes into two-fold categories like right in rem and right in personam.[14]

However, the celebrated case of Booz Allen explains both the rights very vividly like (right against the world) right in rem and right against specific individuals (right in personam). Moreover, there is yet another criterion being added to this mechanism that whether the tribunal can grant such relief and whether or not it’s granted, will it not affect the general public policy exception of the country.

  1. In India, State has the abilityto grant patent to guardand preserve an invention from its unauthorized or illegal making, using or selling. The Court in Lifestyle Equities CV v. QdSeatoman Designs (P) Ltd.[15] stated that the disputes pertaining to the patent could possibly be arbitrable if the conflict is pertaining to the authorizing and infringement of patent, but the dispute relating testing of the very legitimacy of the patent isn’t remediable and hence, parties cannot resort to the arbitration proceedings (Cornish  & Llewelyn 2003).
  2. In Eros International Media Ltd. v. Telemax Links India (P) Ltd.[16] the High Court held, under Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act[17] which enunciates that the infringement suits are going to be tried before the subordinate Court, doesn’t exclude the jurisdiction of the board. If both the gatherings have mutually given their consent to arbitration by way of a contract, the dispute are often heard before the Arbitral Tribunal. Moreover, rights of the claimant to a copyright or trademark pertaining to the dispute regarding passing-off action and infringement are going to be considered as a right in personam and not right in rem.
  3. A copyright is a legal right given to the creator of a piece to work to determine how it’ll be used and who will use it. In the Section 62 of the Copyright Act, 1957[18], the jurisdiction of the courts can’t be misunderstood or interpreted as excluding the jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunal. Moreover, within the case of Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. v. Entertainment Network (India) Ltd[19], the bench has the view that if within the matter the award rendered by the arbitrator is so it could disentitle the copyright, then it would not be arbitrable (Malhotra & Malhotra 2014)
  4. Within the present era of commercialization and competition, every company possesses trade secrets and uses them as an advantage. Such trade secrets will be within the form of a molecular formula, codes for trading, etc. Companies have private arrangements with other parties where they will accommodate reference to the trade secrets. However, the question regarding the arbitrability of trade secret disputes isn’t raised yet although courts in a very plethora of instances have proscribed cases concerning trade secret disputes (Park 2003)

The power to grant a patent for an invention is vested with the State and is the matter of government authorities of the State concerned. Thus, any dispute pertaining to grant of license or trademark is kept outside the ambit of arbitration[20].However, of these rights being monopoly rights that only the State can grant, are kept within the definition of arbitrability (Kishor &Jayesh 2016).

Thus, the tribunal being a non-public body, cannot determine the validity of IP rights. In other words, the tribunal doesn’t have the facility to invalidate the act of the State by way of private adjudication system[21]. However, to a particular extent, these claims coherent the apparent ‘sovereign nature’ of the grants of IP rights[22]. The government, by certain specified bodies, evaluates and scrutinizes the proposal for grant of rights categorized by the parties[23].Only if the appeal fulfils definite requirements approved by law, the authorities shall accord a right of exclusiveness or domination to the party. Thus, it is argued that only Court or a delegated authority can render a choice on such dispute and no private body can adjudicate over such disputes.


While not distinct from the disagreement of state participation, the very fact that IP Rights form clusters of uniqueness, may deliver an explanation to bar the judgement of definite specific matters in IP disputes[24]. However, by giving an IPR, a state jurisdiction makes a privilege of exclusiveness[25], and by doing so, the government authorities extract few topic matters from the overall general public domain and place it under the influence of specific individuals[26]. Moreover, the essence of such acts has a general effect, because individuals are unable to create distinctive rights of exclusivity along with ergaomnes impact. Also, it’s suggested that IP rights have connections with competition law, and that area of law is also restricted from the ambit of arbitration.


In discussions pertaining to specific contractual terms and conditions, parties seek various types of reliefs like particular performance of accords, injunctions, and damages (Odseatoman 2017). Arbitrators routinely grant injunctions and damages in authoritative issues by heaps of facts, therefore the same would enforce to IPR connected legally binding affairs. As for the relief of execution of an agreement, though not explicitly within the context of IPR related agreements, it has been held to be an alleviation that can be conceded by a private arbitral forum picked up by the parties.[27]While the overall principle would be supportive of lawfully binding disputes being arbitrable, there are certain IPR contractual issues which fall inside the elite ward of exceptional adjudicatory bodies. As for an example, in a dispute concerning discount of sovereignty under a copyright license, the judge, in the wake of reading section 30A[28]along with section 19A[29] of the Copyright Act 1957, pronounced that all disputes identifying with copyright licenses are to be solely chosen by the Copyright Board. The Bombay High Court affirmed the arbitrator’s decision within the course of choosing Section 34[30] application under the Arbitration Act in IPRS v Entertainment Network talked above[31] Likewise, the ward to adjudicate disputes or problems as revered in section 6 of the Copyright Act[32] and these pertaining to mandatory licenses[33] and task of copyright[34] vests with the Copyright Board. The civil courts[35] and therefore the arbitration tribunals cannot engage or concede the reliefs looked for in such authoritative matters(Redfern & Hunter 2004) The Court or the referee arbitrating upon the dispute is required to convey such an examination with respect to individual disputes so as to work out its arbitrability.


The Eros case restricted violation wherein Telemax Links (“defendants”) approached Eros (“plaintiff”) for licensing their content. The plaintiff and also the defendants entered into a term sheet during which the defendants were granted rights pertaining marketing and distribution by the plaintiff(The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996)[36]The aforementioned term sheet had an inclusive arbitration which stated- “any dispute arising out of or in connection with the term sheet shall be referred and resolved by consultation with the parties, failing which the same shall be referred to the arbitration of a sole arbitrator.”

Furthermore, the term sheet set forth a formal contract, i.e., a long-form agreement which is to be executed between the parties. However, any such agreement wasn’t entered into by the parties. Eros filed a suit for infringement of copyright by the defendants. In furtherance of this suit, the defendants filed an application before the Court under section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to imply the question to arbitration as per the condition as mentioned within the term sheet(The Copyright Act, 1957)

The issues raised before the Court were as follows:
(i) Whether copyright disputes, i.e., intellectual property disputes, can be referred to arbitration?
(ii) Whether the clause mentioned within the term sheet was valid?

In respect of those issues, the plaintiff argued that the intellectual property disputes are non-arbitrable as they’re rights in rem because they’re territorially linked rights granted by the State to a personal. The plaintiff added that the Copyright Act itself provides for the remedy of infringement to be adjudicated by the Court and hence, bars arbitration of copyright infringement. The aim behind arguing during this respect can only be for creating a distinction between the two related issues, and also to define the scope of such disputes as within the present suit as arising from contractual rights, i.e., rights in personam and from infringement of the intellectual copyright protection, i.e., rights in rem.

On the contrary, the defendants referred the Booz Allen case stating that the dispute was a civil dispute since the rights and obligations were on the basis of the term sheet which was signed by the parties and hence, to be against one another[37]The defendants placed their reliance on the general principle of arbitration, i.e. when an agreement contains an arbitration provisions then arbitration clause must be given effect. Further, the defendants relied on the case of V.H. Patel & Co. &Orsv. HirubhaiHimabhai Patel &Ors[38], which favored the problem – “arbitrator’s powers depend totally on the article, and there’s no principle in law which bars an arbitrator from examining a matter.”

Justice Patel analyzed the ratio laid down within the Booz Allen case and also considered the commercial viewpoint of the current dispute. It had been opined that when the parties have made a pre-determined option to adjudicate their disputes through arbitration, then the commercial disputes will always be arbitrable since it’s an instance of one party seeking specific and particular reliefs against another specific party[39]. Further, while referring to the list of “non-arbitrable” subject matters, Justice Patel highlighted the material consideration for determining arbitrability which is whether the action is being taken at large and any finding found arrived at is “set-up” against everyone else(Dermott International&Burn Standard 2011). He referred this by an example of a testamentary proceeding for proof of Will, which is proof against the large and not against specific persons. The character of trademark and copyright disputes was also considered-

1. Section 62 of the Copyright Act[40] only defines the ‘entry point’ of disputes into the judicial system, and does not give exclusive rights to the forum mentioned therein, nor can such sections be considered as determining arbitrability or non-arbitrability of the disputes by themselves.
2. In disputes of copyright and trademark, written agreements are essential, and lots of of those agreements have pre-determined arbitration clauses entered into by the parties willingly. He opined that acceptance of the Booz Allen ratio, i.e., if the correct is granted in rem, then it’s non-arbitrable and would render the arbitration clauses all told of these agreements as “entirely null, void and otiose” which isn’t the aim of either the Arbitration or Copyright law in India.[41]
3. There are various complex commercial transactions relating transfer of intellectual property and acceptance of the submission that no intellectual property disputes can ever be arbitrated would mean that no dispute arising out of such an agreementor transaction is arbitrable (as in Sukanya Holdings case) and therefore the arbitration clauses mentioned in such agreements would be void initially. Therefore, such a submission cannot be accepted.

The Bombay High Court decided in favor of the defendants and implied the question of mediation. There are two main reasons for approaching this decision were:

i. The rights involved in this case were related to copyright infringement and restricted to claims for infringement which had been brought only against a specific third party as herein, the defendants. Here, the action was claimed only against one specific party, the right under which relief was sought was actually a subordinate right in personam and not excluded from arbitration.
ii. The character of the relief sought by the plaintiff from the Arbitral tribunal was considered, and it had been decided that a tribunal is empowered to grant enjoining, damages or both and hence, there’s no reason on non-arbitrability of the copyright dispute.


The Indian Performing Arts Society (“plaintiff”) and the Eastern India Motion Pictures Association (“defendant”) entered into an agreement on July 3, 2001, for granting the defendant a license for broadcasting the works of the artists on its radio channel which also included an arbitration clause. In line with the terms of the license agreement, the royalty was to be paid beforehand for each six months and also any discrepancies had to be discovered within 60 days. The dispute arose for payment of royalty, and also the defendant invoked the arbitration agreement. The defendant contended that as per the clause 13 of the Indian Copyright Act, “broadcast of sound recordings of musical and literacy work of the artists by the Claimant was not covered by ‘use or exploitation of copyright in musical and literary works[42]’ and therefore was not subject to any payment of royalty at all.” Additionally, royalty amount was claimed by the defendant.

The dispute was referred to arbitration by the courts. The arbiter held that the transmission of sound chronicle, without consent of lyricist along with composer, doesn’t comprise an infringement of copyright and the court did not have the competent jurisdiction to settle dispute on the amount of royalty[43] since the Copyright Board was the appropriate authority for the conflicts relating to calculation and refund of royalty. Bothered by this, parties raised their objections and filed separate arbitration petitions before the tribunal of Delhi for putting aside the arbitral decision under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996[44], and these arbitration petitions were heard jointly by the Court.
and these arbitration petitions were heard jointly by the Court. The Plaintiff tested the ward of arbiter on the justification that assurance of a problem that involved unauthorized telecast of a sound chronicle without the consent of the creators and artists and scholarly works, contained therein, constitutes rights in rem, by such artists and musician, and therefore, such rights are enforceable against public at large and not only between the two parties at issue, that there’s no power conferred on the arbitrator for determination of this issue(Intellectual Property Rights Society  2011).

(Eros International Media Limited vs Telemax 2016)Further, the plaintiff contended that in such cases, even though both the parties have submitted to arbitration, such a dispute could only be decided by a competent court.
In response to the present, the defendant had filed evidence which showed that ‘no dispute on the ownership of the copyright’ and  the question for determination before the arbitral tribunal was whether the defendant could recover the amount of royalty from the plaintiff which was wrongly paid to the plaintiff([1] SDP v. DPF, 1989 Rev arb (1989).  The foremost crucial point was to separate the monetary issue from the ownership, by stating that “the monetary claim arising out of sound recording at the most is a a subsidiary right in copyright in sound recording, and such subsidiary rights are arbitrable,” which pertained the dispute to be within the Booz Allen case principles.

The award by the arbitrator was set aside on the grounds that the arbitrator had given the award on a non-arbitrable issue. The court made a distinction between the facts of the present dispute as within the Eros case by concluding that in Eros case, the relief prayed for was only limited to compensation, from a particular party for copyright infringement and hence, no determination of the validity of the copyright was in question whereas in this case, the issue of refund of royalty could only be decided when the subject of validity of the intellectual property will be determined that might only be done by the Copyright Board[45](W Park& Non-Signatories and International Contracts 2011).The Court could not agree on the scope of arbitration for the difficulty of recovering the previously paid royalty but considering the ratio as given in Sukanya Holdings case, it was not possible to separate the dispute and have only part of it to be decided through arbitration and other parts of it to be determined through the Court(Gary b born 2014)


a) In countries like the US, Canada with the Federation Arbitration Act, 1925 and Commercial Arbitration Act, 1985 governing arbitration, debates arising from intellectual property rights of any aspect including validity of propertyare considered as arbitrable.
b) In Switzerland, whether or notthe dispute is regarding the validity of intellectual property, it’ll be arbitrable. The award is also registered with federal trademark and Patent Registrar if the award is accompanied along with the certificate of the court of the place where the jurisdiction over arbitration is given. As the award is registered, it may create a right or liability on the public or people at large.
c) In England, there’s no mention within the Arbitration Act, 1996 of intellectual property dispute being referred arbitration but within the UK Patents Act, 1977 there are two circumstances mentioned wherein arbitration is allowed. First, Comptroller General of Patents may order for arbitration when the applying is for compulsory patent license and second, when a dispute arises under Section 58 of the Act.
d) In France, the Trademarks Act states that trademarks can be subject to arbitration. In SDP v. DPF[46] the Paris Court of Appeal said that arbitration is a private and contractual matter. It does not have jurisdiction over matters, in which the award will oppose public policy.


A simple summary of the approaches to arbitrability in the case law above is thus:

a) As per Booz Allen case, one must have to look at the nature of the “rights” held by the parties, and whether third party rights are involved in thedispute- this woulddetermine the acceptable forum for disputes- public or private.
b) As per HDFC case, one must look to the remedies claimed and whether or not they is granted through court of justice or whether a court of law has been vested with special powers per a subject matter.
c) As per Ayyaswamy case, when it involves subject-matters generally considered non-arbitrable as rights which are considered to be held “in rem” but may contain subordinate rights which are “in personam”; it must be first determined whether the dispute is “simple” or “complex” in nature.
d) As per Eros case, any interpretation is untenable which renders the subject-matter of the dispute void ab-initio without paying due regard to the agreement of the parties to enter into arbitrations between themselves, when the result of a dispute has only in-personam effect between the parties and an existence of special public forum does not by itself operate as an ouster of personal dispute settlement mechanisms like arbitration.
e) The IPRS case, though well-balanced, creates a situation where the defendant can simply raise claims of invalidity of the holding claims and avoid arbitration.


The adjudication of IP dispute is an unpredictable arrangement of law, facts, and sensible deliberations under the gaze of the courts in India. Moreover, the law governing various IP aspect like patents, trademarks, and copyrights are wholly different. Once connected with the intricacy of assertion law, the courts of law are confronted with stimulating the duty of systematizing arbitrating law along with several circumstances that IP law can possibly advance.
As these circumstances emerge, the High Courts and also the Apex Court should necessarily accept the duty and set out a concrete or solid foundation of law that might finish the disarray that reigns supreme[47]. After studying various approaches and also the reasoning behind the identical, the position taken by India appears, at least to the author, to be aligned to it of the developing nation across the world[48](Patel & Patel 2004)
In the case of patent protection and pharmaceuticals, it may also be considered to be a frontrunner in leading dispute negotiations at the World Trade Organization and also the United Nation in various aspects( Allen & Hamilton 2011).The issues which arise within the Indian landscape have more to do with ongoing uncertainty in whether a dispute shall be judged on the basis of “rights held by the owner” or “remedies prayed for”, and also the lengthened proceedings that arise from the same.

Since the ability to come to a decision what constitutes public policy vests with the courts, there exist multiple case laws with parallel but differing reasoning and each judge can apply his or her own discretion, supported the facts of the matter. The decisive Supreme Court judgment on the matter, which might normally be binding on the lower courts is that the Booz Allen case.

However, the generality of the ratio laid down within the case, which was deliberately done, has left room for interpretation on a case to case basis. Therefore, a party approaching the court for referring to arbitration would not know for sure what the end result of the case would be. The Eros case judgment of the Bombay High Court has attempted to clear the air and is a welcome judgment in this believes a lift to both the arbitration and intellectual property law in India. The above issues are unfortunately not of a nature which can be overcome with precise drafting of the arbitration agreement, since the courts will refuse relevancy arbitration even in the presence of an agreement if even one among the parties raised a ground of invalidity, or a claim which, as per existing Indian jurisprudence, requires the court to do a preliminary evaluation of the case on merits to determine its arbitrability.


[1]Samuel, A Critical Look at the Reform of Swiss Arbitration Law, 7 Arb. Int’l27, 33 (1991).

[2]Da´rioMouraVicente,Arbitrabilityofintellectualpropertydisputes:acomparativesurvey,ArbitrationInternational, 2015, 151, 151–162(OUP).

[3]Mohamed H. Negm and HuthaifaBustanji, Particularity of Arbitration in International Intellectual Property Disputes: Fitting Square Peg into Round Hole‘, 14 Asian International Arbitration Journal, Kluwer Law International 91, 2018.


[5]Willian Cornish & David Llewelyn, PATENTS, COPYRIGHT, TRADE MARKS AND ALLIED RIGHTS (2003).


[7] Supra note 5.

[8]AssociationSuissedel’arbitrage,ObjectiveArbitrability-AntitrustDisputes-IntellectualPropertyDisputes,6ASA Special Series(1994).

[9]William W. Park, Irony in Intellectual Property Arbitration, Arb. Int’l 451 (2003).

[10]Eros International Media Limited v Telemax Links India Pvt Ltd and Others, (2016) SCC OnLine Bom 2179.

[11]Ayyasamy v A Paramasivam and Others, (2016) 10 SCC 386.

[12]Vimal Kishor Shah and Others v Jayesh Dinesh Shah and Others, (2016) 8 SCC 788 [54].

[13]Booz Allen and Hamilton Inc v SBI Home Finance Limited and Others (2011) 5 SCC 532[34].

[14] Ibid

[15]Lifestyle Equities CV v. QdSeatoman Designs (P) Ltd., 2017 (72) PTC 441(Mad).

[16]Eros International Media Ltd. v. Telemax Links India (P) Ltd., 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 2179.

[17]The Copyright Act, 1957, § 62, No. 14, Acts of Parliament, 1957 (India).

[18]The Trade Marks Act, 1999, § 134, No. 47, Acts of Parliament, 1999 (India).

[19]Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. v. Entertainment Network (India) Ltd,2016 SCC OnLine Bom 5893.

[20]A. Redfern & M. Hunter, LAW AND PRACTICE OF INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION139 (London: Sweet and Maxwell 2004).

[21]K.H. Böckstiegel, Public Policy and Arbitrability, 3 ICCA Congress Series 196 (1986).

[22]F. Gurry, ‘Objective Arbitrability – Antitrust Disputes – Intellectual Property Disputes, 6 Swiss Arbitration Association Special Series 116 (1994).

[23]P. Janicke, Maybe we shouldn’t Arbitrate, 39 Houston Law Review702 (2002).

[24] Supra note 21 at 4

[25]J. Fawcett & P. Torremans, Intellectual Property and Private International Law (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998), 494.

[26]T. Cook, A User’s Guide to Patents, 15-20 (London: Tottel Publishing, 2007).

[27]Olympus Superstructures Pvt Ltd v Meena Vijay Khetan and Others, (1999) 5 SCC 651.

[28]The Copyright Act, 1957, § 30A, No. 14, Acts of Parliament, 1957 (India).

[29]The Copyright Act, 1957, § 19A, No. 14, Acts of Parliament, 1957 (India).

[30]The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, § 34, No. 26, Actsof Parliament, 1996 (India).

[31]Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. v. Entertainment Network (India) Ltd, 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 5893

[32]The Copyright Act, 1957, § 6, No. 14, Acts of Parliament, 1957 (India).

[33]Music Choice India Private Limited v Phonographic Performance Limited, (2010) SCC OnLine Bom 113.

[34]The Copyright Act, 1957, § 19A, No. 14, Acts of Parliament, 1957 (India).

[35]Music Choice India Private Limited v Phonographic Performance Limited, (2010) SCC OnLine Bom 113.

[36]The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, § 8, No. 26, Acts of Parliament, 1996 (India).

[37]McDermott International Inc v Burn Standard Co Ltd and Ors, (2006) 11 SCC 181.

[38]V.H. Patel & Co. &Ors v. HirubhaiHimabhai Patel &Ors, (2000) 4 SCC 368.

[39]Booz Allen and Hamilton Inc v SBI Home Finance Limited and Others (2011) 5 SCC 532 [34].

[40]The Copyright Act, 1957, § 62, No. 14, Acts of Parliament, 1957 (India).

[41]Booz Allen and Hamilton Inc v SBI Home Finance Limited and Others (2011) 5 SCC 532 [34].

[42]THE COPYRIGHT ACT, 1957, § 13(4), No. 14, Acts of Parliament, 1957 (India). Works in which copyright subsists: The copyright in a cinematograph film or a sound recording shall not affect the separate copyright in any work in respect of which or a substantial part of which, the film, or, as the case may be, the sound recording is made

[43]Intellectual Property Rights Society (IPRS) v. Entertainment Network, MANU/MH/1597/2016.

[44]The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, § 34, No. 26, Acts of Parliament, 1996 (India).

[45]Eros International Limited vs Telemax Links India Pvt Limited, (2016).

[46]SDP v. DPF, 1989 Rev arb (1989).

[47]William W Park, ‘Non-Signatories and International Contracts: An Arbitrator’s Dilemma’ in Multiple Party Actions in International Arbitration (Permanent Court of Arbitration 2009).

[48]Gary B Born, ‘Chapter 6: Nonarbitrability and International Arbitration Agreements’ in Gary B Born International Commercial Arbitration (2nd edn, Kluwer International 2014).

Leave a Comment