https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288007 Amended section 11 of the Copyright Act, 1957 vested copyright jurisdiction in the Appellate Board constituted under sections 83 and 84 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, replacing the earlier Copyright Board scheme. The unamended Copyright Rules, 2013 could not override that statutory amendment, and any inconsistent references to a Copyright Board became ineffective. A temporary absence of a technical member (copyright) did not remove the Appellate Board's competence to hear copyright matters, because valid constitution under the parent statute was sufficient. The administrative refusal to list the copyright application on that ground was therefore unsustainable, and the matter had to be placed before the Board for decision in accordance with law. en-us Thu, 27 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 14 May 2020 02:08:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288007 Amended section 11 of the Copyright Act, 1957 vested copyright jurisdiction in the Appellate Board constituted under sections 83 and 84 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, replacing the earlier Copyright Board scheme. The unamended Copyright Rules, 2013 could not override that statutory amendment, and any inconsistent references to a Copyright Board became ineffective. A temporary absence of a technical member (copyright) did not remove the Appellate Board's competence to hear copyright matters, because valid constitution under the parent statute was sufficient. The administrative refusal to list the copyright application on that ground was therefore unsustainable, and the matter had to be placed before the Board for decision in accordance with law. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 27 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288007