<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2010 (5) TMI 943 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293829</link>
    <description>Territorial copyright licensing was treated as preserving the owner&#039;s exclusive right to issue copies not already in circulation, so resale and export of low-price editions outside authorised territories was analysed as prima facie infringement when done with notice of the territorial limits. The first sale doctrine was held not to defeat the owner&#039;s reserved rights or support an international exhaustion theory that would permit exploitation beyond the licensed market. For interim relief, Delhi jurisdiction was found on the basis that business, online orders, and dispatch occurred there, and the injunction test was satisfied on prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable harm. The observations were confined to the interim stage.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 17 May 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 04 Mar 2021 11:42:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=637987" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (5) TMI 943 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293829</link>
      <description>Territorial copyright licensing was treated as preserving the owner&#039;s exclusive right to issue copies not already in circulation, so resale and export of low-price editions outside authorised territories was analysed as prima facie infringement when done with notice of the territorial limits. The first sale doctrine was held not to defeat the owner&#039;s reserved rights or support an international exhaustion theory that would permit exploitation beyond the licensed market. For interim relief, Delhi jurisdiction was found on the basis that business, online orders, and dispatch occurred there, and the injunction test was satisfied on prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable harm. The observations were confined to the interim stage.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 17 May 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293829</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>