Christ University Law Journal

Editorial

Sharmila N, Jithin V J — Thu, 27 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0000

Exploring Culinary Intellectual Property Protection: Safeguarding Creations and Unauthorized Transfer of Related Knowledge under Traditional IPR

Akriti Gupta, Anuja Misra — Thu, 27 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0000

Great effort and time go into the careful selection of ingredients, the formulation of the cooking procedures, and the creation of an engaging and attractive appearance for a culinary item. Given this reality, it is not surprising that recipes, food designs, and other culinary innovations have the potential to be safeguarded through diverse forms of intellectual property safeguards. Culinary innovations and recipes surely may be considered original and creative expressions, yet somewhere fail to meet entirely the criteria for copyright protection. Intellectual property safeguards already exist for a range of items, such as crackers shaped like dinosaurs, hamburger patties with unique shapes, cupcakes featuring swirled icing, and hot dogs adorned with crisscross cuts. However, unprotected and unauthorised use of knowledge, and infringement of protected knowledge have all given rise to a host of issues that need careful examination. This paper aims to advocate intellectual property protection for culinary creations while bringing out the flaws of the judicial precedent set, that completely omits the idea of protecting any recipe to date. The research paper concludes that the grounds on which the recipes are denied protection are vague, and protection can be extended to the recipes by incorporating certain flexibilities in the current copyright regime.

The Law of Eminent Domain and Forced Displacement in India

Dristirupa Patgiri — Thu, 27 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0000

India, in the new millennium, found its place in the ranks of rapidly developing countries. The primary model of development has long been the ‘Western’ one, where the emphasis is on projects including the construction of factories, dams, mining, weapon-testing grounds and the like. These projects require large areas of land, which India began acquiring under the umbrella of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894. As land is finite, an increase in the number of such development projects led to large-scale forced evictions of vulnerable populations, with the law relying on the principle of ‘eminent domain’. This principle gives the right to the central and state governments to take away private property for ‘public purposes’. The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act of 2013 repealed the Act of 1894 and ushered in a new era of hope for instances of development-induced displacement. However, the central government diluted this legislation by exempting certain categories of projects from the consent and social impact assessment (SIA) requirement. In the absence of specific international and national protective mechanisms, the human rights of development-induced displaced persons have suffered for generations.

Exploring Possibilties for a Right against Destruction for Architects

Jayadevan S Nair — Thu, 27 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0000

The courts and legal frameworks across the globe have not been unanimous as to whether the right against destruction should be a moral right or not for artists in general and for architects in particular. Both common law and civil law countries have been non-committal and lack uniformity in their approach in this regard. The right against destruction has been distinguished from other rights on the premise that there is no loss/detriment caused to the artist by the destruction of the creation. Despite its beneficent presence in the Copyright Act, 1957 the recent denial of moral rights against destruction to architects in the buildings envisioned and realised by them by the Delhi High Court needs a sound diagnosis and correction as it could have a cascading effect. In this, it deviates from a former ruling of the same (Delhi high court) court without making a substantial reference to it. It raises the issue of whether the basis for anti-destructive sentiment can be placed on the plank of public interest in the preservation of artistic works rather than on personality rights upon which the right to integrity is anchored. An assessment of these contexts will be useful to identify the limits on the right to destroy property particularly intellectual property in architecture.

Analysing the Animal Euthanasia Scenario in India in Light of the Constitutional Provisions

Latika Choudhary, Hardik Daga — Thu, 27 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0000

When Mahatma Gandhi said that “the greatness of a nation can be judged by the way its animals are treated”, he clearly implied that equality must exist between the evolved animals, i.e. Humans and the rest of the animal clan. Humans have always adamantly self-proclaimed themselves as the ‘superior’ species, granting to themselves an authority to govern the rest, backed by a well-drafted constitution. While it is undeniable that a democratic society ensures fundamental rights to its citizens, a more civilized and sensitive one does not shy away from extending the same to its animals, too. The Apex Court of India in 2011 broke all barriers and differences in the famous Jallikattu case, whereby it brought animals under the ambit of the right to life guaranteed under Art. 21 of the Indian Constitution. While now this fundamental right has been constitutionally guaranteed to animals to live with dignity, a pertinent question to be asked is, does the right also encompass the right to die. The Supreme Court, in the case of Aruna Shanbaug, did declare that passive euthanasia is legal in India, thus bestowing the scope of passively ending the life of a terminally ill patient. Considering that animals may also very much be under the same circumstances, is this right of passive euthanasia applicable to them as well. This paper will thus dwell into analyzing the current scenario in India pertaining to euthanasia of ailing and terminally ill animals, the legal provision & judicial precedents worldwide on the issue and the moral rationale behind the same.

Designing the Human Right to Peace: The U.N. Perspective and Challenges for Democratic Nations

Harigovind P C, Sarath Mohan — Thu, 27 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0000

The United Nations Charter’s purpose is to maintain international peace and security and ensure that armed force shall not be used except in the common interest. The Charter has one primary objective, i.e., to take appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace and prevent another war on a large scale. This is ensured by giving entry to only members who are peace-loving states and who accept the obligations contained in the Charter. For this purpose, the Charter has designed the Security Council so that any threat to peace, breach of peace, or act of aggression can be successfully contained. After the Charter, the United Nations introduced and advanced various declarations, conventions and committees, which raised the idea of peace and the right to peace into the mainstream of human rights. This article critically analyses the right to peace. It looks at the idea of peace being celebrated as an end in itself, within the national framework and the development of the Right to Peace as a Human Right. The paper concludes by emphasising on the relevance of democracy and constitutional framework within nation states.