Appeal to revise cyber legislation

Nov 19, 2015-

The Supreme Court has been asked to direct the government to rectify the Electronic Transactions Act of 2008 which “puts restriction on an individual’s right to expression against the new constitution”.

Advocate Pratyush Nath Uprety on Wednesday filed the appeal at the Supreme Court demanding to issue a writ of mandamus to the Office of the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers so that the clauses 1 and 2 of article 47 in the Electronic Transactions Act are nullified. The article, he argues, curtails the fundamental rights, and can be use by the state to prosecute innocent citizens.
The article 47 states that a person displaying any material in the electronic media which “may be contrary to the public morality or decent behaviour, may spread hate or jealousy against anyone, or may jeopardise the harmonious relations among people shall be liable to the punishment with the fine not exceeding one hundred thousand rupees, or with the imprisonment not exceeding five years, or with both.”
In the writ petition, Uprety appeals that words and phrases in the Act like material, public morality, decent behaviour, hate and jealousy are not defined, and are open to interpretation. Further, the article is in contradiction with article 17 of the Constitution of Nepal 2015 which grants freedom of opinion and expression as a fundamental right along with nine other articles.
In the past, the government has been accused of misusing the Act to detain its critics and deter open criticism in social networking sites.

Source: The Kathmandu Post, November 19, 2015

Comments

Intellectual Property Rights in Nepal

Pratyush Nath Upreti Speaking at a memorial service for Nelson Mandela on Dec 10, 2013, South African President Jacob Zuma said, “There is no one like Madiba. He was one of a kind.” Indeed the South African president’s statement about the world’s greatest liberator who contributed so much to strengthening the values of human rights is very significant. Mandela is an inspiration for all mankind. Unfortunately, a controversy has arisen over the ownership and unauthorised use of the name Mandela since his death. Nelson Mandela’s image, name and quotations have been registered under the proprietorship of the Nelson Mandela Foundation as per South African trademark laws. They are registered under several classes including jewellery, clothing, books and other products. Furthermore, other proprietors of the Mandela brand include the Nelson Mandela Children’s Hospital Trust, Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University and the Nelson Mandela Children’s Fund. Infringement and unauthorised use of

At The Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM) of European Union, Alicante, Spain, 2015

A Brief Analysis Of Nepal’s First National IP Policy

By Pratyush Nath Upreti Earlier this year, the Nepal Government released its long-awaited first national intellectual property policy, after becoming the first least developed country (LDC) to join the World Trade Organization (WTO) on 23 April 2004. The National Intellectual Property Policy of Nepal, released on 6 March, is available here [pdf]. During the accession negotiation of the WTO, Nepal presented an ‘Action Plan for Implementation of the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Protection’ which highlights the actions already taken by Nepal and future roadmaps to develop an IP system within an estimated timeline. Unfortunately, the action plan, suggesting drafting of the national IP code, never came into practice. Being an LDC, Nepal enjoys the status of the transition period under the TRIPS Agreement and has been receiving technical support from the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). Nepal is in the midst of a political transition,

IP License as an Investment: Insights from Bridgestone v.Panama

IP License as an Investment: Insights from Bridgestone v.Panama Please find full article here: ABSTRACT The relationship between intellectual property (IP)and investment is old, but the debates are new. Recent high profile cases in which intellectual property rights(IPRs) are being sought to be protected by means of international investment law and treaties have generated visible debate and discussion. In the light of the recent decision on expedited objections in Bridgestone Licensing v. Republic of Panama, this article will explore arguments put forwarded by both parties regarding the interaction between IP Licence Agreements and the definition of investment, as well as the Tribunal’s finding on the question whether an IP Licence with a revenue sharing model qualifies as an investment. Citation: Pratyush Nath Upreti, IP License as an Investment: Insights from Bridgestone v.Panama (2018)1(1) Stockholm Intellectual Property Review 16 full text of the article is available h

Dr. Pratyush Nath Upreti

Search This Blog