Question

The plaintiff claims her copyrighted yoga class is being bent out of shape and she wants license fees paid up. The defendant claims yoga is an ancient practice and there is no one alive that can claim to own it. Please review the case below and answer the questions based on the case and your understanding of Intellectual Property.

1. Is the Plaintiff’s exercise regimen an original and creative work? Yes or No. Please Explain.
2. Is the regimen a tangible form of expression? Yes or No. Please Explain.
3. Is the Defendant practicing deceptive advertising because his version of Anandi Hop strays from the copyrighted description? Yes or No? Please explain.
4. Does the Plaintiff hold a legitimate copyright on this form of exercise? Yes or No? Please Explain.

5. Is the Defendant infringing on the Plaintiff’s copyright? Yes or no? Please explain.

Answer 1

According to the offended party she needed permit charges from the litigant for the yoga practice routine. The litigant contends that yoga is an antiquated craftsmanship so there is no compelling reason to pay any expenses to the offended party since she isn't the first creator.

(1) The customary yoga practice routine won't go under the copyright law. Despite a posture or assemblage, it is absurd to expect to guarantee the 'origin' of a yoga style. It cannot be considered as an inventive work. So the appropriate response is No.

(2) Yoga comprises of a great deal of previous developments. A movement work is an indistinguishable practically identical one that has copyright security. Be that as it may, yoga is certainly not a substantial type of articulation. Henceforth the appropriate response is No.

(3) Defendant isn't rehearsing beguiling promoting in light of the fact that there is no copyright for Anandi Hop or some other type of yoga. It is beyond the realm of imagination to expect to guarantee any copyright on it. So the appropriate response is again No.

(4) The offended party has no arrangement under the law to guarantee a type of yoga as a copyrighted one. So she has no authentic copyright on the style. So it is a No.

(5) Since copyright assurance isn't pertinent as a yoga practice routine the litigant isn't encroaching any copyright here, Hence it is a No.

PLEASE LIKE MY ANSWER