This article is written by Sagar Sarkar, George School of Law, Fresher, LLB(Hons) during an internship at LeDroit India.
ABSTRACT
Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) protect creations like inventions, artworks, and brands by granting exclusive rights to creators. This overview explores key types of IPR—patents, trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets—and discusses landmark cases that have shaped their interpretation. Cases like Diamond v. Chakrabarty extended patent rights to genetically modified organisms, while Novartis AG v. Union of India highlighted limits on pharmaceutical patents to ensure public access to affordable medicines. The Cadila Health Care v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals case emphasized consumer protection in trademarks, and PepsiCo, Inc. v. Redmond reinforced trade secret protection. Together, these cases illustrate the balance between fostering innovation and public interest within IPR law, as global changes impact these rights and their enforcement.
KEYWORD
∙ Intellectual Property Rights (IPR)
∙ Patents
∙ Copyrights
∙ Trademarks
∙ Trade Secrets
INTRODUCTION
Intellectual property (IP) pertains to any original creation of the human intellect such as artistic, literary, technical, or scientific creation. Intellectual property rights (IPR) refers to the legal rights given to the inventor or creator to protect his invention or creation for a certain period of time. These legal rights confer an exclusive right to the inventor/creator or his assignee to fully utilize his invention/creation for a given period of time. It is very well settled that IP play a vital role in the modern economy. It has also been conclusively established that the intellectual labor associated with the innovation should be given due importance so that public good emanates from it. IPR is a strong tool, to protect investments, time, money, effort invested by the inventor/creator of an IP, since it grants the inventor/creator an exclusive right for a certain period of time for use of his invention/creation. Thus IPR, in this way aids the economic development of a country by promoting healthy competition and encouraging industrial development and economic growth. Present review furnishes a brief overview of IPR with special emphasis on pharmaceuticals.
BRIEF HISTORY
The laws and administrative procedures relating to IPR have their roots in Europe. The trend of granting patents started in the fourteenth century. In comparison to other European countries, in some matters England was technologically advanced and used to attract artisans from elsewhere, on special terms. The first known copyrights appeared in Italy. Venice can be considered the cradle of IP system as most legal thinking in this area was done here; laws and systems were made here for the first time in the world, and other countries followed in due course. Patent act in India is more than 150 years old. The inaugural one is the 1856 Act, which is based on the British patent system and it has provided the patent term of 14 years followed by numerous acts and amendments.
TYPES OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS
- Patents: A patent is an exclusive right granted for an invention, which is a product or a process that provides, in general, a new way of doing something, or offers a new technical solution to a problem. Patentability of any invention needs to fulfill certain criteria such as Usefulness, Novelty and Non obviousness. It provides protection for the invention to the owner of the patent for a limited period, i.e 20 years.
Landmark Case Laws:
∙ Diamond v. Chakrabarty (1980) 1– This U.S. Supreme Court case allowed the patenting of genetically modified organisms setting a precedent for biotechnology patents. The court held that “anything under the sun made by man” could be patented if it met the criteria of novelty and utility.
∙ Novartis AG v. Union of India & Others (2013) 2– In this Indian Supreme Court case Novartis sought a patent for a modified version of a cancer drug (Glivec). The court denied the patent stating that minor modifications without significant efficacy improvement did not warrant new patent protection. This case emphasized the concept of “evergreening” and strengthened generic drug availability in India. - Trademarks: A trademark is a distinctive sign which identifies certain goods or services as those produced or provided by a specific person or enterprise. It may be one or a combination of words, letters, and numerals.
Landmark Case Laws:
∙ Starbucks called Starbucks Corp. v. Wolfe’s Borough Coffee, Inc. (2009) 3– In this case Starbucks accused Wolfe’s Borough Coffee of diluting its trademark with a product called “Charbucks” arguing that it would confuse consumers and harm the Starbucks brand. The court eventually ruled in favor of Wolfe’s Borough concluding that while there was some association with Starbucks it was not enough to constitute trademark dilution or consumer confusion under the law.
∙ Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (2001) 4– This Indian Supreme Court case emphasized the likelihood of confusion in trademarks. It established that even similar-sounding names (without identical spelling) could lead to confusion warranting protection under trademark laws.
1 Diamond v. Chakrabarty (1980) – https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/447/303/
2 Novartis AG v. Union of India & Others (2013) – https://indiankanoon.org/doc/165776436/ 3 Starbucks called Starbucks Corp. v. Wolfe’s Borough Coffee, Inc. (2009) – https://casetext.com/case/starbucks corp-v-wolfes-borough-coffee
4 Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (2001) – https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1114158/ - Copyrights: Copyright is a legal term describing rights given to creators for their literary and artistic works. Creators often sell the rights to their works to individuals or companies best able to market the works in return for payment. These payments are often made dependent on the actual use of the work, and are then referred to as royalties.
Landmark Case Laws:
∙ Bleistein v. Donaldson Lithographing Co. (1903) 5– This U.S. Supreme Court case established that even commercial advertisements are eligible for copyright protection, extending copyright to commercial and aesthetic expressions.
∙ Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak (2008) 6– This Indian Supreme Court case dealt with the copyright of law reports. The court held that mere compilations of judgments are not eligible for copyright but that original head-notes and other value-added elements are protectable. - Trade Secrets: Broadly speaking, any confidential business information which provides an enterprise a competitive edge may be considered a trade secret. Trade secrets encompass manufacturing or industrial secrets and commercial secrets. The unauthorized use of such information by persons other than the holder is regarded as an unfair practice and a violation of the trade secret. Contrary to patents, trade secrets are protected without registration. Landmark Case Laws:
∙ Coca-Cola Company v. Reed (1917) 7– Coca-Cola successfully defended its secret formula demonstrating the enduring value and protection of trade secrets.
∙ PepsiCo, Inc. v. Redmond (1995) 8– PepsiCo filed a case to prevent a former executive from joining a competitor. The court recognized the “inevitable disclosure” doctrine where a former employee may inevitably disclose trade secrets if they join a competitor. - Geographical Indications (GIs): A Geographical Indication (GI) is a sign used on goods that have a specific geographical origin and possess qualities, reputation or characteristics that are essentially attributable to that place of origin. The Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act 1999 (the Act) provide for registration of Handicrafts as Geographical indications (GI).
Landmark Case Laws:
5 Bleistein v. Donaldson Lithographing Co. (1903) – https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/188/239/ 6 Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak (2008) – https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1062099/ 7 Coca-Cola Company v. Reed (1917) – https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/864/150/239555/ 8 PepsiCo, Inc. v. Redmond (1995) – https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-7th-circuit/1337323.html
∙ Scotch Whisky Association v. Glenora Distillers International Ltd. (1998) 9– In this case Glenora used the term “Scotch” for a product made in Canada. The court upheld that “Scotch” is a protected GI enforcing that only products made in Scotland could use this term.
∙ Darjeeling Tea Case (India) 10– The Tea Board of India successfully secured GI protection for “Darjeeling” tea ensuring that only tea cultivated in Darjeeling could be sold under that name. - Industrial Designs: Industrial designs refer to creative activity which results in the ornamental or formal appearance of a product and ‘design right’ refers to a novel or original design that is accorded to the proprietor of a validly registered design. The existing legislation on industrial designs in India is contained in the New Designs Act, 2000 which aims at enacting a more detailed classification of design to conform to the international system and to take care of the proliferation of design-related activities in various fields.
Landmark Case Laws:
∙ Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. (2012) 11– Apple sued Samsung for infringing on design patents related to the iPhone’s look and feel. Apple won a significant portion of its claims marking an important victory for industrial design rights globally. - Semiconductor Integrated Circuit of Layout Designs (SICLD): All electronic gadgets are very compact nowadays due to their integrated circuits. These designs of circuits are creation of human mind as a consequence of enormous investments and efforts of highly qualified experts. The SICLD Act of 2000 empowers the registered proprietor of the layout-design an inherent right to use the layout-design, commercially exploit it and obtain relief in respect of any infringement. Landmark Case Laws:
∙ Altera Corp. v. Clear Logic Inc. (2004) 12- Altera sued Clear Logic for copying the configuration of its field-programmable gate array (FPGA) and converting it into a mask for integrated circuits. The court ruled that Clear Logic’s actions amounted to infringement emphasizing the importance of protecting semiconductor design rights though based on a patent not a layout design directly. Still the case is relevant for intellectual property concerning semiconductors.
9 Scotch Whisky Association v. Glenora Distillers International Ltd. (1998) – https://ca.vlex.com/vid/scotch-whisky assoc-v-681561049
10 Darjeeling Tea Case (India) – https://blog.ipleaders.in/darjeeling-tea-word-logo-protection-gi-tag-analysis/ 11 Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. (2012) –
https://www.bitlaw.com/source/cases/patent/Apple_v_Samsung_Fed_Cir.html
12 Altera Corp. v. Clear Logic Inc. (2004) – https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-9th-circuit/1302809.html - Protection of plant varieties & farmer’s rights: The objective of this act is to recognize the role of farmers as cultivators and conserves and the contribution of traditional, rural and tribal communities to the country’s agro-biodiversity by rewarding them for their contribution and to stimulate investment for R & D for the development of new plant varieties to facilitate the growth of the seed industry which will ensure the availability of high quality seeds and planting material to the farmers.
Landmark Case Laws:
∙ PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt Ltd. v. Indian Farmers (2019) 13- After significant media attention and political pressure PepsiCo withdrew its lawsuits. The case highlighted the balance of breeder and farmer rights under the Act. Farmers invoked their right to use protected varieties for non-commercial purposes under Section 39(1)(iv) which provides that farmers can use seeds from protected varieties for sowing, re-sowing and sharing with others.
∙ Monsanto Technology LLC & Ors. v. Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd. & Ors. (2019) 14- The Supreme Court ruled that Monsanto’s patent on the Bt cotton seed would remain valid but sent the matter back to the High Court to determine royalty payment. This case was a significant moment in terms of how patent law plant variety rights and farmers’ rights intersect in India. - Protection of Biological Diversity: The Biological Diversity Act covers the traditional knowledge in the preamble itself. It also provides for issues related to traditional knowledge under the umbrella of associated knowledge within various provisions of the Biological Diversity Act, 2002. The benefit claimers are conservers of biological resources, creators and holders of knowledge and information relating to the uses of biological resources.
Landmark Case Laws:
∙ Divya Pharmacy v. Union of India (2018) 15- The Uttarakhand High Court ruled that Indian companies are also liable to share benefits when utilizing biological resources. This decision reinforced the idea that all entities whether Indian or foreign must comply with benefit sharing provisions under the Act.
THE IPR SYSTEM IN INDIA
13 PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt Ltd. v. Indian Farmers (2019) – https://spicyip.com/2019/04/the-farmers-rights-law lays-the-ipr-trap.html
14 Monsanto Technology LLC & Ors. v. Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd. & Ors. (2019) –
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/116548206/
15 Divya Pharmacy v. Union of India (2018) – https://abs.nls.ac.in/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/DIVYA PHARMACY-V-UNION-OF-INDIA-AND-OTHERS-case-summary.pdf
The origins of India’s IPR system date back to British colonial rule, when as a colony the state enacted various rules and enforcement mechanisms pertaining to IP rights. Post-independence, India retained elements of these structures while updating some guiding regulations and other bureaucratic structures. As India moved toward liberalization, privatization, and globalization in the 1990s and later, Indian policymakers made further adjustments to keep up with growing needs of domestic and international stakeholders. Indian IPR Laws fully conform to the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights under WTO aegis.
IPR STATUS OF INDIA
India currently ranks 60th out of 127 countries on the Global innovation Index (GII) 2017, co published by World-Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), Cornell University and INSEAD13 with Confederation of Indian Industry & others as Knowledge Partners (see Annexure IV). India ranks overall in the presence of global R&D companies, considerably better than comparable groups of lower- and upper-middle-income economies. India also surpasses most other middle income economies in science and engineering graduates, gross capital formation, Gross Expenditure on Research and Development (GERD) performed by business, research talent, on the input side; quality of scientific publications, growth rate of GDP per worker, high-tech and ICT services exports, creative goods exports, high-tech manufactures, and IP receipts on the output side.
THE GLOBAL FRAMEWORK FOR IPR
The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) oversees the global IPR framework and facilitates international cooperation. Key agreements include:
- The Paris Convention (1883) for industrial property rights.
- The Berne Convention (1886) for the protection of literary and artistic works. – The TRIPS Agreement (Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, 1995) under the World Trade Organization, which sets minimum standards for IPR protection globally.
CHALLENGES IN IPR ENFORCEMENT
- Piracy and Counterfeiting: The rise of digital technology has increased copyright infringement, making it difficult to protect content distributed online.
- Patent Trolling: Entities that do not produce goods but hold patents to sue innovators can stifle innovation.
- International Enforcement: Different countries have varying levels of enforcement, which complicates global IPR protection.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
It is obvious that management of IP and IPR is a multidimensional task and calls for many different actions and strategies which need to be aligned with national laws and international treaties and practices. It is no longer driven purely by a national perspective. IP and its associated rights are seriously influenced by the market needs, market response, cost involved in translating IP into commercial venture and so on. In other words, trade and commerce considerations are important in the management of IPR. Different forms of IPR demand different treatment, handling, planning, and strategies and engagement of persons with different domain knowledge such as science, engineering, medicines, law, finance, marketing, and economics. Each industry should evolve its own IP policies, management style, strategies, etc. depending on its area of specialty.
REFERENCES
∙ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3217699/
∙https://loksabhadocs.nic.in/Refinput/New_Reference_Notes/English/Intellectual%20Propert y%20Rights%20in%20India.pdf
