Skip to content
Notes

IPR Jurisprudence

Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) jurisprudence in India involves the interpretation, application, and evolution of laws concerning patents, trademarks, copyrights, designs, geographical indications, and trade secrets. Here’s an overview of how jurisprudence has shaped IPR in India:

Patents Jurisprudence

Novartis AG v. Union of India (2013)

A landmark case that dealt with Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act, which restricts the patenting of new forms of known substances unless they show significantly enhanced efficacy. The court denied a patent for a modified version of the cancer drug Glivec, emphasizing the need for genuine innovation.

Bayer Corporation v. Union of India (2014)

This case addressed compulsory licensing, where the court allowed Natco Pharma to produce a generic version of Bayer’s patented cancer drug, setting a precedent for public health over pharmaceutical profits.

Trademarks Jurisprudence

Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (2001)

This case highlighted the importance of trademark distinctiveness and consumer protection, ruling that even pharmaceutical companies must take care to avoid confusion between similar trademarks, which could lead to public health risks.

Shree Nath Heritage Liquor Pvt. Ltd. v. Allied Blenders and Distillers Pvt. Ltd. (2015)

The Supreme Court clarified the doctrine of trans-border reputation, where a trademark’s reputation in another country could be considered for protection in India.

Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak (2002)

The court recognized the concept of “sweat of the brow” in copyright law, stating that original selection, judgment, and labor in creating compilations like law reports can be copyrightable.

R.G. Anand v. Deluxe Films (1978)

An early case that set down principles for determining copyright infringement in literary and cinematic works, focusing on substantial similarity and the idea-expression dichotomy.

Geographical Indications Jurisprudence

Scotch Whisky Association v. Pravara Sahakari Ltd. (2015)

This case emphasized the protection of foreign geographical indications in India, leading to an injunction against the use of “Scotch Whisky” for Indian-made whisky.

Designs Jurisprudence

M/s. Carlsberg Breweries A/S v. Som Distilleries and Breweries Ltd. (2018)

The Delhi High Court dealt with design infringement, reinforcing the protection of unique bottle designs for branding purposes

General Principles in IPR Jurisprudence

Balance between Rights Holders and Public Interest

Courts often strive to balance the rights of IP holders with the interests of the public, especially in areas like public health, education, and access to information.

  • Evolving Standards for Innovation: Jurisprudence has been key in interpreting what constitutes innovation or originality, particularly in the context of patents and copyrights, adapting to technological advancements.
  • International Compliance: Indian courts consider international obligations like those under the TRIPS Agreement when interpreting national law, ensuring that India’s IPR regime aligns with global standards.
  • Judicial Activism: Indian courts have sometimes played an activist role, particularly in cases where public interest is at stake, leading to more stringent standards for IP protection or enforcement.
  • Doctrine of Equivalents: In patent law, this doctrine has been used to prevent circumvention of patent rights by slight modifications to patented inventions.

The jurisprudence in IPR in India is dynamic, with courts continuously refining the legal boundaries in response to new challenges, technological developments, and societal needs. For your exam, focus on understanding these key cases, the principles they establish, and how they’ve influenced the interpretation and application of IPR laws in India.