Intellectual Property

Posted on by user

Introduction
Intellectual Property (IP) encompasses the legal rights granted to creations of the human mind — inventions, literary and artistic works, designs, symbols, names, images, and other commercial identifiers. In India, IP is not an abstract academic concept: it is a core transactional and litigation field that shapes industry strategy, corporate valuations, technology transfer, competition, and cultural production. For practitioners, mastery of IP means combining statutory literacy with technical fact-work, forensic evidence-gathering and tactical use of interlocutory relief. This article compresses the legal architecture and daily courtroom and advisory practice into a practical roadmap.

Core Legal Framework
Primary statutes and key provisions (selected)
– Patents Act, 1970
– Section 2(1)(j): definition of “invention”.
– Section 3: lists inventions “not patentable” (including mere discovery, mathematical or business methods, and “a mere arrangement or rearrangement”).
– Section 53: term of patent (20 years from the filing date).
– (Practitioners should be alert to Sections dealing with pre- and post-grant opposition, compulsory licensing and revocation proceedings — for strategy and timelines.)
– Copyright Act, 1957
– Section 13: works in which copyright subsists.
– Section 14: explains the “meaning of copyright” as exclusive rights to reproduce, perform, publish, communicate to the public, etc.
– Section 51: remedies for infringement (civil action).
– Section 52: statutory exceptions (fair dealing).
– Penal provisions: criminal sanctions for certain infringements (see Chapter XIII).
– Trade Marks Act, 1999
– Section 2(1)(zb): definition of “trademark”.
– Section 18: effect of registration (exclusive right to use the mark).
– Section 29: infringement of registered trademarks.
– Passing off: parallel common law remedy for unregistered marks.
– Designs Act, 2000
– Section 2(d): definition of “design”.
– (Registered design confers exclusive rights against imitation; infringement remedies exist under the Act.)
– Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999
– Section 2(1)(e): definition of “geographical indication”.
– Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001
– Statutory protection for new plant varieties and related rights.
– International framework
– India is bound by TRIPS (WTO), the Paris Convention and the Berne Convention (through TRIPS), and is an active member of WIPO treaties. These inform statutory interpretation and policy.

Note on non-statutory IP
– Trade secrets and confidential information are not governed by a single statute in India. They are protected contractually, under the law of breach of confidence, and by equitable remedies. The Information Technology Act, 2000, and provisions of the Indian Penal Code may be relevant in cyber-theft and fraud contexts.

Practical Application and Nuances
How IP claims typically play out — stepwise practical notes

  1. Pre‑action stage: client intake, preservation, and evidence
  2. Immediate steps on suspicion of infringement:
  3. Issue a carefully worded legal notice / cease-and-desist to preserve rights and create contemporaneous record.
  4. Send Notice under Rule 55/Section 138? (use appropriate procedural route) and preserve digital evidence (mirror images, metadata, server logs).
  5. Collect physical evidence: samples, invoices, point-of-sale receipts, packaging, internal communications.
  6. Obtain sworn affidavits from witnesses and expert statements (for technical patents or artistic originality).

  7. For trade secrets: send confidentiality reminders, identify breach pathway, and preserve logs; consider urgent injunctive relief and criminal complaint if data theft is evident.

  8. Interim relief: injunctions and search & seizure

  9. Standard test used by Indian courts for interim injunctions in IP suits:
  10. Prima facie case;
  11. Balance of convenience; and
  12. Irreparable injury.
  13. In practice:
  14. For trademarks/passing-off: show use, reputation/goodwill, similarity leading to likelihood of confusion; surveys and market affidavits strengthen prima facie case.
  15. For copyright: demonstrate subsistence (originality) + substantial reproduction of expression (not mere idea); compare works side-by-side and use expert evidence where technicality exists.
  16. For patents: judges will often demand cogent technical expert affidavits; an interlocutory injunction requires convincing evidence of prima facie validity and infringement — a higher evidentiary burden is common due to technical complexity and public interest considerations.
  17. Search and seizure/Anton Piller–type reliefs:

  18. Indian courts do grant search and seizure orders and orders for delivery up of infringing goods; relief must be cautiously drafted to comply with civil procedure and avoid abuse allegations. Always include procedural safeguards (inventory, neutral custodian, limited hours, court supervision).

  19. Substantive proof in different IP areas

  20. Trademark infringement and passing-off:
  21. Registered mark: plead registration, prima facie similarity, and actual/deemed confusion. Use market surveys, expert opinions, evidence of overlapping trade channels, and documentary proof of contemporaneous misrepresentations.
  22. Passing-off (unregistered): prove goodwill, misrepresentation by defendant, and likelihood of damage. Evidence of distinctiveness, extensive advertising, sales figures and consumer affidavits are decisive.
  23. Copyright:
  24. Proof of ownership: registration is prima facie evidence but not conclusive; production of original manuscript, drafts, timestamps, CMS/metadata helps.
  25. Infringement: establish copying (access + substantial similarity). Direct evidence of copying strengthens claim; alternate route is proving striking similarity and opportunity to copy.
  26. Defences: fair dealing/fair use, independent creation (produce dated originals), inspiration vs. copying (R.G. Anand).
  27. Patents:
  28. Infringement analysis revolves around claim construction and comparison with the accused product/process. Prepare a claim chart mapping each claim element to accused product.
  29. Invalidity attacks: prior art searches (global), obviousness/reasonable expectation of success, lack of inventive step or excluded subject matter (Section 3). Oppositions/revocation petitions are common tactical counters.
  30. Designs:
  31. Compare overall visual impression; minor variations often insufficient if overall impression leads to deception.
  32. Geographical Indications:

  33. Establish origin link, characteristic quality or reputation attributable to geographic origin.

  34. Reliefs and remedies

  35. Civil: injunctions (interim and perpetual), damages or account of profits, delivery up/destruction, rendition of accounts, declaratory relief.
  36. Choice between damages and account of profits depends on evidence: account of profits demands rigorous accounting; damages can be harder to quantify without strong documentary proof.
  37. Criminal: available for certain copyright and trademark offences — useful as a pressure lever but requires threshold evidence.
  38. Border enforcement and customs: available to seize imported infringing goods; practitioners should engage customs officers and file timely notices.
  39. Administrative remedies: opposition and rectification before registries (faster, cost-effective for marks, designs and patents in pre/post-grant stages).

Landmark Judgments (practical principles)
– Novartis AG v. Union of India & Others (2013) — Supreme Court
– Principle: Affirmed stringent application of Section 3(d) in the Patents Act to prevent “evergreening.” For practitioners: when drafting patent applications or arguing patentability, emphasise therapeutic efficacy and technical advancement beyond known substances.
– Cadila Healthcare Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (2001) — Supreme Court
– Principle: Laid down practical test for trademark infringement/passing off — comparison of essential features and the overall impact on the mind of the consumer (not a blind letter-by-letter test). Practitioners should focus on consumer perception evidence and context of use (class of purchaser, trade channels).
– R.G. Anand v. Deluxe Films (1978) — Supreme Court
– Principle: Re-established the idea-expression dichotomy in copyright; mere similarity of ideas is not infringement — there must be substantial reproduction of expression. Practically, counsel should prepare meticulous comparisons between works and rely on expert testimony to distinguish idea from expression.

Strategic Considerations for Practitioners
Pre‑litigation strategy
– Conduct comprehensive clearance searches (trademark, patent, design) and “freedom to operate” opinions before advising commercial launches.
– Preserve evidence early: ISPs, web-hosting logs, domain registration details, screenshots with metadata, and affidavits from retailers and customers.
– Use well-drafted cease-and-desist letters that preserve settlement options while establishing the plaintiff’s seriousness.

Pleadings and evidence
– Draft pleadings with technical clarity: in patents, append claim charts and expert declarations; in trademarks include sales figures, advertisement copies, and survey data; in copyright, annex originals, drafts, and registration certificate.
– Anticipate the defendant’s invalidity attack in patents and design a dual case: provable injunction case and fallback damages/account of profits.

Interim relief calculus
– For patent suits, expect courts to weigh the public interest and strong prima facie invalidity arguments; secure a strong expert affidavit and, where possible, post an undertaking in damages.
– For trademark and copyright suits, assemble consumer affidavits and immediate market surveys to demonstrate confusion or market harm.

Remedies selection and quantification
– When damages are hard to compute, consider claiming account of profits. To make an account claim sustainable, collate invoices, distribution agreements, and bank statements.
– Consider alternative dispute resolution for complex technical licensing disputes — expert determination or arbitration can be quicker and preserve business relationships.

Government, regulatory and policy avenues
– Use compulsory licence provisions or public interest doctrines strategically (pharma & healthcare).
– For domain/dispute cases, use UDRP and INDRP alongside domestic remedies.

Common pitfalls to avoid
– Over-relying on registration: registration is strong evidence but not impregnable. Anticipate challenges on grounds of prior use, bad faith, or invalidity.
– Weak pleadings: insufficiently particularised pleadings (e.g., vague claims of “infringement without specifics”) doom interim relief applications.
– Ignoring global implications: IP is often cross-border. Failure to coordinate multiple jurisdictions can result in gaps (e.g., continued parallel imports).
– Poorly managed discovery: inadequate preservation of ESI or failure to obtain forensic snapshots invites adverse inferences or costs sanctions.
– Under-estimating technical evidence: in patents and complex copyright cases, courtroom persuasion depends heavily on credible technical experts.

Practical checklists for hearings
– Interim hearing bundle: pleadings, registration certificates, claim charts/side-by-side comparisons, invoices, advertisements, affidavits from customers/experts, market surveys, proposed order for search and seizure (with procedural safeguards).
– Substantive trial bundle: full chain of title, assignment agreements, licensing contracts, royalty computations, forensic reports, prior art databases, prosecution history (file-wrapper), and settlement communications.

Conclusion
Intellectual Property practice in India demands a hybrid skillset: statutory knowledge (Patents Act, Copyright Act, Trade Marks Act, Designs Act, GI Act), forensic fact-building, technical expert management, and tactical courtroom advocacy. The core practical levers for practitioners are early preservation of evidence, crisp pleadings with technical mapping (claim charts), a calibrated interim relief strategy, and readiness to counter invalidity or fair-use defences with cogent documentary and expert proof. Landmark decisions such as Novartis (on patentability), Cadila (on trademark confusion) and R.G. Anand (on the idea-expression divide) supply enduring doctrinal anchors, but success turns on presenting the technical and commercial story in a form the court can immediately apply to the three-element injunction test and the ultimate reliefs sought.