Intellectual Property Law

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW
SYLLABUS
1. Patents Act, 1970

 Patentable and Non-Patentable Inventions
 Rights of Patentee and limitations (Objections)
 Exceptions and limitations of Patent Rights
 Term of Patent
 Infringement of Patent
 Defences and Remedies in suit for infringement
 PCT (Conventions+ IPR Regime+ TRIPS Agreement – AM IX- MCQs)
 Grant and revocation of Patent for MCQs
CASES
Patentable and Non-Patentable Inventions
 F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. & Anr. v. Cipla Limited- 148 (2008) DLT 598 MIPR 2008
(2) 35
 Biswanath Prasad Radhey Shyam v. Hindustan Metal Industries
 Indian Vaccum Brake Co. vs. E.S. Luard- AIR 1926 Cal 152
 Young and Neilson v. Rosenthal & Co.
 Novartis Ag vs Union of India & Ors- 1 April, 2013
Scope of Section 47:
 Garware Wall Ropes Ltd. v. AI. Chopra and Konkan Railway Corp. Ltd.- (2008) 3 MLJ
599
 Chemtura Corporation v. Union of India- WRIT PETITION NO. 1919 OF 2014
Bolar Rule:
 Bayer v. Natco
Public Non Commercial Use Exception (Section 84-92)
 Lee Pharma Ltd. v. Astrazeneca
Guideline to determine Patent-Infringement:
 Bishwanth Prasad Radhey Shyam v. Hindustan Metal Industries- AIR 1982 SC 1444
Suits concerning Infringement of Patents:

 Gujarat Bottling v. Coca Cola
 Lallubhai Chakubhai Jarivala v. Shamaldas Sankalchand Shah on 20 March, 1934
 Bajaj Auto Ltd., State Of v. Tvs Motor Company Ltd. on 16 February, 2008
 Novartis v. UOI
 Roche v. Cipla
2. Plant Varieties Act- AM 10- MCQs
CASES
 Pepsico v. Gujarat Farmers

 Maharashtra Hybrid Seed Co. v. Union Of India And Anr on 9 January, 2015
(Evergreening on PPV Act)
3. Semi-Conductor Layout Designs- AM 11- MCQs
4. Copyright Act, 1957

 Conventions (Berne, WIPO, Phonograms Treaty)
 Works in which Copyright subsists (Section 13)+ Concept of Originality+ Idea+
Expression Dichotomy- MCQ+ Long Answers
 Authorship and Ownership- MCQ+ Long Answers
 Transfer of Ownership Right (Assignment+ License)- MCQ+ Long Answers
 Cinematograph Film and Sound Recording- MCQ+ Long Answers
 Limitations to Copyright- MCQ
 Doctrine of Fair Dealing (Permitted Acts)- MCQ+ Long Answers
 Compulsory License and Statutory license- MCQ+ Long Answers
 Types of Rights
 Exclusive Rights (Section 14)
 Moral Rights (Section 57)
 Neighbouring Rights (Section 37- 39A)
 Infringement of Copyright and Remedies
CASES
Test of Originality:
 University of London Press Ltd. v University Tutorial Press Ltd.- (1916) 2 Ch.D 601
 Delhi High Court in Eastern Book Co. v. Navin J. Desai- 2001 PTC 57 (Del) 94 held that
the head notes of law reports can be original literary work if they are prepared by the
author using his own skill, labour and judgement.
 Eastern Book Co. v. D.B. Modak- 2008 (36) PTC SC
 Infoseek Solutions v Kerala Law Times (2007 (34) PTC 231 (Ker))
Idea-Expression Dichotomy:
 Anil Gupta v. Kunal Dasgupta- (2002) 25 PTC 1

 R. G. Anand v. Delux Films- AIR 1978 SC 1613
Novels and Stories:
 Penguin Random House v. Colting
Concept Note:
 Anil Gupta v. Kunaldas Gupta and ors- (2002) 97 DLT 257 (India), AIR 2002 Delhi 379
 Fateh Singh Mehta v. O.P. Singhal- AIR 1990 Raj 8
Adaptation and Abridgement
 Macmillan v. Cooper- AIR 1924 PC 75
Databases:
 Burlington Home Shopping Private Ltd v. Rajnish Chibber- (1996) PTR 40 (Del)
Copy-edited Judgments:
 Eastern Book Co. v D.B. Modak 2008 (36) PTC SC
Deviation from the doctrine of Sweat of the Brow:
 Macmillan & Co. v Cooper (AIR 1924 PC 75)

 Feist Publications Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co. Inc
 Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak
Dramatic Works:
 Tate v. Fullbrook- 1 K.B. 821 (C.A. 1908)

 Norowzian v. Arks Ltd.- [1999] EWCA Civ 3014
 Fortune Films International v. Dev Anand- AIR 1979 Bom 17
 Green v. Broadcasting Corporation of New Zealand- [1989] R.P.C. 700 (PC)
 Academy of General Education, Manipal v. B.Malini Mallya- AIR 2009 SC 1982
Artistic Works
 Interlego v. Tyco Industries Inc.- (1988) 3 WLR 678

 Associated Publishers v. Bashyam- AIR 1964 Mad. 114
Cinematograph Film:
 Indian Performing Rights Society v. Eastern Indian Motions Pictures Association- AIR
1977 SC 1443
 Star India Private Limited v. Leo Burnett (India) Pvt. Ltd.- (2003) 27 PTC 81 (Bom)
 Shree Venkatesh Films Pvt. Ltd. v. Vipul Amrutlal Shah & Ors.- 2009 SCC OnLine Cal
2113
 MRF Limited v. Metro Tyres Limited- CS(COMM) 753/2017
 R.G. Anand v. Delux Films- AIR 1978 SC 1613
Authorship and Ownership of Copyright:
 Najma Heptullah v. M/s Orient Longman Ltd.- AIR 1989 Del. 63
First owner of Copyright:
 Neetu Singh v. Rajiv Saumitra

 V.T. Thomas v Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd. AIR 1989 Ker 49
Disputes w.r.t. assignment:
 PHI learning Pvt. Ltd. v. Dr. (Mrs.) P. Meenakshi- 2011 (47) PTC 548 (Del)
 Video Master v. Nishi Productions- 1998 (18) PTC 117
 Pine Labs Pvt. Ltd. v. Gemalto Terminals Pvt. Ltd.- (2010) 42 PTC 2229 (Del)
 Sholay Media & Entertainment Pvt. Ltd vs. Vodafone Essar Mobile Services Ltd. I.A.
Nos. 3258/2011 & 4504/2011 in CS (OS) No. 490/2011.
Doctrine of Fair Dealing:
 Hubbard v. Vosper- [1972] 2 Q.B. 84

 The Chancellor, Masters & Scholars of the University of Oxford & Ors. v. Rameshwari
Photocopy Services & Ors. [DU Photocopying Case]
 Super Cassettes Industries v. Hamar Televisions Network Pvt. Ltd. 2011 (45) PTC 70
(Del).
 India TV Independent News Services Pvt. Ltd vs Yashraj Films Private Limited & Super
Cassettes Ltd. FAO (OS) 583/2011
 Syndicate of the Press of the University of Cambridge v. B.D. Bhandari & Anr.- 2011
(47) PTC (Del.) (DB)
 Eastern Book Co. v. Navin J. Desai- 2001 (21) PTC 57 (Del.)
 Eastern Book Co. v. D. B. Modak- 2008 (36) PTC (SC)
 Academy of General Education, Manipal v. Malini Mallya- 2009 (39) PTC 393 (SC)
Compulsory License:
 Entertainment Network (India) Limited v. Super Cassette Industries Ltd.- 2004 (28) PTC
131 (CB)/ 2008 (37) PTC 353 (SC)
 Super Cassette Industries Ltd v. Entertainment Network (India) Ltd.- (2004) 29 PTC 8
(DEL)
Statutory License:
 Entertainment Network (India) Limited vs Super Cassette Industries Limited- (2008)

SCC 30
 Tips Industries Ltd vs Wynk Music Ltd.- Commercial Suit (L) no. 113 & 114 of 2018
Bom High Court.
Moral Rights:
 Manu Bhandari v Kala Pictures Ltd.- AIR 1987 Del. 13

 Amar Nath Sehgal v. Union of India 2005 (30) PTC 253 (Del.)
Performer’s Rights in India
 Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd., v. Gajendra Singh- 2008 (36) PTC (Bom)
 Super Cassette Industries Ltd. v. Entertainment Network (India) Ltd.- AIR 2004 Delhi
326
 ESPN Stars Sports v. Global Broadcast News Ltd.- 2008 (36) PTC 492 (Del.) (Broadcast
Reproduction Right)
 Super Cassette Industries v. Nirulas Corner House (P) Ltd.- 2008 (37) PTC 237 (Del.)
Remedies:
 Anton Pillar K.G. v. Manufacturing Processes Ltd.- [1976] RPC 719

 Autodesk Inc. v. A.V.T. Shankardass 2008 (37) PTC 581
Infringement:
 Billy Joel v Various John Does- 499 F.Supp. 791 (1980).

 Tej Television Ltd v Rajan Mandal- [2003] FSR 22
 ESPN Software v Tudu Enterprises- CS (OS) 384/2011
 Reliance Big Entertainment Ltd. V. Multivision Network and Ors.
Groundless Threat:
 Super Cassette Industries Ltd. v Bathla Cassettes India (P) Ltd. AIR 1994 Del 237.
Rights of Owner:
 J.K. Rowling v City Publication- 171 (2010) DLT 791

5. Trademarks Act, 1999
 Conventions- MCQ
 Definition of ‘Trademark’ and ‘Mark’- MCQ+ Long Answers
 Conditions for registration of Marks (Absolute+ Relative grounds- Section 9 and Section
11)- MCQ+ Long Answers
 Passing Off and Infringement of Trademark- MCQ+ Long Answers
CASES
 Swizzells Matlow Ltd. Appl.- (1999) RPC 879

 Ralf Sieckmann v. Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt
Non- Conventional Trademark
 Shield Mark v Joost Kist h.o.d.n. MEMEX (C-283/01)

 Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corporation- 774 F.2d 1116
 Libertel Groep BV v. Benelux-Merkenbureau Case C-104/01
 Cipla Limited vs M.K. Pharmaceuticals MIPR 2007 (3) 170
 Lego Juris A/S v. The Office of Harmonization for the Internal Market and Mega Brands
 Philips v. Remington
 Corning Inc. and Ors. Raj Kumar Garg and Ors.- 2004 (28) PTC 257
 Yahoo! Inc. v. Akash Arora and another, 1999 Arb. L. R. 620
 Satyam Infoway Ltd. v. Sifynet Solutions Pvt. Ltd 2004(3) AWC 2366 SC
Well-known Marks:
 Tata Sons Ltd. v. Hoop Anin & Ors.

 ITC v Philip Morris Products SA & Ors 2010 (42) PTC 572 (Del.)
 Benz Aktiegessellschaft & Anr. v. Hybo Hindustan
 Starbucks Corporation v. Sardarbuksh Coffee & Co. & Ors., CS (COMM) 1007/2018
Absolute grounds for Refusal of Registration:
 Glaxo Group Ltd. v. Indkus Drugs and Pharma (P) Ltd. (2015) 61 PTC 358
 Abercrombie & Fitch Co. v. Hunting World, Inc. 537 F.2d 4 (2nd Cir. 1976)
 Imperial Tobacco Co. of India Ltd. v. The Registrar of Trademarks [AIR 1977 Cal. 413]
(Mark- ‘Shimla’)
 M/s Hindustan Development Corporation Ltd. v. The Deputy Registrar of Trademarks-
AIR 1955 Cal. 519 (Mark – Rasoi)
 Laxmikant v. Patel v. Chetanbhai Shah- AIR 2002 SC 275 (Mukta Jeevan Colour Lab –
Use of Mark)
 Parker Knoll Ltd. vs. Knoll
 Amritdhara Pharmacy v. Satya Dev Gupta
 M/S Lakme Ltd. v. M/S Subhash Trading
 SM Dyechem Ltd. v. Cadbury (India) Ltd
 Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceutical Ltd
 Amritpal Singh v. Lal Babu Priyadarshi- 2005 (30) PTC 94 (IPAB) 23 (2002) RPC 628
 Koninklijke Philips Electronics Ltd. v. Remington Consumers Products Ltd.- [2006] FSR
30 p. 537
 Laxmikant v. Patel Vs. Chetanbhai Shah and Anr.- 2002 (24) PTC 1 (SC)
Relative Grounds for Refusal of Registration:
 Amritdhara Pharmacy v. Satya Dev Gupta- AIR 1963 SC 449

 Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt v. Navratna Pharmaceuticals- AIR 1965 SC 980
 Hoffman –LA v. Geoffrey Manners and Co- AIR 1970 SC 2062
 Aristoc Ltd v. Rysta Ltd- 1945 RPC 65
 Corn Products Refining Co.v. Shangrila Food Products Ltd- AIR 1960 SC 142
 Cadila Health Care Ltd v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd- AIR 2001 SC 1952
 Larsen & Tourbo Ltd. v. Lachmi Narain Trades & Ors.- 2008 (36) PTC 223 (Del.)
 National Sewing Thread Co. Ltd. v. James Chadwick and Bros. Ltd. AIR 1951 Bom. 147
 BDH Industries Ltd. v. Croydon Chemical Works Pvt. Ltd. AIR 2002 Bom. 361
Trademarks held to be confusingly similar:
 AMRITDHARA and LAKSHMANDHARA - Amritdhara Pharmacy versus Satyadeo

Gupta, AIR 1963 SC 449
 GLUCOVITA and GLUVITA- Corn Products Refining Co. versus Shangrila Food
Products Ltd., AIR 1960 SC 142
 RASMOLA and HAJMOLA - Shri Pankaj Goel versus Dabur India Ltd., 2008 (38) PTC
49 (Del)(DB)
 SPOXIN and SUPAXIN -Medley Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Versus Alkem
Laboratories Ltd., 2002 (25) PTC 593 (Bom.)(DB)
 COLLECTOR’S CHOICE and OFFICER’S CHOICE -M/s Allied Blenders & Distillers
Pvt. Ltd. versus Shree Nath Heritage Liquor Pvt. Ltd., order dated July 1, 2014 passed by
the High Court of Delhi in CS(OS) 2589 of 2013
 ZEGNA (pronounced as ZENYA) and JENYA- Consitex SA versus Kamini Jain and
Ors., order dated July 18, 2011 passed by the High Court of Delhi in CS(OS) No. 629 of
2011
 HAAGEN DAAZ AND D’DAAZS- M/s South India Beverages Pvt. Ltd. versus General
Mills Marketing Inc. & Anr., decision dated September 11, 2014 passed by the Hon’ble
High Court of Delhi in FAO(OS) 389/2014
 RYSTA and ARISTOC -Aristoc versus Rysta, (1945) 62 RPC 65 (HL)
 OFFICER’S FAVOURITE and OFFICER’S CHOICE BDA Breweries and Distilleries
Ltd. versus Sree Durga Distillery, 2002 (25) PTC 704
 PIQUANT and PICOT Picot versus Goya, [1967] RPC 573
 PRIMASPORT and PRIMARK Primasport TM application, 1992 FSR 515
 TEMOGET and TEMOKEM Schering Corporation & Ors. versus Alkem Laboratories
Ltd., 2010 (42) PTC 772 (Del.)(DB)
Law relating to passing off:
 Laxmikant V. Patel vs. Chetanbhai Shah and Another- (2002) 3 SCC 65
Deceptive similarity of Passing-off action:
 Cadila Healthcare Limited vs Cadila Pharmaceuticals Limited- (2001)5 SCC 73
Remedies for Passing off and Infringement of Trademark:
 Interim injunction (Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. Coca Cola Company & Ors.- AIR 1995 SC
2372)
 Prima facie case (S.M. Dyechem Ltd. v. Cadbury (India) Ltd.- SCC (2000) 5 SCC 573)
6. Designs Act, 2000

 Conventions- MCQ
 Definition of ‘Designs’ and ‘Article’- MCQ+ Long Answers
 Criteria for Registration of Design- MCQ+ Long Answers
 Process of Registration of Designs- MCQ
 Copyright in Registered Design- MCQ+ Long Answers
 Cancellation of Registered Design- MCQ+ Long Answers
 Piracy of Design+ Remedies against infringement- MCQ+ Long Answers
CASES
Rationale for protection of designs:
 Gorhan Mfg Co .v. White- 81 U.S. 511 (1871)
Test for design:

 Bharat Glass Tube Ltd. v. Gopal Glass Works- AIR 2008 SC 2520. (object of the Designs
Act.)
 Kemp & Co. Prime Plastics Ltd.- 1998 SCC Online Bom 437
 Dart Industries Inc. v. Techno Plast- (2007) 35 PTC 285 (Del)
Definition:
 R v. Registered Designs Appeal Tribunal, Exparte Ford Motor Company Ltd., [1995] 1
WLR 18
Criteria for registration of design:
 Gammeter v. Controller of Patents and Designs- 48 Ind Cas 437

 Glaxo Smithkline v. Armigo Brushes- 2004 (28) PTC 1 (Del)
 Tarun Sethi & Ors. v. Vikas Budhiraja & Ors.- Delhi High Court CS(OS) 1841/2008
Prior Publication:
 National Trading v. Shrimati Monica 1995 IPLR 119

 Lovatto Spa v. Pravinbhai Mehta, IPLR 2006 Jan
 Britannia Industries Ltd v. Sara Lee Bakery AIR 2000 Mad 497
 Kemp and Company v. Prima Plastics Ltd. 2000 PTC 96
Copyright on registration:
 Parle Products v. Surya Food & Agro Ltd. 2009 (40) PTC 638
 Microfibres Inc. v Girdhar & Co. & Anr. 2009 (40) PTC 519 (Del)
 DB Mattel Inc. v. Jayant Agarwalla, IA No. 2532/2008 in CS (OS) 344/2008)
 RAJESH MASRANI v. TAHILIANI DESIGN PVT. LTD, AIR 2009 Delhi 44
 Holland Company LP & Anr. vs. S.P. Industries CS(COMM) No. 1419 of 2016
Cancellation of Registration:
 Reckitt Benkiser India Ltd. v. Wyeth Ltd.

 Anuradha Doval v. The Controller of Patents 2017(71) PTC 288 (Cal)
Piracy of design:
 Cello v. Modware Crocs Inc.

 USA v. Liberty Shoes Ltd. &Ors., on February 8, 2018
 Pentel Kabushiki Kaisha &Anr. v M/s Arora Stationers &Ors.
7. Geographical Indication+ Traditional Knowledge

 Definition
 Criteria
 Registration
CASES
 Tirupati Laddu GI Tag controversy

 Jamnagar Refinery GI Tag controversy
 Banglar-Odhisha Rasgolla GI Tag controversy
 Tea Board Of India vs. ITC Ltd. Basmati Rice Controversy

Intellectual Property Law

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Intellectual Property Law

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Intellectual Property Law

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW

1. Patents Act, 1970

Patentable and Non-Patentable Inventions

Scope of Section 47:

Public Non Commercial Use Exception (Section 84-92)

 Lee Pharma Ltd. v. Astrazeneca

Guideline to determine Patent-Infringement:

Suits concerning Infringement of Patents:

2. Plant Varieties Act- AM 10- MCQs

 Pepsico v. Gujarat Farmers

3. Semi-Conductor Layout Designs- AM 11- MCQs

4. Copyright Act, 1957

 Anil Gupta v. Kunal Dasgupta- (2002) 25 PTC 1

Novels and Stories:

 Penguin Random House v. Colting

Adaptation and Abridgement

 Macmillan v. Cooper- AIR 1924 PC 75

 Eastern Book Co. v D.B. Modak 2008 (36) PTC SC

Deviation from the doctrine of Sweat of the Brow:

 Macmillan & Co. v Cooper (AIR 1924 PC 75)

 Tate v. Fullbrook- 1 K.B. 821 (C.A. 1908)

 Interlego v. Tyco Industries Inc.- (1988) 3 WLR 678

Authorship and Ownership of Copyright:

 Najma Heptullah v. M/s Orient Longman Ltd.- AIR 1989 Del. 63

First owner of Copyright:

 Neetu Singh v. Rajiv Saumitra

Disputes w.r.t. assignment:

Doctrine of Fair Dealing:

 Hubbard v. Vosper- [1972] 2 Q.B. 84

 Entertainment Network (India) Limited vs Super Cassette Industries Limited- (2008)

 Manu Bhandari v Kala Pictures Ltd.- AIR 1987 Del. 13

Performer’s Rights in India

 Anton Pillar K.G. v. Manufacturing Processes Ltd.- [1976] RPC 719

 Billy Joel v Various John Does- 499 F.Supp. 791 (1980).

 J.K. Rowling v City Publication- 171 (2010) DLT 791

 Swizzells Matlow Ltd. Appl.- (1999) RPC 879

Non- Conventional Trademark

 Shield Mark v Joost Kist h.o.d.n. MEMEX (C-283/01)

 Tata Sons Ltd. v. Hoop Anin & Ors.

Absolute grounds for Refusal of Registration:

Relative Grounds for Refusal of Registration:

 Amritdhara Pharmacy v. Satya Dev Gupta- AIR 1963 SC 449

Trademarks held to be confusingly similar:

 AMRITDHARA and LAKSHMANDHARA - Amritdhara Pharmacy versus Satyadeo

Law relating to passing off:

 Laxmikant V. Patel vs. Chetanbhai Shah and Another- (2002) 3 SCC 65

Deceptive similarity of Passing-off action:

 Cadila Healthcare Limited vs Cadila Pharmaceuticals Limited- (2001)5 SCC 73

Remedies for Passing off and Infringement of Trademark:

6. Designs Act, 2000

Rationale for protection of designs:

 Gorhan Mfg Co .v. White- 81 U.S. 511 (1871)

Test for design:

Criteria for registration of design:

 Gammeter v. Controller of Patents and Designs- 48 Ind Cas 437

 National Trading v. Shrimati Monica 1995 IPLR 119

 Reckitt Benkiser India Ltd. v. Wyeth Ltd.

 Cello v. Modware Crocs Inc.

7. Geographical Indication+ Traditional Knowledge