PROJECT FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS

(6TH SEMESTER) 2021-22

On the topic:

COPYRIGHT AND PLAGIARISM

SUBMITTED BY

Ankur Sharma

(BA.LLB.; Roll no. 26; Batch of 2024)

SUBMITTED TO

Ms. Divya Singh Rathore

(Assistant Professor of Law, National Law University Odisha)

1
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

“I hereby convey my heartfelt thanks to Ms. Divya Singh Rathore, whose constant
encouragement and being readily available to clear any doubts regarding the subjects dealt with
in IPR gave me the right direction required. I acknowledge this opportunity for me to research
and write in depth into topics.”

Ankur Sharma (BA.LLB.; Roll no. 26; Batch of 2024)

2
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of contents........................................................................................................................................3
Introduction...............................................................................................................................................4
PLAGIARISM................................................................................................................................................6
COPYRIGHT................................................................................................................................................10
comparison between copyright and plagiarism infringement...................................................................15
Conclusion................................................................................................................................................19
Bibliography............................................................................................................................................21

3
 INTRODUCTION

The development of copyright has been strongly related to technical growth. While, the
evolution of technologies has rendered copyright protection even more painstaking, digital
computers managed to alter the principles underpinning copyright. Copyrights have a huge effect
on majority of library activities. They determine the sort of services given by libraries to their
customers and the terms under which a library can grant access to content safeguarded by
copyright. The result of this copyrights impact the way libraries may function and undertake
operations such as storing, safeguarding and making their collections available.

Copyright is stated like a mechanism from which the inventor of a “piece of intellectual property
(book, article, piece of music etc.) receives a range of rights over the work generated, including
copying, publishing, performing, broadcasting and adapting.” The changing globe and diversity
of things led to considerable modifications in copyright legislation and international accords,
recent technology breakthroughs have put copyright law under stress anew."

Plagiarism has always been a concern in publishing but the problem has intensified with the
unlawful re-use of information accessible on the Internet. It might be purposeful or non
intentional Plagiarism is characterized as taking another person's work and publishing it as one's
own without payment or acknowledgement".

Plagiarism is not the same is copyright violation. While both the phrases may apply to a single
conduct, they are separate terms, and fraudulent claims of authorship may subject to plagiarism
regardless of whether the content is protected by copyright or not. It is considered an ethical

transgression and can be destructive to one's academic reputation and honesty.

4
 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Objectives

1. To provide a brief insight into the concepts of plagiarism and copyright.

2. To outline laws pertaining to plagiarism and copyright infringement.
3. To critically analyze the similarities and differences between plagiarism and copyright
infringement with the help of relevant case laws.
4. To briefly analyze the remedies available in case of plagiarism and copyright
infringement.

Research Questions

1. Is plagiarism and copyright infringement essentially the same?

2. What are the various similarities and differences between plagiarism and copyright
infringement?
3. What are the laws that protect an author’s work from copyright infringement and
plagiarism?’
4. What are the various remedies available in case of plagiarism and copyright
infringement?

Scope and Limitations

The scope of this paper is limited to the legal framework pertaining to plagiarism and copyright
infringement in India. Further, a theoretical approach has been employed for the analysis of the
concepts and secondary sources of information have been extensively relied upon.

5
 PLAGIARISM

While different institutes have their own interpretations of what constitutes plagiarism, the
fundamental idea of plagiarism in today's context relates to the stealing or replicating of
someone's work without according credit or reference, and portraying the same as one's own
work. The aforementioned “work” may include a wide range of subject matter, including but not
limited “to literary” works, “musical and artistic works, dramatic works,” cinematography,
“sound recordings among others.1” Previously, plagiarism was often exclusively associated with
academic research.2 However, with the growth of the entertainment industry and the internet, the
concept of plagiarism is seen to be extended to music 3, cinematography4 and art5 as well.
Plagiarism is not always done on purpose, however those who deliberately try to deceive others
by taking someone else's ideas should consider the importance of their conduct and the potential
penalties if detected. Information is readily available on the Internet, and it has therefore become
exceedingly easy to take someone else's concept without properly citing and crediting the owner;
whether intentionally or not. Therefore, it is imperative to take necessary precaution when taking
an idea and use correct reference to avoid plagiarizing.

Plagiarism in the academic context, can be commonly manifested in the following forms:
1. VERBATIM
Verbatim plagiarism is essentially direct copy-pasting someone’s work or directly lifting
sentences and portraying them as one’s own due to not acknowledging the author or not
according credit.6 The same may be avoided by referencing and using quotation marks to
indicate that there has been direct reference to someone’s original work.
1
https://www.ijlsi.com/wp-content/uploads/Plagiarism-A-Tortious-Act.pdf

2
id
3
The Chiffons v. George Harrison; Queen and David Bowie v. Vanilla Ice
4
R.G Anand v. Deluxe films;
5
Caulfield v. Warhol

6
 2. PARAPHRASING
This form is observed when someone’s original ideas or work is used by another, by
phrasing the same in a different manner but without acknowledging that the same is
someone else’s idea. When work is paraphrased but proper citations and references are
provided, the same does not amount to plagiarism as it does not portray it to be one’s own
idea.7

3. PATCHWORK OR MOSAIC
This form of plagiarism is seen when an individual pastes or patches together different
parts of text but the original structure remains intact. 8 Essentially, in order to avoid
verbatim plagiarism, the individual collates text from different sources and puts them
together without according credit or referencing the material.9

4. SOURCE BASED PLAGIARISM

Generally, this form pertains to instances where the sources cited are misleading in
nature.10 The same may be seen in the form of incorrect citations, citing sources that do
not exist, or the failure to cite the source in its entirety (for example, using two ideas from
two different sources, together, but only citing one source).11

5. GLOBAL PLAGIARISM

6
https://blog.oup.com/2021/10/six-common-types-of-plagiarism-in-academic-research/
7

8
https://blog.oup.com/2021/10/six-common-types-of-plagiarism-in-academic-research/
9

10

11

7
 This form of plagiarism is seen in instances where an individual takes someone else’s
original work and attempts to portray it as their own.12 It is generally a deliberate act13 as
the entire subject matter is evidently copied.14

6. SELF PLAGIARISM
This form of plagiarism is seen in instances where an author submits research work of his
own, which is already published at a different platform and although it is still the author’s
original work, it still amounts to plagiarism as it is an attempt to portray the work as
original although the same is already published.15 The same has been termed as “text-
recycling” “under the University Grants Commission (Promotion of Academic Integrity
and Prevention of Plagiarism in Higher Educational Institutions) Regulations,” 201816
and without “due and full citation”, the same has been deemed unacceptable.

PENALTIES AND PROVISIONS PERTAINING TO PLAGIARISM

● ACADEMIC PLAGIARISM AND THE UGC GUIDELINES

In the academic context, the University Grants Commission has categorized academic plagiarism
into the following levels and outlined the following penalties for the same:
“i. Level 0: Similarities upto 10% - Minor Similarities, no penalty
ii. Level 1: Similarities above 10% to 40% - Such student shall be asked to submit a revised
script within a stipulated time period not exceeding 6 months.
iii. Level 2: Similarities above 40% to 60% - Such student shall be debarred from submitting a
revised script for a period of one year.

12

13

14

15

16
University Grants Commission (Promotion of Academic lntegrity and Prevention of Plagiarism in Higher
Educational Institutions) Regulations, 2018

8
iv. Level 3: Similarities above 60% -Such student registration for that programme shall be
canceled.”17

● “PROTECTION UNDER THE COPYRIGHT ACT”

“Section 57 of the Copyright Act” which pertains to “author’s special rights”, entitles the author
to certain moral rights concerning his original work for which he must be attributed credit. “The
special rights include:”
1. “The right to claim authorship of the work; and
2. The right to restrain or claim damages in respect of any distortion, mutilation,
modification or other act in relation to the said work if such distortion, mutilation,
modification or other act would be prejudicial to his honor or reputation.”18

Under Section 63, the penalties for violating the rights provided by the act are outlined.
Punishment may extend to a sentence of “six months to three years of imprisonment.” Further,
monetary compensation in the form of a fine may be imposed. Such “a fine may extend to two
lakh rupees but shall not be less than fifty thousand rupees.19”

Further, Section 63 (A) outlines punishments for subsequent offenses.

17
Regulation 12.1
18
Section 57
19
Section 63

9
 COPYRIGHT

“ Copyright is a form of intellectual property ” right,20 “granted to the author of an original work .21
”

It is a form of exclusive right of ownership 22 and the right for exploitation of the work. 23 Such a
right is existent and established the moment it is“fixed in a tangible form.” 24 As per the “World
Intellectual Property Organization,” “Copyright relates to literary and artistic creations, such as
books, music, paintings and sculptures, films and technology-based works (such as computer
programs and electronic databases).”

Copyright vests both economic “and moral rights in the author of the work .25 Economic rights in
” “

the context of copyright include those rights which facilitate the owner to profit financially from “

the use of his work by others . In contrast, moral rights protect those rights which do not have an
”

economic value. ”

Section 14 of the Copyright act outlines a number of economic rights that the author is entitled to
with respect of his original works.

Such economic rights include:

1. RIGHT OF REPRODUCTION: This is the exclusive right26 to “reproduce the work in
any material form including the storing of it in any medium by electronic means”. 27The
author of a creative work has the sole right to replicate it28, which includes converting it

20

21

22

23

24

25

26
14 (a) (i), (c) (i)
27
S 14 (a) (i)

10
 from two to three dimensions29 and vice versa.30 However, this right may be waived with
the permission of the author31 in the form of a license.32
2. RIGHT OF DISTRIBUTION: “This is the exclusive right to have control over actual
dissemination of physical copies of the work.33 This right terminates upon first sale or
transfer of ownership of a particular physical copy34 as per the doctrine of exhaustion.35”
3. RIGHT OF COMMUNICATION TO THE PUBLIC/ RIGHT OF PUBLICATION36
“ ”

“"Communication to the public" means making any work or performance directly

available for viewing, hearing, or otherwise enjoying by the public, “whether

simultaneously or at places and times chosen individually, whether ” or not any member
“

of the public actually sees, hears, or otherwise enjoys the work or performance37 so made
”

available.38”
4. RIGHT TO MAKE CINEMATOGRAPHIC FILM OR SOUND RECORDING39
“ ” “ ”

5. RIGHT TO MAKE TRANSLATION40 OR ADAPTATION41

“ ”

28
Microsoft corporation vs Nimesh
29
“ Escorts Construction Equipment Ltd & Anr vs Action Construction Equipment Pvt Ltd & Anr. ”

30
Section14(c) (i), Copyright Act, 1957.

31

32
Section 32 A
33

34
https://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/wipo_pub_909_2016.pdf
35
Article 6 of the TRIPS
36
14 (a) (3)
37
Garware Plastics and Polyester Ltd, and others vs M/s Telelink
38
S 2 (ff)
39
14 (a) (iv)
40

41

11
Further, the author also has moral rights as explained earlier.

COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT

As under Copyright, the author has exclusive rights, any unauthorized breach of the same shall
be construed as infringement of copyright. Essentially, no third party can exercise any of the
aforementioned rights provided to the author, without a license from the copyright holder or the
registrar of copyright.42 If such a third party does exercise said rights, it shall amount to
infringement of copyright. Copyright infringement can “be primary or secondary. In primary
infringement, the “infringer copies the original work without the owner's permission,” “whereas
secondary infringement includes activities such as the sale of infringing copies, and so on.”

PENALTIES, PROVISIONS AND REMEDIES PERTAINING TO COPYRIGHT

INFRINGEMENT

Section 51 of the Copyright act defines copyright infringement and lays out conditions for the
same. Acts which may be construed as infringement include manufacture “for sale or hire,” or
selling or letting “for hire, or by way of trade displays or “offering for sale or hire,” or
transmitting “either for trade or to such an extent as to” prejudice the copyright owner, or by way
of public trade exhibitions, or importing into India, such material which is subject to copyright.43

The Copyright Act, under Section 52 also outlines certain statutory exceptions to infringement
such as fair use44; “private and personal use including research, criticism or review, and the
reporting of current events and current affairs, including the reporting of a lecture delivered in
public.45”

CIVIL REMEDIES
42

43

44 India TV Independent News Services Pvt. Ltd. vs Yashraj Films Pvt. Ltd

45

12
The act provides certain civil remedies with respect to copyright infringement. These include
injunctions, damages, rendition of accounts and destruction of infringing copies, and conversion
damages.46 Section 55 of the Copyright Act relates to civil remedies. The following are certain
potential remedies granted by courts:

- INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTIONS
Interlocutory injunctions are awarded to provide plaintiffs with relief while the case is
pending. They are regarded to be quick and effective remedies. Interlocutory injunctions
provide plaintiffs a huge advantage since the defendant is restrained as soon as possible.
The necessary requirements for the grant of the same:
1. Prima facie case
2. Balance of convenience in the favour of the plaintiff
3. Irreparable damage47

- MAREVA INJUNCTIONS
This is a particular type of injunction. The Mareva injunction is used when the court
suspects the defendant of attempting to delay or obstruct the enforcement of any order
imposed against him. The court has the jurisdiction to order someone to relinquish all or
portion of his property as long as it is sufficient to satisfy the sentence.
- ANTON PILLER ORDER
These are civil search warrants that aid in the preservation of evidence. The aggrieved
petitions the Court urgently, requesting an examination and search of the accused's
premises “without prior notice in order to” uncover and reservation of evidence that
might or else be lost.48

- “JOHN DOE ORDERS”

46 https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=67b5798f-9361-496d-b81d-5d52a0cf9770

47Seema Arshad Zaheer and others vs municipal corporation of Greater Mumbai and other; Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. vs. Coca Cola Company, 1995(5) SCC 545

48 Bucyrus Europe Ltd vs Vulcan Industries Engineering Co Pvt Ltd, 2005 (30) PTC 279,

13
 “Ex parte injunctions against unknown or nameless defendants are known as John Doe
orders or Ashok Kumar orders.49 The plaintiff can submit this based on a reasonable
expectation of damage from the defendant's conduct.”

- MONETARY REMEDIES
Sections 55 and 58 of the Copyright Act of 1957 allow copyright owners to seek
monetary damages. These include an account of profits, in turn allowing the holder of the
copyright to pursue a valuation of money equivalent to the profit gained through unlawful
action, and compensatory damages, which allows the copyright owner to receive
damages for the losses he incurred as a result of the infringement. The valuation of
conversion Damages are constructed on the object's worth.50

49 Taj Television v. Rajan Mandal. ; Eros International v. BSNL

50 S 55 and 58

14
 COMPARISON BETWEEN COPYRIGHT AND PLAGIARISM INFRINGEMENT

It must now be clear that the words copyright infringement and plagiarism are not synonymous.
Intuitively, works in the public domain, like that of Shakespeare or Byron, are not under
copyright protection, but are still protected by the norms of plagiarism in academia – this is not
only true for literature but academic works and scientific research. However, this does not mean
that scientific research, which is under copyright by a person, cannot be protected against
plagiarism through the Copyright Act 1957.51 This was precisely the case with “former Delhi
University vice-chancellor Deepak Pental,””who was accused of plagiarism himself.52 One way
to compare copyright infringement and plagiarism is as follows – all literature or academic work,
or even musical or artistic work, that if found to infringe the copyright of some other work
necessarily also commits plagiarism. This is not true vice-versa – all works that are plagiarised
may or may not infringe over the copyright of the other work. In other words, copyright
infringement may broadly be considered to be a species of the genus “plagiarism.”53

The position of plagiarism detection software is crucial here. Would the storage and use of
copyrighted works, by a plagiarism detection software, amount to infringement over that
copyright? This question was raised in the case of A.V. v. iParadigms.54 Four high school
students were compelled by their teachers to electronically submit their written work to Turnitin,
a plagiarism detection programme provided by iParadigms. While weighing the competing
claims, the Court took into account many issues, which will be described in detail. The suit
specifically claimed that the corporation was scanning students' papers and keeping them in their
database in order to profit. The school must authorise the feature of archiving work in the
software database, which will only make the software more effective. The Court determined that
scanning student papers for plagiarism is a "highly transformative or adds something new, with a
further purpose of a different character" that comes within the scope of the law. It was also

51
Copyright Act 1957, s 63
52
Devika Agarwal, ‘Ex-VC of Delhi University jailed over plagiarism charges’ (SpicyIP, 26 November 2014)
<https://spicyip.com/2014/11/spicy-ip-tidbit-ex-vc-of-delhi-university-jailed-over-plagiarism-charges.html>
accessed 21 May 2022
53
Owen Dean, ‘Is plagiarism unlawful?’ (World Intellectual Property Organization magazine, September 2018)
<https://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2018/si/article_0008.html> accessed 21 May 2022
54
A.V. v iParadigms [2008] US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Civil Action No 07-0293

15
determined that "the company makes no use of any work particularly expressive or creative
content other than the limited use of comparison with other works." The Court further stated that
"iParadigms uses the papers for an entirely different purpose, namely, to prevent plagiarism and
protect the students' written works from plagiarism. iParadigms does this by storing the
students' works as digital code and making no use of each work's distinctive expressive or
creative content other than for the restricted purpose of comparison with other works.”
Regrettably, there are no similar cases to be found in India dealing with plagiarism detection
software.

Therefore, it is clear that plagiarism is much broader than copyright infringement. Why is this
so? This author argues that plagiarism and surrounding social and academic norms seek to solve
a problem. The problem is simple – the protection provided by IPR over an academic work
protects only the material expression of the subject matter and not the ideas, insights, information
etc. embodied in the material expression.55 The recourse then is not to legal norms but social
norms. We know that it is possible, in a narrow frame, socially enforce norms on the logics of
intellectual property, without turning to legal enforcement. An example of this are French chefs
who believe in IP-related norms and do not hesitate to enforce them on a social level. 56 One of
the norms enforced by French chefs involved the “right to be acknowledged as the author of a
recipe one has created”.57 As an analogy, it is clear that academics ought to also enforce a “right
to be acknowledged as the author/creator of an academic insight/idea.”

Plagiarism then, is “the protection of” “such moral rights of the author,” by their embodiment
into IP-related norms, and enforcement by the academic regulatory mechanism (universities,
journals etc.). There are two reasons such enforcement is necessary: firstly, to maintain academic
legitimacy and honesty in powerful discourses. An example of this is the public dispute between
Alan Dershowitz and Norman Finkelstein, who are well-known scholars of the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict. Finkelstein publicly accused Dershowitz of serious plagiarism in his then-recent book
‘The Case for Israel.’58 The purpose of plagiarism is to ensure that powerful discourse such as the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict, within academia or not, does not lead to misinformation or
55
Owen Dean, ‘Is plagiarism unlawful?’ (World Intellectual Property Organization magazine, September 2018)
<https://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2018/si/article_0008.html> accessed 21 May 2022
56
Emmanuelle Fauchart, Eric von Hippel, (2008) Norms-Based Intellectual Property Systems: The Case of French
Chefs. Organization Science 19(2) 187-201 <https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1070.0314> accessed 21 May 2022
57
ibid

16
dishonesty. The norms enforced by plagiarism act as a deterrent to a writer who wishes to use
their academic credibility to legitimize a fraudulent claim in their work – much like Alan
Dershowitz who was criticised by Finkelstein and others for plagiarizing a 1984 book by Joan
Peters called ‘From Time Immemorial: The Origins of the Arab–Jewish Conflict over Palestine.’
The second reason to enforce IP-related norms of plagiarism is to ensure academic integrity.
That is to say, not every academic discourse will involve powerful actors like Alan Dershowitz
or be as heated as the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. Thus, we cannot rely on controversy itself to
find out if a book is academically legitimate or not. Best practices, with respect to writing,
crediting and citations, must be taught at an earlier stage. This must also be clear from the fact
that the enforcing agency for minimum standards of plagiarism are not the authors whose work
may be copies but third parties like journals or university departments.

Thus, plagiarism is dealt with administrative decisions like the one in Haugh v. Bullis School59
where the petitioner “was suspended from a private high school for plagiarism.” He then filed a
lawsuit “in federal district court,” claiming “breach of contract and libel.” The federal district
“court and the Court of Appeal” later dismissed the petitioners' allegations as meritless and
maintained the suspension judgement. In Hand v. Matchett,60 the petitioner received “a Ph.D. in
counselling psychology at New Mexico State University in 1982.” An anonymous whistle-
blower handed the University a copy of two scholarly texts that Hand had copied in his
dissertation in 1987. Hand's Ph.D. was cancelled by the University in April 1988.

While copyright infringement is dealt with “under Section 63 of the Copyright Act 1957,” and
plagiarism through administrative decisions – it is still possible for plagiarism to have direct
legal consequences as opposed to the above cited examples. It is still possible for the injured
party to sue under tort law in case plagiarism has occurred. Doctrine of misappropriation is a tort
protection “for quasi property such as ideas, formulas, artistic creation, designs and
information.”61 The philosophy is based on the idea that a business competitor must not be
58
“Amy Goodman, ‘Scholar Norman Finkelstein Calls Professor Alan Dershowitz's New Book On Israel a 'Hoax',”’
(Democracy Now! 14 November 2007) “<http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?
sid=03%2F09%2F24%2F1730205> accessed 21 May 2022”
59
Haugh v Bullis School [1990] WL 33945 at *1 (4th Cir 1990)
60
“Hand v Matchett” [1957] “F.2d 791 (10th Cir 1992)”
61
Jinisha Shah, “Plagiarism: A Tortious Act” (2020) INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEGAL
SCIENCE AND INNOVATION, Vol. 3, Iss. 3, 715 <https://www.ijlsi.com/wp-content/uploads/Plagiarism-A-
Tortious-Act.pdf> accessed 21 May 2022

17
permitted to profit deceitfully from a competitor's expensive investment and labour in producing
knowledge.“Plagiarism, like misappropriation, involves in portraying “someone else's work as
one's own” in order to earn academic credit.””

In conclusion, copyright infringement and plagiarism and layered issues and are independent of
one another. All copyrighted works, which take permission and give due credit to the author, are
not plagiarised. However, in case there is due credit but no permission, the copyright is infringed
but there is no case made out for plagiarism. In case there is permission from the author but no
credit provided in the final work, then there is only the issue of plagiarism. All those works not
covered by copyright protection are still covered by the protection against plagiarism.

18
 CONCLUSION

Though plagiarism and copyright infringement sometimes overlap, it's crucial to note that the
two are not same and can never be actually similar. “Plagiarism is an ethical” concept while
“copyright infringement is a legal one”. Most crucial factor to remember is whereas “copyright
infringement has one victim, the copyright holder(s), plagiarism has two sets of victims, the
copyright holder(s) and the” individuals who were clueless about the provenance “of the work.”

Plagiarism is more of a concern of moral obligation although there are altercations which can be
made ill devised which are never encouraged the person indulging in so activities should the
same . There is a need for a guaranteed device , practice etc in order to prevent the ill practice to
ensure original author’s work’s integrity and value. A question of importance that is often
considered and discussed is that even so that plagiarism can’t produce bodily harm in so far as
comparision to other crimes. Therefore , is it quantifiable to establish legislation for the
regulation and prevention of the same. The severity of the punitive measures and sanctions be to
establish the main objective of the functioning of the legislation and the measure taken be not
too harsh as the culprits consist a large part of younger people such as students, research
assistants etc. The devices of manipulating the act of plagiarism provided online are not to
blamed and so on. So far the answer seems to Time .

Awareness regarding copyright infringement and copyright rules is crucial in a developing

society, as innovation is an essence of progress. It is necessary to consult to a copyright lawyer at
every level in dealing with copyrighted content. This includes support for submitting a copyright
application, dealing with copyright infringement and defending the copyright

In case of copyright infringement there is one victim, the copyright holders , plagiarism has two
communities who are the victims, the copyright holders and the individuals misinformed about
the origin of the work.

19
“The other essential approach to look at is that plagiarism is an ethical construct while copyright
infringement is a legal one. Though they have a lot of overlap, they are not the same and can
never actually be the same.”

“So while plagiarism may come up in copyright talks and vice versa, it's crucial to note that the
two are distinct in some very important respects.””

20
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Cases

Laxmi Mandal v Deen Dayal Harinagar Hospital & Ors, W.P.(C) No. 8853 of 2008

Statues and Treaties

The Patents Act 1970

TRIPS: Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, Apr. 15, 1994,
Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization (Annex 1C 1869 U.N.T.S.
29) 33 I.L.M. 1197 (1994)

Reports

UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) General Comment No. 14:
The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Health (Art. 12 of the Covenant) 11 August
2000 E/C.12/2000/4
Department Related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Commerce, Review of the
Intellectual Property Rights Regime in India (161st Report, July 2021) Rajya Sabha

Office of the United States Trade Representative, 2021 Special 301 Review (2021)

McKinsey & Company “India Pharma 2020 Propelling access and acceptance, realising true
potential”

Cell for IPR Promotion and Management, “IP Trends”

World Trade Organization, WTO | Intellectual Property (TRIPS) – Gateway

Publications

21
Basant R, Srinivasan S, “Intellectual property protection in India and implications for health
innovation: emerging perspectives. Innovation and Entrepreneurship in Health” 2016 3:57-68

Vijay Kumar Chattu, Bawa Singh, Jaspal Kaur, Mihajlo Jakovljevic, "COVID-19 Vaccine,
TRIPS, and Global Health Diplomacy: India’s Role at the WTO Platform" BioMed Research
International Vol. 2021

Kapczynski A, “The Access to Knowledge Mobilization and the New Politics of Intellectual
Property” (2008) The Yale Law Journal 117(5) 804–885

New W, “It’s Official: TRIPS Health Amendment in Effect, First Ever to a WTO Agreement”
(2017) IP Watch

Chris Kay and Haslinda Amin “Vaccine Nationalism Threatens WHO’s 2021 Goal of 2 billion
Doses” (Bloomberg Quint 17 March 2021)

Peter Drahos, John Braithwaite “Information Feudalism: Who Owns the Knowledge
Economy?” (Earthscan, 2002)

Daniel Gervais “The TRIPS Agreement: Drafting, History and Analysis” (Sweet and Maxwell
1998) 19

Upreti, P N “A TWAIL critique of intellectual property and related disputes in investor‐state

dispute settlement” (2022) The Journal of World Intellectual Property 1–18

Articles

Richa Chintan, “Leaked WTO Draft Text on TRIPS Waiver Reveals ‘Compromise’” (March
2022)
Prashat Reddy “RTIs reveal tardy record keeping practices at the IPO – no records of pending
patent oppositions – 1,13,857 trademark oppositions pending + 5,533 rectifications”

22
Books

Vandana Shiva, Biopiracy: The Plunder Of Nature And Knowledge 81 (1997)

Deere Birkbeck C, The Implementation Game: The TRIPS Agreement and the Global Politics
of Intellectual Property Reform in Developing Countries (2008) Oxford University Press

23