Intellectual Property Rights - Cases & Laws in India

Intellectual Property Rights has demonstrated itself to be priceless in all faculties within the socio-economic areas within the world. It has picked up colossal ubiquity within the later past. It is what propels individuals to make and enhance. Things which are represented by Intellectual property laws are manifestations of the intellect. In this article, I have talked about 5 Intellectual Property Rights cases in India and Latest IPR cases in India beneath Patent Law, Copyright Law, and Trademarks Law. These IPR landmark cases have brought new changes in the field.

CASE1: BAYER CORPORATION V. UNION OF INDIA

This landmark judgment is the first-ever IPR cases in India dealing with granting of a compulsory license under an application made under Section 84 of the Patents Act, 1970. The issues involved in the case are:

1. Have the requirements under Section 84(1) been satisfied for granting a compulsory license?

2. Whether supplies by infringers of a patented drug are to be considered/taken into account to determine the satisfaction of a reasonable requirement test?

In a very noteworthy advancement, the Delhi High Court held that ‘export’ of a patented invention for exploratory purposes is additionally secured beneath Segment 107A of the Licenses Act, 1970 (India’s Bolar exception) and in this way does not sum to obvious encroachment. It appropriately permitted Natco to trade Bayer’s protected sedate ‘Sorafenib Tosylate’ (for which it was allowed an obligatory permit in 2012) to China for the reason of conducting improvement/ clinical ponders and trials. Be that as it may, two months afterwards, the arrangement was retained by a Division Seat which inquired Natco to record an isolated application looking for authorization for trading the sedate for exploratory purposes and watched that it would be allowed to trade as it were a constrained amount of the drug.

CASE 2: THE COCA-COLA COMPANY V. BISLERI INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. AND ORS

This IPR case is also known as the ‘Maaza War’ case as decided by the Delhi Court. The issues raised in the court were: 

• Does the Delhi High Court have jurisdiction in the present case?

• Is there any infringement of the trademark passing off?

• Is the plaintiff entitled to get a permanent injunction?

HELD:

It was held that the Court had the purview to choose the case if the risk of encroachment exists. It was pointed out that a deliberate use of the trademark other than coordinate or circuitous utilization of the trademark was adequate to donate ward to the court to choose on the issue. The court held that it might be a well-settled position of law that sending out items from a nation is to be considered as a deal inside the nation where from the merchandise are traded, and it sums to the encroachment of the trademark. Also, “The Court granted an interim injunction against the defendant from using the mark in India as well as in the export market to prevent the plaintiff from irreparable loss and injury and quashed the appeal by the defendant”.

CASE 3: D.C COMICS V. TOWLE

This case is an interesting read when it comes to Copyright law. 

Summary of Judgement: 

The best address for thought is whether BATMOBILE is entitled to copyright security. The Court of Request depended on several authentic choices in choosing this case. The court held that copyright assurance amplifies not as it were to unique work as an entire but moreover to “sufficiently distinctive” components, like comic book characters, contained inside the work Although comedian book characters are not recorded within the Copyright Act, courts have long held that, as recognized from simply “literary” characters, comic book characters, which have “physical as well as conceptual qualities”, are copyrightable. The court depended on the judgment in Hachiki’s case where it was held that car characters could be copyrightable. Additionally, it has been held that copyright security can apply for a character indeed in case the character’s appearance changes over time.

HELD: It was found that “Towle’s replicas infringed upon DC’s rights hence the Court also upheld the District Court’s refusal to allow Towle to assert a laches defence on DC’s trademark claims because the infringement was found to be willful.

CASE 4: DIAMOND V. CHAKRABARTY 

ISSUE: whether the respondent’s micro-organism plainly as a patentable subject matter?

HELD: Area 101 of Title 35 U.S.C. gives for the issuance of an obvious to an individual who concocts or finds “any” modern and valuable “manufacture” or “composition of matter.” The court held that a live, human-made micro-organism might be a patentable subject matter beneath Segment 101 which the respondent’s microorganism constituted a “manufacture” or “composition of matter beneath the statute. The court opined that the life form was an item of human resourcefulness “having a particular title, character, and utilisation. Moreover, the Court rejected the appellant’s contention by holding that the obvious assurance managed beneath the Plant Obvious Act, 1930 and Plant Assortment Assurance Act, 1970 was not the proof of the Congress’ intention to prohibit living things from being protected. The court pointed out that Congress did not anticipate hereditary innovation and didn't make it non-patentable unless explicitly given. The Court held that the dialect of the Act was wide enough to grasp the respondent’s invention. 

CASE 5: PATEL FIELD-MARSHAL AGENCIES LTD. V. PM DIESELS LTD. & ORS

In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court conclusively settled a significant issue that whether, upon the institution of a suit for infringement under the Trademarks Act, the remedies for rectification of a trademark under Sections 47 and 57 (before IPAB) are still available to the litigant, in case the relevant litigant has abandoned the plea of validity. The Supreme Court took note of the conflicting decisions of the various High Courts and found that where the court has not taken up the question of validity, the statutory authority has the power to decide a rectification claim by the litigant. However, in a case where the court comes to a prima facie conclusion on validity, the only remedy available is an appeal.

CONCLUSION

The law relating to Intellectual property is continually advancing all around the world. Being a generally unused concept, there are numerous ranges which still require creating and security of the laws. All the above-mentioned case laws have a wide effect on society and all these IPR Infringement cases in India have brought approximately breakthroughs in IPR case laws in India.