BUILDING JUDICIAL CAPACITY IN IP: NATIONAL EXPERIENCES

Lalbee S
Jul 24, 2023
4 min read

Written by S. Lalbee, Law Student

Introduction:

Intellectual property rights are unbreakable human ideas and works that may or may not be given physical form, but which still have clear property rights. An exclusive monopoly over the use of their invention is granted under these rights.[1] These concepts and works of art comprise innovations, literary originality, works of art, images, designs, etc. Almost all business types have an IPR to protect their assets since property rights are protected by the law. Due to the particular procedural aspects of gaining property rights in the relevant location, various countries have varied IP laws.

Changes in IP Laws and Role of Judiciary:

The TRIPs Agreement is to be credited for the most recent modifications to the intellectual property rules, which resulted from an addition to the Indian Copyright Act of 1957 that classified computer programmes as literary works. In a similar vein, the Trade Marks Act of 1999, which replaced the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act of 1958, serves as an illustration of how India has been adhering to the WTO's TRIPs Agreement. The updated version of the Act grants collective marks, certification marks, and other well-known marks a broad immunity.[2]
The judiciary does not just alter or amend new laws in response to the needs of the country; rather, these changes are made in an effort to mould our laws in a way that they can support various international conventions and accords, allowing India to advance its own interests. This not only helps India to participate in global events but also opens up our home economy to the outside world.

There are landmark cases where the judiciary brought different changes in field of IPR:

In the case of YAHOO INC VS. AKASH ARORA,[3] the plaintiff owned the Yahoo trademark as well as the domain name yahoo.com, whereas the defendant offered comparable services under the domain name Yahoo India. No one should act on the assumption that they are managing another man's business or are anyway connected to another man's business, according to a ruling by the honorable High Court of Delhi.
In the case of, BAJAJ AUTO LTD VS. TVS MOTOR COMPANY LTD,[4] there is a patent issue is centered on a disagreement over dual spark plug engine technology that had arisen between two nations. The long-awaited pendent IPR cases were adding themselves to the list by the minute without clearing the top cases first, which became a major problem as this case gained attention. Additionally, the Supreme Court of India issued a regulation requiring high courts to schedule hearings for such matters no later than four months from the date of registration.

Remedies for IP Infringment:

The civil court processes in cases of trademark infringement are constantly on the lookout for injunctive orders that would be filed against the infringement, the person who damaged the goods, demands restitution for all the untouched products, or demands the completion of measures as a form of compensation. On the other hand, the alleged individual would be given a punishment under the Criminal Procedure Code when this case is filed under the criminal case files. The Criminal Procedure Code generally deems registered trademark and copyright infringement cases to be valid for presentation.[5]

Judicial Review in IPR Issues:

The few seminal cases in which the higher courts enlarged the bounds of the decisions of the lower courts and attempted to fill in the gaps in the law:

In this landmark case of BAYER CORPORATION V. UNION OF INDIA,[6] the Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's ruling granting mandatory licencing for the life-saving medication "Nexavar." The Supreme Court expanded the reach of copyright law by ruling that although a judgement per se is not protected by copyright under the statutes, the work done to make the judgement understandable through the use of footnotes and headnotes is. This ruling was made in response to an appeal made through a special leave petition upholding the decision of the High Court.[7]
One of the important cases pertaining to copyright law is EASTERN BOOK COMPANY & ORS VS D.B. MODAK & ANR.[8] In this instance, the Appellant was engaged in the business of printing and publishing decisions of the Supreme Court in a publication called "SCC," or supreme court cases. The Supreme Court ruled that while copyright does not exist in court decisions as specified in section 52 of the copyright act, appellants do have copyright in headnotes, footnotes, and other inputs that are referred to in their journal and in any paraphrasing of the decision, meaning that the respondent may not include the same. The respondents, however, are free to add their own headnotes and footnotes as well as their own comments and not to copy.

Conclusion:

In order to promote quicker resolution of lawsuits, the higher courts have played a significant role in determining what the law is and formulating legislation through a number of orders issued in instances like the Bajaj Auto case, etc. In most situations, it has been in front of the laws and has spurred changes to them. Furthermore, the job of the court is difficult since it must consider the interests of both the general public and inventors, i.e., the owners of copyright, at the same time. The judiciary must balance the rights for the development and successful execution of intellectual property law because on the one hand, there are the interests of investors and inventors, and on the other, there is society at large.

References:

[1] Kamakhya Srivastava, Trade Secrets In Indian Courts, MONDAQ, (June 20, 2023), https://www.mondaq.com/india/Intellectual-Property/204598/Trade-Secrets-In-Indian-Courts. [2] ijlmh.com/role-of-indian-judiciary-in-development-and-effective-enforcement-of-intellectual-property-laws-through-doctrine-of-judicial-review/ [3] Yahoo Inc. vs Akash Arora & Anr, 1999 IIAD Delhi 229 [4] Bajaj Auto Ltd. Vs T.V.S. Motor Company Ltd, JT 2009 (12) SC 103 [5] cbic.gov.in/htdocs-cbec/customs/cs-act/formatted-HTMLs/ipr-enforcement rules [6] Bayer Corporation v. Union of India (2013) W.P(C) No.1323 (India) [7] Anlkit Rastigi, Eastern Book Company and Others v. D.B. Modak and Anr, INDIAN CASE LAW, https://indiancaselaws.wordpress.com/2015/02/10/eastern-book-company-and-ors-vs-d-bmodak-and-anr/. [8] Eastern Book Company & Others v D.B. Modak & Anr, (2004) Civil Appeal No.6472 (India)