Intellectual Property Rights (IPR)

Meaning and Concept: Intellectual property (IP) denotes creations of the mind – inventions,
literary and artistic works, designs, symbols, names, etc. – that are protected by law . In other
words, IP rights are legal “exclusive rights granted for an invention” or creation . These rights
enable creators to earn recognition or financial benefit from their works, while balancing
innovators’ interests with the wider public interest . By protecting such creations, the IP
system fosters an environment in which creativity and innovation can flourish.

Nature and Importance: IP rights are a form of intangible property – they confer a
time‐limited monopoly or exclusive control to the right-holder. This exclusivity allows
recouping investment and incentivizes further innovation. For example, patents grant inventors
exclusive rights to their inventions (usually 20 years) , copyright grants authors exclusive
rights to copy, publish and adapt their works, and trademarks give brand owners the exclusive
right to use their marks. These rights are essential for industries (technology, pharma, creative
arts, etc.) to secure returns on R&D or creative effort . As one observer notes, “IP is essential
for fostering creativity, supporting industries, and enabling technological advancements,”
since it “grants creators exclusive rights… allowing them to benefit economically” and thus
encourages research and expression .

Jurisprudential Justifications: Several philosophical and economic theories justify IP

protection. Under natural rights (labor theory), a creator deserves property in his creation
(Lockean idea) . Utilitarian or incentive theory (Bentham) holds that granting limited
monopolies (patents, copyright terms, etc.) promotes the “greatest good” by encouraging
innovation that benefits society over time . The personality theory (Hegel) posits that creative
works reflect the author’s personality and moral rights protect the creator’s link to the work .
Economic scholarship (Adam Smith et al.) emphasizes that IP rights provide rewards
necessary to justify costly research (e.g. in pharmaceuticals). Modern social planning theory
accepts IP as a policy tool to achieve societal goals (e.g. public health via compulsory
licensing) by balancing private rights with public interest. In India, no fundamental right to IP
exists in the Constitution; IP rights are recognized by statute as a species of property or legal
right (cf. Aphali Pharms. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, 1989 on patent as “privilege… made by
the Government” ). Article 51A(k) (fundamental duties) even enjoins citizens to “strive
towards excellence in all spheres” and to respect IP laws. Indian law thus treats IP as personal
property rights (protected under Article 300A) granted for societal benefit, with statutory
limits (e.g. exceptions, compulsory licenses) to prevent abuse.

International Framework – Paris and Berne: The Paris Convention (1883) and Berne
Convention (1886) set global minimum standards. Under Paris, member states must grant
nationals and foreigners “national treatment” and allow priority filing (6–12 months) for
patents, trademarks and industrial designs. Paris covers patents, industrial designs, trademarks
and unfair competition. The Berne Convention (incorporated by TRIPS) protects literary and
artistic works by requiring copyright protection without formalities, minimum term of
life-plus-50 years, and recognition of moral rights (right of attribution and integrity). India is a
party to both Paris and Berne; their standards are mirrored in Indian law (e.g. Indian Copyright
Act’s recognition of moral rights aligns with Berne’s Article 6bis).

TRIPS Agreement: India is a WTO member and TRIPS signatory since 1995. TRIPS annexes
the substance of Berne and Paris plus additional norms. For patents, TRIPS Art. 27 requires
that patents be available “for any inventions… in all fields of technology” which are new,
involve an inventive step and are industrially applicable (subject to limited exceptions for
public order/health). TRIPS Art. 33 mandates a patent term of 20 years from filing (adopted in
India by Patents (Amendment) Act, 2002 ). TRIPS Art. 31 authorizes compulsory licensing
under conditions, which India implemented (Sections 84–92 Patents Act). TRIPS also sets
standards for copyright (Art. 9–14) and trademarks (Art. 15–21), requiring member nations to
adhere to Berne/Paris: e.g. minimum copyright term of 50 years post author’s life, and national
treatment in IP matters. It enforces IP through civil/criminal remedies (Arts. 41–61). In sum,
TRIPS harmonizes global IP rules to facilitate trade, but allows flexibilities (e.g. public health
exceptions). These obligations have shaped India’s statutes (e.g. restoration of product patents
for drugs in 2005, statutory term extensions, etc.), but the law retains space for public interest
(e.g. Section 3(d) for pharma innovations, compulsory licensing provisions).
Patents
Patentability – Standards: The Indian Patents Act, 1970 (as amended) defines an “invention”
as a “new product or process involving an inventive step and capable of industrial application”
. Thus, patentable subject matter must satisfy three criteria: (i) Novelty – the invention must
not have been anticipated by prior publication or use anywhere in the world ; (ii) Inventive
Step (Non-Obviousness) – it must involve a non-obvious advancement over existing
knowledge, not obvious to a person skilled in the art ; and (iii) Industrial Applicability – it
must be capable of being made or used in an industry (practical utility) . These criteria mirror
TRIPS Article 27 requirements (patents for products/processes in all fields of technology,
subject to novelty, inventive step and utility) .

Exceptions/Non-Patentable Subject Matter (Patents Act, Sec. 3 & 4): Even if an “invention”
meets the above criteria, certain subject matter is barred from patent protection under Section
3 (and 4) of the Act. Notable exclusions include: - Frivolous inventions (3(a)): inventions
contrary to well-established natural laws or lacking utility (e.g. a perpetual motion machine is
non-patentable) .
- Contrary to public order or morality (3(b)): any invention whose use would be offensive or
harmful to public order, morality, health or environmental safety. (TRIPS permits this public
interest exception.)
-​ Disallowed subject matter (3(c)–(k)): mere discoveries, scientific theories, mathematical
methods; schemes, rules or methods of performing mental act or business (3(k)); computer
programs per se; topography of integrated circuits; plants, animals (3(i)); methods of
treatment/surgery (3(i)(b)); etc. For example, plant varieties and seeds cannot be patented
(Protection of Plant Varieties Act deals with that
separately).
-​
Incremental pharmaceutical changes (3(d)): discovery of a new form of a known substance is
not patentable unless it shows significant enhancement in therapeutic efficacy . This clause,
unique in Indian law, was at issue in Novartis AG v. Union of India (2013), where the Supreme
Court upheld that mere reformulations without increased efficacy do not qualify (rejecting
“evergreening” of drug patents).
-​Others (3(e)–(m)): e.g. admixture of known substances that do not produce synergistic effect
(3(e));
genetically engineered microorganisms and essential biological processes (3(f),(g)); traditional
knowledge per se (3(p) after amendment); etc. Section 4 bars patents for inventions related to
atomic energy. In effect, Section 3 & 4 enumerate non-patentable inventions, making anything
else (that meets invention criteria) eligible for patenting .

Procedure for Obtaining a Patent: An inventor applies to the Patent Office (Controller-General
of Patents) with a provisional and/or complete specification. Key steps include: - Filing &
Publication: The application is filed (priority claim via Paris/PCT if any) and published 18
months after filing date.
-​ Request for Examination: The applicant must request examination (Form 18) within 48
months of priority. The Controller issues an Examination Report (objections under various Act
provisions). The applicant responds or amends.
- Oppositions:
-​
Pre-Grant Opposition (Section 25(1)): After publication and before grant, any person may file
a written “representation” opposing grant, on grounds such as lack of novelty, obviousness,
insufficient disclosure, or contravention of any Section of the Act . (E.g. one may allege the
invention was already known or the specification inadequate.) The Controller considers the
opposition, and may refuse, allow amendment, or
reject the opposition. No appeal lies against a pre-grant opposition decision (Section 117A
explicitly bars appeal on Sec.25(1) outcomes) .
- Post-Grant Opposition (Section 25(2)): Once granted, an “interested person” can oppose
the patent within
one year of grant (extendable by a year) on similar grounds (novelty, inventive step,
non-disclosure, etc.). The Controller refers such oppositions to an Opposition Board, and after
hearing, either revokes or upholds the patent.
(In both cases, the grounds and procedure are set out in Sections 25–26 (replaced by Section
23 of the 2005 Act) and Rules of the Patents Rules.) As one commentator notes, India is
unique in allowing any person (even non-competitors) to file pre-grant oppositions, to assist
the patent office’s decision . Pre-grant oppositions can delay grant if valid, but are intended as
a check on weak patents.

• Grant: If no valid opposition or all objections are overcome, the Controller grants the
patent. The patent is then published in the Patent Journal, and certificate issued.

• Post-Grant: The patentee must pay annual renewal fees to keep the patent in force
(failure leads to lapsed patent).
Compulsory Licensing (Sections 84 and 92): Under TRIPS Article 31, India’s Patents Act
provides for compulsory licenses (CLs) to balance public needs. Section 84 allows any person
to apply for a CL three years after grant if, e.g., (a) “reasonable requirements of the public” are
not met by the patentee (drug unaffordable or not worked in India); (b) the patented invention
is not available to the public at a reasonably affordable price; or (c) it is not worked to full
capacity in India. The Controller may grant a CL on showing these grounds, subject to
adequate remuneration to the patentee. In Natco Pharma v. Bayer (2013), the Delhi High
Court granted India’s first pharmaceutical CL, finding that Bayer’s cancer drug (Nexavar) was
unaffordable and insufficiently available, authorizing Natco to make it.

Section 92 provides special CL provisions for national emergencies or export purposes. E.g.
92(1) allows the Central Government to declare an emergency or public non-commercial use
(as in the HIV/AIDS era), enabling local manufacture without patentee consent. Section 92A
(added in 2005) allows export of patented pharmaceuticals to least-developed countries. The
procedure for obtaining a CL (Sections 84–92) generally requires attempt at negotiation with
patentee for a reasonable time (except in emergencies). (Once granted, a CL is non-exclusive
and non-assignable except with the licensed business.) These provisions demonstrate India’s
use of TRIPS flexibilities to protect public health and access to medicine, while providing
mechanisms to compensate the inventor .

Patent Term (Section 53): The term of a patent in India is 20 years from the filing date of the
patent application (for applications filed on or after 1995), as required by TRIPS Article 33.
Prior to 2002, term was 7–14 years for many inventions and only 5–7 years for
pharmaceuticals; the Patents (Amendment) Act 2002 standardized it to twenty years . Thus,
upon grant (and payment of all renewal fees), a patentee’s exclusive rights last 20 years
(subject to revocation or surrender).

Infringement (Sections 104–106): Once in force, a patent gives the patentee the statutory right
to exclude others from making, using, selling, offering for sale or importing the patented
product, or the product obtained directly by the patented process . Infringement occurs if a
party without permission does any of these acts (for product patents) or, in case of a process
patent, if it makes a product by that process without authorization. Infringement remedies
(Section 106) include injunctions, damages or account of profits, and delivery of infringing
goods.

Defences to infringement are provided in Sections 107–108. Notably, Section 107A allows
limited use of a patented product/process for “development and submission of information
required under any law” (the Bolar provision, enabling generics to obtain regulatory approval).
It also implicitly permits parallel importation: a person who has legitimately acquired a
patented product (with patentee’s consent) may import it freely, even if the patentee or its
licensee later introduces restrictions . Section 108 also allows private and non-commercial
use, and experimental use, as non-infringing acts.

Civil suits for infringement are brought in the appropriate civil court (Section 104). The
burden of proof generally lies on the plaintiff (patentee), except in certain cases (Section
104A) such as process patents, where the defendant must show it used a different process if
the final products are identical. Importantly, a registered patent is prima facie valid; the
infringer may counterclaim for revocation if invalid. Key infringement cases include Roche
Products v. Cipla (2008) and Novartis v. Union of India (2013) (though Novartis was mainly
on patentability). In summary, Sections 48, 104–106 and 107–108 set out the patentee’s rights
and the remedies and defenses in case of alleged infringement.
Copyright
Works Eligible for Protection (Section 13): Section 13 of the Copyright Act, 1957 sets out
categories of works entitled to copyright. These include original literary works (e.g. books,
software, databases), dramatic works (plays, choreography), musical works, artistic works
(paintings, sculptures, architectural designs, drawings, prints, photographs, etc.),
cinematograph films and sound recordings . Key requirements are originality and fixation in a
tangible form. “Originality” means the work originates from the author and embodies some
minimal degree of creativity (Indian courts like Eastern Book Co. v. D.B. Modak, 2008 have
held that even a small creative effort suffices; copying another’s expression may negate
originality). However, the Act does not protect ideas, procedures, methods of operation or
purely functional concepts – only the form of expression is protected. This is the
well-established idea-expression dichotomy: ideas or facts are free for all, but their particular
expression (writing, artwork, sound) can be copyrighted (as held in R.G. Anand v. Deluxe
Films, 1978).

Exclusive Rights (Section 14 – Economic Rights): Copyright vests initially in the author (or
creator) of the work. Section 14 enumerates the exclusive economic rights granted to the
copyright owner (either author or assignee). These include the rights to: reproduce the work in
any material form; publish the work; perform or communicate it to the public (live stage
performances, broadcasts, telecasts); make translations

or adaptations; rent out cinematograph films or computer software; and in the case of
computer programs, to do any of these by a computerized format . (For example, literary and
musical work rights are covered by clauses (a)–(c) of Sec.14; cinematograph films by (d)–(e),
etc.) Collectively, these economic rights allow the owner to control copying, distribution,
public performance and commercial exploitation of the work, and to license others to do so.
These rights last for a term prescribed by the Act (generally life of author plus 60 years; films
and recordings 60 years from publication).

Moral Rights (Section 57): Separate from economic rights, Section 57 grants the author (or,
for films/ recordings, the producer) moral rights. These are: (a) the right to claim authorship or
ownership of the work (paternity right); and (b) the right to restrain or claim damages for any
distortion, mutilation or other derogatory treatment of the work that would prejudice the
author’s honor or reputation. These rights are inalienable and survive even if economic rights
are assigned (in line with Berne Convention Article 6bis). The Indian Act’s moral right
provisions recognize that creative works are a reflection of the creator’s personality and
reputation .

Broadcasters’ Rights (Section 37): Broadcasters (e.g. television/radio stations) have special
rights in their broadcasts. Section 37 gives the broadcaster the right to authorize or prohibit: (i)
rebroadcasting of the broadcast; and (ii) fixation (recording) of the broadcast. It also prevents
unauthorized recording and rebroadcast. For instance, one cannot legally record and retransmit
another’s TV broadcast without permission. (These rights endure for 25 years from the end of
the year in which the broadcast is made.)

Performers’ Rights (Sections 38–38B): Performers (actors, musicians, dancers, etc.) are
granted rights in their performances. Under Section 38(1), a performer has the exclusive right
to: - Prevent unauthorized fixation (recording) of his live performance; and - Once his
performance is fixed in a recording or broadcast, to prohibit its broadcasting, communication
to the public, and reproduction (making copies of the fixation).

Section 38(2) also recognizes moral rights of performers: they can claim to be identified and
restrain false attribution of their performances. Section 38A (added later) explicitly grants
performers similar moral rights as authors do (e.g. to be credited, to object to derogatory use).
Finally, Section 38B deals with rights of sound recording owners (e.g. music labels) – they
have the right to authorize broadcasting and reproduction of their recordings.

Fair Dealing Exceptions (Section 52): To balance creators’ rights with public interest, Section
52 lists acts that do not constitute infringement (fair dealings). These include private or
personal use (52(1)(a)); use for research, education or criticism (52(1)(c)–(f)); reproduction by
libraries or archives (52(1)(h)–(i)); reporting of current events (52(1)(d)); use of excerpts for
review or teaching; use in judicial proceedings (52(1)(b)); performance in the course of
teaching (52(1)(o)); and other specified cases (including decompilation of software for
interoperability, ephemeral recordings by broadcasters, and use by governments in some
cases). Collectively known as “fair use/dealing” provisions, these allow limited use of
copyrighted material (under conditions) without permission. For example, quoting lines of a
poem for criticism, copying a research article for private study, or using past exam questions
for coaching are generally permissible under Section 52, provided the use is fair and not
commercial. These exceptions are analogous to the U.S. fair use doctrine and are interpreted in
light of the statutory factors (purpose, nature of use, amount used, effect on market) in case
law.
Trademarks
Need and Types of Trademarks: A trademark is any sign (word, logo, label, letter, numeral,
shape of goods, packaging, or combination thereof) capable of distinguishing the goods or
services of one enterprise from those of others . Trademarks serve as badges of origin and
protect brand identity. They assure consumers of consistent quality and help businesses build
goodwill. Protection of trademarks is crucial in commerce (e.g. “Pepsi” or the shape of a
Coca-Cola bottle) . There are various types of marks: product marks, service marks, collective
marks (used by members of an association) and certification marks (indicating quality
standards). Non-traditional marks (3D shapes, sounds, colors) are also protectable under
Indian law if distinctive.

Eligibility (Trademarks Act, 1999): The Act defines a trademark as a mark capable of
graphical representation that can distinguish the goods/services of one from those of another.
To be registerable, a mark must be distinctive of the proprietor’s goods/services. Marks that
are generic or merely descriptive of the product are generally not registrable (they lack
inherent distinctiveness). However, distinctiveness can be acquired through use. Functioning
trademarks may evolve along the distinctiveness spectrum: at one end are fanciful/arbitrary
marks (made-up words like “Xerox”, or arbitrary use like “Camel” for cigarettes) which are
inherently strong; next are suggestive marks (hinting at product quality, e.g. “Jaguar” for cars);
then descriptive marks (directly describing product characteristics, e.g. “Sharp” for knives)
which require proof of secondary meaning; and at the weakest end generic terms (names of
the product itself, e.g. “Phone” for telephone). Only marks that are distinctive or have acquired
distinctiveness can be registered. Registration confers an exclusive right to use the mark in
relation to the specified goods/services.

Absolute Grounds for Refusal (Section 9): Section 9 lists absolute (self-originating) grounds on
which a trademark application may be rejected. Key grounds include:
- Devoid of distinctiveness (9(1)(a)): marks that are generic or purely descriptive of the
goods (e.g. “Cold Drink” for soda) and incapable of distinguishing.
- Shape/functionality (9(1)(j)): marks consisting of shapes necessary to obtain a technical
result, or shapes that add substantial value, cannot be registered (to prevent trademarking
functional designs).
-​ Scandalous, deceptive or immoral marks (9(1)(d)): marks that offends morality or
contains deception (e.g. obscene words) are barred.
- Prohibited signs (9(1)(f)–(h)): national flags, emblems, currency symbols, names/portraits of
living persons without consent, or marks which are deceptive as to business/region/origin.
- Well-known marks (9(1)(g), (i)): if a mark is well-known in India (even without
registration), the registrar must refuse confusingly similar marks (as per Section 11(6)).
- Generic geographical names (9(1)(i)): plain names of places or regions are not exclusive
trademarks.

Relative Grounds for Refusal (Section 11): These grounds are based on conflict with earlier
rights. An application is refused if the mark is identical or deceptively similar to an earlier
trademark or well-known mark in India, and the goods/services are identical or similar, such
that consumers are likely to be confused. The Act considers factors like the marks’ overall
impression (visual, phonetic similarity) and the similarity of goods. For example, if “ABC” is
registered for clothing, a later application for “ABCD” for clothing might be refused if
consumers could be misled. Section 11(6) specifically protects well-known trademarks (as
defined in Section 2(1)(zg)) from dilution or copying on dissimilar goods.

Well-Known Trademarks (Section 2(1)(zg)): A “well-known trademark” is one recognized by

a substantial segment of the public across India as distinctive of particular goods/services .
For example, global brands like NIKE or SONY have nationwide reputation. The Act gives
such marks broader protection: even for goods/services unrelated to the original mark’s,
confusingly similar imitations are barred. Section 2(1) (zg) defines a well-known mark as one
“that has gained enough recognition among a significant portion of the public…such that use
of the mark on other goods would indicate a connection with the original owner” . Thus,
anyone seeking to register or use a mark reminiscent of a well-known mark can be refused or
sued for infringement, even if they operate in a different industry.

Trademark Infringement and Passing Off: Once registered, a trademark owner has exclusive
rights over its use (Section 28). Infringement (Section 29) occurs when an unauthorized person
uses an identical or deceptively similar mark on identical or similar goods/services, causing
confusion. Remedies include injunctions, damages and seizure of infringing goods. For
example, using “COLA” in red-and-white for soda to mimic “Coca-Cola” would be
infringement if consumers are likely deceived.
By contrast, passing off (unfair competition) protects unregistered marks: Section 27 allows a
proprietor of an unregistered mark to sue anyone who misrepresents their goods as those of the
proprietor. The classic test (from R.M.D. Chamarbaugwalla v. UOI, 1957) is whether there is a
misrepresentation, brought to the public’s notice, that causes damage to the goodwill of the
plaintiff’s business. In practice, passing-off claims often involve common-law rights in a
house mark or trade name that is not registered; the court protects the reputation of the senior
user. Indian courts have preserved such rights (e.g. ITC Ltd. v. PepsiCo India Holdings, 1997,
enforcing rights in “Le Tiger” for soft drinks under passing off).
Geographical Indications (GI)
Meaning and Scope (GI Act 1999): A Geographical Indication (GI) is a sign (usually the
name of a place) used on goods having a specific geographical origin and possessing qualities,
reputation or characteristics essentially due to that origin ​ . Classic examples include
“Darjeeling” tea or “Champagne”. The GI Act, 1999 (enforced 2003) established a register of
GIs and provided legal protection. Only “authorized users” (typically an association of
producers) may apply to the GI Registry (in Chennai) to register a GI for goods of a given
category from a defined region. Once registered, the GI is protected for 10 years (renewable
indefinitely) and confers the right to prevent misuse by third parties.

Eligibility for Protection: To qualify as a GI, the name must identify goods originating from a
particular region, where a given quality, reputation or other characteristic of the goods is
essentially attributable to their geographical origin . For example, the climate and soil of
Darjeeling confer unique flavor to its tea. The applicant (association of producers) must
provide a description of the product, the GI, and demonstrate the link between
quality/reputation and origin. Generic or purely descriptive geographical names (e.g. “Silk”
from any place) are not registerable. An applicant must also certify adherence to production
standards (often via a registered Code of Practice). The GI Act expressly bars registration if
the GI has become the common name of the goods (Section 9).

Grounds for Refusal (GI Act Sections 9–11): An application may be refused if (a) the
indication is likely to deceive or cause confusion (similar to TM law); (b) it is contrary to law,
public order or morality; (c) it is the name of a plant variety or animal (which is separately
protected); (d) it has become generic; or (e) if the proposed GI itself is not capable of
distinguishing the goods as originating from that territory. Notably,

Section 9(1)(b) of the GI Act prohibits registration if the GI is already registered in a foreign
country for similar goods. Relative grounds (Sec.11) include conflicts with earlier trademarks
or prior GI registrations.

GI vs. Trademark: While both are IP rights in signs, a GI and a trademark differ
fundamentally. A trademark indicates the commercial origin of a product (it belongs to a
single business or group), whereas a GI indicates the geographical origin and collective quality
of a product (it belongs to all producers in that region). Trademarks are property rights that can
be bought, sold or licensed by the owner; GIs are collective rights held by producers of that
region and cannot be assigned except as a group. A trademark’s scope is limited to its
goods/services class; a GI covers only the specific goods named. Trademarks must be renewed
every ten years; GIs, once registered, can be perpetually renewed so long as they still serve as
origin indicators. Finally, trademarks can be invented (e.g. “Xerox”), whereas GIs must be
geographic names or signs with a proven link to locale (e.g. “Basmati” rice, “Kashmiri
Pashmina”).
Designs
Definition and Characteristics: Under the Designs Act, 2000 (Section 2(d)), a “design” means
only the features of shape, configuration, pattern or ornament applied to an article by any
industrial process or means, which in the finished article appeal to and are judged solely by the
eye . Thus, a design protects the aesthetic or ornamental aspects of a product
(two-dimensional or three-dimensional), not its functional aspects. Designs must be new or
original (not previously published or used anywhere) and non-obvious. They are typically
applied to industrially produced articles (furniture, textiles, jewelry, etc.). For example, the
unique shape of a perfume bottle or the pattern on a textile may be registered as a design.
Designs Act protection lasts 15 years (after initial 10-year term, extendable by 5).

Eligibility and Registration: To be registrable, a design must be novel and original (Section
4(1)). Even a minor difference from prior art can qualify as new originality. Designs must not
be contrary to public order or morality (Section 20), and must not be a mere mechanical part
with no aesthetic appeal. Applicants file representations and claim priority (Paris Convention)
if any. The Controller examines and grants registration if conditions are met. Unlike patents,
no inventive step or industrial applicability requirement applies, since designs are purely
ornamental.

Protection under Copyright (Artistic Works): A design may also qualify as an artistic work
under the Copyright Act. Section 15(c) of the Copyright Act includes “sculptures, architecture
and works of artistic craftsmanship” in the definition of artistic works. Thus, an original
design (e.g. a sculpture or jewelry design) can be protected by copyright as well as by design
registration. However, the law prevents double-dipping: Section 16 of the Designs Act
provides that once a design is registered under the Designs Act, no copyright subsists in that
design as an artistic work. Conversely, unregistered designs that are nonetheless artistic work
remain protected by copyright (lifetime + 60 years). In practice, manufacturers often rely on
design registration for applied works intended for mass production, and on copyright for
small-batch or artisanal creations. This overlapping protection underscores the importance of
new and original design features: novel designs can be safeguarded either through the Designs
Act or, if unregistered and sufficiently creative, as copyrights under the Copyright Act.

Major Legal Principles: Several landmark principles illustrate Indian design protection. For
instance, in Brijendra Bhushan & Co. v. Chander Bhushan & Bros. (1953), the Supreme Court
interpreted the requirement “judged solely by the eye” narrowly, suggesting that minor
differences not perceptible visually cannot make a design new. In modern practice, however,
the Patent Office often grants design patents for features that are visually distinctive. The
Designs Act also reiterates the Paris Convention right of priority (Section 3A), and accords
national treatment.

Conclusion: In sum, India’s IP laws – inspired by international treaties (TRIPS, Paris, Berne)
and tailored to national needs – establish a comprehensive regime: granting patents and
trademarks subject to criteria and exceptions, protecting original artistic and literary works
with copyright (including ancillary performers’ and broadcasters’ rights), safeguarding
geographical indications tied to regional heritage, and covering industrial designs. These
regimes balance private incentives with public interest through built-in limitations (e.g. fair
use, compulsory licenses, patent exclusions) and thus aim to stimulate innovation and cultural
creativity while ensuring access and fairness.