CHAPTER 1- INTRODUCTION

In law, intellectual property (IP) is an umbrella term for various legal entitlements which attach to certain names, written and recorded media, and inventions. The holders of these legal entitlements may exercise various various exclusive rights in relation to the subject matter of the IP. The term intellectual property reflects the idea that this subject matter is the product of the mind or the intellect. The term implies that intellectual works are analogous to physical property and is consequently a matter of some controversy.

Intellectual property laws and enforcement vary widely from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. There are inter-governmental efforts to harmonise them through international treaties such as the 1994 World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs), while other treaties may facilitate registration in more than one jurisdiction at a time. Disagreements over medical and software patents and the severity of copyright enforcement have so far prevented consensus on a cohesive international system.

Purpose of Study :-

The researcher has taken this project for the purpose of highlighting the role of judiciary in the protection of Intellectual Property rights and its enforcements in terms of its strengths and weaknesses in handling IPR related issues and accordingly to suggest the steps to be taken in order to strengthen IPR protection.

Scope of study:-

As IPR is a very vast concept or terminology Researcher has limited the scope of her project work to the extent of role of judiciary in IPR protection along with the brief idea of IPR and its need and importance so as to highlight the existing as well as expected role of judiciary and other institution indirectly affecting the role of judiciary in IPR protection.

Research Methodology:-

Method is the way of doing something in the proper manner and methodology is the science of study of a particular subject. Research methodology is the method, which the researcher follows in order to pursue his/her research. Researcher here has adopted the “Doctrinal Research Method” for her project work. The data required for research work has been collected from law web portal, various books etc. The researcher has also examined case law decided by Supreme Court, High Court and other forum dealing with IPR issues in this context in order to have sound support for her hypothetical presumption.

Hypothesis:-

As the Hypothesis is the base on which the building of Research can be constructed, we cannot imagine the research work without the formulation of Hypothesis. A general supposition made as a basis for reasoning but not held to be true until proven by reference to empirical evidence. A proposition put forward as a supposition, rather than asserted. A hypothesis may be put forward for testing or for discussion, possibly as a prelude to acceptance or rejection. Researcher has formulated following Hypothesis for her Research Work.

1. Intellectual Property Rights very important and needs protection under law.

2. The judiciary really perform efficient role in the protection of IPR.

3. The Enforcement of IPR Laws in India are sufficient.

CHAPTER 2- MEANING, NEED IMPORTANCE OF IPR

Meaning of Intellectual Property :-

We know that the inventor of a machine, the author of a book, or the writer of music usually ''own'' their work. From this ownership, certain consequences flow. We cannot just copy or buy a copy of their works without consideration of their rights. Equally, original industrial designs of furniture, wallpaper and the like seem naturally to be owned by someone or some organization.

Patents, designs, and copyright are the products of intellectual effort and creative activity in the field of applied arts or technology and fine arts. In the broadest sense, Intellectual Property includes all rights resulting from intellectual activity in the industrial, scientific, literary, or artistic fields. The main characteristic of Intellectual Property is that it is the product of the human intellect or the creation of human mind.

Each time we buy such ''protected'' items, a part of what we pay goes back to the owner as recompense for the time, money, effort and thought they put into the creation of the work. This has resulted over the years in the development of industries, which in turn encourages new talent to produce more and more original ideas and articles.

It would be worthwhile to consider a formal definition of intellectual property, in order to understand the scope and importance of the various types of intellectual property, against the backdrop of the relevant governing international treaties.

Meaning of ''property'':-

The most important feature of a property is that the owner of the property is free to use it as she/he wishes, provided the use is not against the law, and to exclude others from so using that owned item of property.

"Intellectual property" is reserved for types of property that result from creations of the human mind, the intellect. Interestingly, the term intellectual property in the Convention Establishing theWorld Intellectual Property Organization, or "WIPO", does not have a more formal definition. The States that drafted the Convention chose to offer an inclusive list of the rights as follows:

"Literary artistic and scientific works; performances of performing artists, phonograms, and broadcasts; inventions in all fields of human endeavor; scientific discoveries; industrial designs; trademarks, service marks, and commercial names and designations; protection against unfair competition; and "all other rights resulting from intellectual activity in the industrial, scientific, literary or artistic fields." (Convention Establishing the World Intellectual Property Organization, Signed at Stockholm on July 14, 1967; Article 2, § viii)

For various administrative and historical reasons, intellectual property is usually dealt with under the following main headings:

1. Literary, artistic and scientific works e.g. books. Protection of this property is governed by laws concerning Copyright.

2. Performances, broadcasts e.g. concerts. Protection of this property is governed by laws concerning Copyright's Related Rights.

3. Inventions- e.g. a new form of jet engine. Protection of inventions is covered by laws concerning Patents.

4. Industrial designs- e.g. the shape of a soft drinks bottle. Industrial Designs may be protected by its own specialised laws or those of Industrial Property or Copyright.

5. Trademarks, service marks and commercial names and designations- e.g. logos or names for a product with unique geographical origin, such as Champagne. Protection is normally available under various Trademark laws.

6. Protection against unfair competition- e.g. false claims against a competitor or imitating a competitor with a view to deceive the customer

In order to understand this concept in a better way, let us examine one example of each type of intellectual property and the area of law which protects it:

 A company wishes to ensure that noone else can use their logo. This logo will be called a Trademark and they can seek protection under Trademark law.

 A music composer creates a new tune and wishes to protect it. This will be covered under copyright law.

 A singer wishes to assign the rights to reproduce a video she has made of her concert. The right that she has acquired is a related right. It is a kind of a copyright but not exactly a copyright. A copyright will be needed for this.

 A new way to process milk so that there is no fat in any cheese made from it, is a new process. It is a new invention and will be covered under the area of Patent law. A patent may be acquired for this process.

 A company has decided to invest in packaging, which is distinctive, and they wish to ensure that they have sole use. The company can here protect its industrial design.

 A company decides to use a logo that has the same shape as its competitor but with a different colour. This is a typical example of unfair competition and the company can seek protection under the various national laws.

Technical difference between PATENT, COPYRIGHT and TRADEMARK:-

Artistic, dramatic, literary and musical work is protected under the Copyright Act, 1957, as are sound recordings and cinematographic work. Copyright protection is afforded a much longer period than a patent. If a work is copyright after 1977, the copyright lasts for the life of the author plus 70 years. While Trademarks Act, 1999 covers brand names, logos, designs etc., the Patents Act, 1970 covers commercial innovation-the product design and technology, etc.

Protection under Intellectual Property Rights so important because of following reasons: -

There are several reasons:

a. A person puts in work and great effort into an intellectual creation. He must receive some benefit as a result of this endeavor.

b. By giving protection to intellectual property, many such endeavors are encouraged and industries, based on such work, can grow. Thus, people see that such work brings financial return.

c. Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights protects products, designs, processes and creativity in several other forms from counterfeiting and unfair trade practices.

To illustrate this point, we turn to the case of the world pharmaceutical industry. An investment of many years and R&D expenses (lab time for creation, testing, government or agency approval procedures) running into the hundreds of millions of rupees may be necessary before any new medicine reaches the market. Without IP rights to exclude competitors from also producing the same new medicine, the pharmaceutical company would have no incentive to invest so heavily in the development of a drug.

Without patent protection, such a company would face economic losses, originating from the "free-riding" of their competitors. Without trademark protection, this company would not be able to build "brand loyalty" that, hopefully, would last beyond the years of protection, granted by patents. Without the protections given within IP laws and treaties, such pharmaceutical firms simply would not commit an effort to experiment in the search for new health products. As you can see from this brief example, without the protections outlined above, the world might well be literally less healthy than it is.

Intellectual property rights also extend protection to unwritten and unrecorded cultural expression of many developing countries, generally known as folklore. With such protection, these will form an unimaginable fund of knowledge and information to the great advantage of the country and cultures of origin.

Intellectual Property Rights governed in India are governed as follows: India has put in place legal instruments to conform to the World Trade Organization (WTO) with respect to copyrights, trademarks, industrial designs, etc. Legal instruments pending consideration by Parliament include the Patents Amendment Bill, 1999, the Bill for the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights, 1999 and the Biological Diversity Bill, 1999.

India is party to the agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) under the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT), which came into force on 1 January 1995. Being a developing country, India was entitled to a 5-year transition up to 1 January 2000 for most provisions of the TRIPS. An exception is the introduction of product patents in areas of technology not covered so far. Once the Patents Amendment Bill is passed it will fulfill these requirements.

The reason for States to enact national legislation, and to join as signatories to either (or both) regional or international treaties governing intellectual property rights include:

 to provide incentive towards various creative endeavors of the mind by offering protections;

 to give such creators official recognition;

 to create repositories of vital information;

 to facilitate the growth of both domestic industry or culture, and international trade, through the treaties offering multi-lateral protection.

CHAPTER 3- ROLE OF JUDICIARY IN THE EFFECTIVE PROTECTION OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHT

The importance of Judiciary in a democratic set up for protection of personal and proprietary rights can hardly be overestimated. The principal function of Judiciary is to provide legal remedies against infringement of personal and property rights of persons.

The intellectual property rights for their effectiveness depend upon the speed with which they can be enforced by the courts. The statutory provisions provide only a modicum of direction as regards the nature of remedies and the procedure for safeguarding them, leaving a large extent of freeplay within the province of judges.

Infringement of intellectual property rights is a tortuous invasion of property. The common law developed several heads of liability constituting the economic torts. “Their general characteristics are that the defendant must be acting intentionally or recklessly; that the plaintiff must suffer or be about to suffer damage; and that they will not apply if some ground of justification is open to the defendant” (Intellectual Property : Patents, Copyright, Trade Marks and Allied Rights, (Second Edition) page 28 by W.R.Cornish). Before statutory provisions in respect of these rights were enacted the remedy was award of damages by the common law courts, and, remedy by way of injunction was developed by the equity courts.

Intellectual property is inchoate property when manifested in a legally recognizable way. Property right was, till the deletion of Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution of India, a fundamental right for citizens, but now under Article 300-A it is separately notified as a Constitutional right ensuring that no person can be deprived of his property save by the authority of law.

Equality – A Constitutional Promise :

Even though certain important fundamental rights including right to carry on any trade or business are guaranteed only to citizens, all persons including non-citizens can claim equality before the law and equal protection of the laws (Article 14). Therefore any arbitrary discrimination against a person who is a non-citizen qua his claim to be treated equally as others before the law, can be challenged before the Courts.

Recourse to Court by law is a well recognized concept world over and firmly entrenched in the Constitutional and other laws of India. Therefore, any person can claim a statutorily or customarily recognized right to property. In case of infringement of a legally recognized right recourse to law cannot be denied and the rule of law enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution will enable any person including a non citizen to approach the legal forum of the country for redressal of his grievances. In India, as provided by Section 83 of the Code of Civil Procedure alien friends may sue in any Court otherwise competent to try the suit, as if they were citizens of India. The alien enemies whether residing in India or in a foreign Country shall not sue in any such Court without the permission of the Central Government.

Ordinarily, violation of Intellectual Property Rights has a private dimension in as much as it affects the proprietary rights of individuals and may cause financial loss and loss of credit to the owner. Therefore, the questions of national or public interest would rarely arise when redressal is sought by a non-citizen for violation of such proprietary rights by the infringer. The judiciary is bound to implement the laws and redress grievances of all persons including aliens to uphold their common law or statutorily recognized rights.

Courts’ Powers under the present Intellectual Property Laws :

The Courts in India are empowered under the municipal laws to grant reliefs against violation of Intellectual Property rights, and the parameters reflected in Part III of the TRIPS Agreement (Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property) are already adopted enabling the courts to protect these private rights. This can be briefly outlined :

(A) Copyrights:

The Civil proceedings in respect of the infringement of Copyright or any other right conferred by the copyright Act can be instituted in the District Court having jurisdiction (Section 62). The civil remedies available for the infringement of the copyright are by way of injunction, damages accounts and otherwise as are or may be provided by law for such infringements (Section 55). There is a rebuttable presumption that the person whose name appears on the work or the copies of the work as published, is the author or the publisher of the work, as the case may be (Section 55(2). Independently of his copyright, the author of a work has a special right to claim authorship of the work and to restrain or claim damages in respect of any distortion, mutilation, modification or other act which is done before the expiration of the term of copyright if such deviation would be prejudicial to the honour or reputation of the author (Section 57). The infringing material (copies and plates) will be deemed to be the property of the owner of the copyright (Section 58). Remedy in the case of groundless threat of legal proceedings is by way of a declaratory suit that the infringement alleged was in fact not any infringement of any legal rights of the person making such threats and the court can grant an injunction against continuance of groundless threats and award damages sustained by the owner by reason of such threats, except where the person making such threats, with due diligence commences and prosecutes an action for infringement of the copyright claimed by him. (Section 60). Though no copyright can be claimed except as provided by the Act it is specifically provided that there will be no abrogation of any right or jurisdiction to restrain a breach of trust or confidence. (Section 16).

The Central Government by Section 40 is empowered to direct that all or any of the provisions of the Copyright Act shall apply to foreign works. The government has made the International Copyright Order, 1991 applying the provisions of the Copyright Act as indicated in paragraph 3 of the Order, except those of Chapter VIII relating to Rights and Broadcasting Organisation and of Performers and the provisions which apply exclusively to Indian Works, to the Bern Conventions Countries and the Universal Copyright Convention Countries.

(B) Patents and Designs :

The suits for a declaration as to non-infringement (Section 105 of the Patents Act), or, for any relief in cases of groundless threats of infringement proceedings (Section 106), or, for infringement of a patent (Section 107, 108), shall be instituted in a District Court having jurisdiction (Section 104). However, if there is a counter claim for revocation of patent, the suit and the counter claim shall be transferred to the High Court for decision. The Court in cases of groundless threats of infringement proceedings is empowered to a give declaration that the threats are unjustifiable, issue injunction against their discontinuance and award damages, if any, as he has sustained (Section 106). In any suit for infringement a court may grant an injunction (subject to such terms as the court thinks fit) and, at the option of the plaintiff either damages or an account of profits (Section 108) Appeal lies to the High Court against the decision, order or direction of the Controlled as provided by Section 116(2).

For piracy of any registered design by a person he will be liable for every contravention of Section 53 of the Designs Act, 1911 to pay to the registered proprietor of the design a sum not exceeding Rs. 500/- (but not exceeding in all Rs. 1000/- in respect of any one design) as a contract debt or if the proprietor elects to bring a suit for recovery of damages for such contravention and for an injunction against repetition thereof, to pay damages as may be awarded and to be restrained by injunction (Section 53(2) of the Designs Act, 1911). Remedy in case of groundless threats of legal proceedings by a patentee will mutates mutandis apply in the case of registered designs (section 54 of Designs Act, 1911).

Suits for the infringement of a registered trade mark or relating to any right in such trademark or for passing off are to be instituted in a Court not inferior to a District Court (Section 106 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958). The Court is empowered to grant in such suit an injunction subject to such terms, as the court thinks fit, and at the option of the Plaintiff, either damages or an account of profits. (Section 106).

Courts’ discretionary powers and treaties :

In the field where the law courts enjoy discretion such as while granting interlocutory reliefs or imposing conditions while making discretionary orders, the Courts can and should keep in view the treaty obligations which bind the State and make orders and impose conditions which are supported by the provisions of binding treaties and conventions. The extent to which rights and obligations of the owners of the intellectual property rights and infringers would get affected in the jurisdictions other than its own can also be one of the parameters to be kept in mind by the municipal court for the sound exercise of its discretionary powers. Therefore, while the role of judiciary is confined to the four corners of the statutory provisions governing the intellectual property rights, its discretionary powers enable it to legitimately take into account the ramifications that its discretionary orders would have in the context of the wider horizons of the intellectual property rights.

India has been party to important treaties and conventions on Intellectual Property, though due to certain internal compulsions, its approach has been somewhat cautious in certain fields. As a member of the WIPO it has important role to play for encouraging creative activity and promoting the protection of intellectual property throughout the world. As member of the WTO the TRIPS Agreement binds it under Article II 2 of the WTO Agreement. It is therefore under a treaty obligation to give effect to the provisions of the TRIPS Agreement for adequate protection of Intellectual Property rights. The Courts exercising jurisdiction under the Intellectual Property laws have to provide effective and expeditious remedies against any act of infringement of intellectual property rights keeping in view the treaty obligations undertaken by the State in the process of interpretation of the statutory provisions, exercise of its discretion and granting adequate reliefs against the infringements of the intellectual property rights.

Judicial review of administrative and Quasi Judicial orders :

Against the orders of the administrative or quasi-judicial authorities empowered to take decisions inter-alia on the question of registration, recognition, revocation, cancellation or imposition of conditions under the intellectual property laws, judicial review is permissible as an effective check on any arbitrary or illegal action. The writ jurisdiction of the High Court is effectively invoked for ensuring that the authorities act within the bounds of their powers, do not take any biased attitude; do not act arbitrarily, do not deny equality before the law to the concerned person, observe principles of natural justice and fair play in making orders or taking action, pass reasoned orders and communicate their decisions to the affected party to enable them to challenge any adverse decision. Due to the rapid growth of the administrative law, requirement of making a reasoned order has emerged as a basic principle of natural justice in addition to the two traditionally recognized principles of natural justice namely ‘ No man shall be a judge of his own cause’ and that ‘No on should be condemned unheard’ (Reference:- Siemens Engineering V. Union of India, AIR 1976 SC 1785 = (1976)2 SCC 981; M.P. Industries V. Union of India AIR 1966 S.C 671: (1966) 1 SCR 466).

Injunctions:

The statutory safeguards against infringement of the intellectual property rights in form of injunction and damages are universally recognized. Apart from the specific provisions of empowering the Courts to issue injunction contained in the Intellectual Property laws as noted above, there are provisions in the specific Relief Act for grant of preventive relief by injunction, temporary or perpetual, at the discretion of the court (Section 36, 37, 38). A perpetual injunction can only be granted by the decree made at the hearing and upon the merits of the suit and the defendant is thereby perpetually enjoined from the assertion of a right, or from the commission of an act, which would be contrary to the rights of the Plaintiff. (Section 37(2) of the Specific Relief Act). Temporary injunctions can be granted during the pendency of the suit and are regulated by the code of Civil Procedure (O.XXXIX).

In the field of intellectual property, injunction is almost always prohibitory in nature. Till the infringement of a right is established at the trial, interlocutory injunction would constitute a temporary redress to be granted at the discretion of the court and has great deal of practical efficacy. The interim period is sometimes very long because of the delays in the disposal of the trial. It would therefore be important for the courts to invariably impose a condition on the plaintiff to undertake to make good any damage suffered by any defendant from the injunction, should the plaintiff fail at the trial. (Ref. Harmen Pictures V. Osborne (1967)2 ALL E.R.324). This principle of indemnification is incorporated in Article 48 of the TRIPS Agreement and ought to be specifically incorporated in the provisions of O.XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure, relating to temporary injunctions and interlocutory orders as a specific rule. There is of course a general provision under Section 144 of the Code for applying for restitution; where the orders are vacated. The courts, however, have ample discretion to impose terms and conditions while granting interlocutory orders or taking provisional measures to ensure appropriate compensation being paid to the defendant who ultimately is found not to have done any infringement. The experience however has shown that though the courts have discretion to impose such conditions, by and large it is not imposed leaving scope for the unscrupulous plaintiff to act with impunity. The courts are empowered to make interlocutory orders under O.XXXIX Rule 7 of the Code for detention, inspection or preservation of any property which is the subject matter of the suit and for this purpose to authorize any person to enter upon or into any premises in possession of any other party and authorize samples to be taken. Exparte orders of this nature can be made under Rule 8(3). Thus it was already within the jurisdiction of the Indian Courts to make orders under the procedural rules contained in the Code like Anton Piller order or the Mareva injunction. Where no specific provisions is made it has inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 of the Code to make orders necessary for the ends of justice.

Damages :

Damages can be assessed on the basis of loss caused to the plaintiff or profit to the infringer. In “economic” torts, damages should be assessed so as to put the injured party in the position he would have been in, if he had not sustained the wrong. Reasonable royalty or licence analogy can be applied and rates customary in the royalty or licence agreements can be taken as the basis for assessing damages(Ref. General Tire V. Firestone, 1976) – R.P.C. 197, 212 (H.L.). In competitive infringements, where the anticipated profits are the same in the same market, the defendant’s gain will be the plaintiff’s loss. In such cases the Plaintiff’s loss will also include the extent of loss caused due to his being placed in a disadvantageous position by the defendants getting a foothold in the market in other competitive lines. The judicial precedents provide general guidelines for assessing damages and the judges can have their own approach to deal with a particular assessment with a view to provide adequate and just compensation for the loss suffered by the plaintiff.

Criminal Procedure :

In the Indian Legal System, Civil and Criminal modes of redress are largely kept separate. In the field of intellectual property stringent punishments are prescribed in respect of the offences of In criminal proceedings there would be no possibility of securing an interlocutory order to stop further infringement pending the trial and the burden of proof would be higher than in civil action. Therefore, most claimants resort to civil remedies which are more useful to them than punishment in the name of the State. Prosecutions would however have a great deterrent effect against infringement of the intellectual property rights.

CHAPTER:-4 - DEVELOPMENTS AND ENFORCEMENT OF IPR LAWS – IN GENERAL

The IIPA has been appreciative of the Copyright Act of 1957 as amended in 1994. It has observed that overall; the new law is Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPS) compatible from the standpoint of substantive rights, except that the term of protection for performers should be increased from 25 to 50 years. IIPA has also observed that the criminal provisions in the Act are among the toughest in the world. It, however, suggested that the level of fines should be increased. At present the minimum fine for the first offence is Rs.50, 000 and the maximum Rs. 200,000. In dollar terms this comes to 1,400 and 5,500. The amount of fines, decided in 1994, on the basis of the per capita income in India are satisfactory, even if they should appear to be low when one considers them in US dollars and in the context of the US per capita income. For making the Copyright Act TRIPS-compatible, India has time till January 1, 2000, as per Article 65.2 of the TRIPS Agreement.

IIPA has also suggested that the lack of presumptions with respect to ownership and subsistence of rights, and the need to prove actual knowledge must be remedied in amendments to the Copyright Act to make the law fully TRIPs-compatible, and bring it into conformity with the WIPO Copyright Treaty and the Performances and Phonograms Treaty.

In regard to the presumption of ownership of copyright issue, it is observed that in 1996 the Supreme Court of India, in a major ruling aimed at curbing piracy in audio and video cassettes in the country, said that ownership evidence of the original work was not required to prove the charge of copyright violation. Thus, even if there is no explicit provision in the Act, the case law makes the presumption of ownership of copyright. In fact the IIPA has also referred to the Supreme Court ruling.

Justifying suggested amendments to the Copyright Act in regard to the need to prove actual knowledge for raising/confiscating equipment for piracy, the IIPA has stated, "while raids on cable systems have been successful to date, it has been necessary to catch the pirate in the act of broadcasting a particular film without a licence in order for the police to be able to seize the pirate's broadcasting equipment." In this connection it may be mentioned that, in Section 64(l) of the Copyright Act, it has been clearly provided as under:

"Any police officer not below the rank of a sub-inspector, may, if he is satisfied that an offence under Section 63 in respect of the infringement of copyright in any work has been, is being, or is likely to be committed, seize without warrant, all copies of the work, and all plates used for the purpose of making infringing copies of the work, wherever found, and all copies and plates so seized shall, as soon as practicable, be produced before a Magistrate"

It will thus be seen that law does not require that the police witness the act of infringement in order to seize the goods involved. The law only requires that the police officer be satisfied that an offence "in respect of the infringement of copyright in any work has been, is being, or is likely to be committed" for the purpose of seizing, without warrant, all copies of the work and the plates used for making the infringing copies. This can further be adduced from the fact that he has the power to seize an infringing work even when he is satisfied that an offence is likely to be committed, thereby ruling out the essentiality of witnessing use of the goods to be seized in an act of infringement. Thus, the powers vested with the police take care of not only the past and present cases of infringement but also future cases where there is a likelihood of infringement of copyright provisions.

The WIPO Copyright Treaty, 1996 and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty, 1996 have not yet come into force as the requisite number of countries have not yet ratified or acceded to the treaties. India has also not yet acceded to the treaties. Since the two treaties have not yet come into force, it is premature to discuss the compatibility of the Copyright Act with these treaties.

The IIPA has also observed that as cable-showing of pirated products has begun to diminish, there has been an increase in unauthorized showing of US films in student unions in universities. The Copyright Act provides an exception "to the performance, in the course of the activities of an education institution, of a cinematography film,...if the audience is limited to ... staff and students, the parents and guardians of the students and persons directly connected with the activities of the institution..." (Section 52 (1)). IIPA has suggested that his provision should be interpreted narrowly to make such showings an infringement. If not, the provision must be amended and narrowed to be Berne and TRIPS-compatible. It may be observed that the Indian Copyright Act is fully compatible with the Berne and the Berne provisions included in the TRIPS. As such, no amendment is needed in the Act. However, the enforcement agencies may ensure that the exemption provisions for educational purposes are not misused for copyright infringement.

The IIPA in their submissions have also stated, "on the recording side, RIAA is concerned about an apparently over board provision in section 33 which may limit the ability of authors, and composers, as well as producers, to licence their works individually, rather than through a registered collection society." IIPA has suggested that this should be clarified in favor of full rights of all right holders to licence their rights individually. Section 33 of the Copyright Act, which provides for copyright societies, does not take away the rights of individual copyright owners. As per proviso to Section 33 "an owner of copyright shall, in his individual capacity, continue to have the right to grant licences in respect of his own works consistent with his obligations as a member of the registered. copyright society."

IIPA have also demanded a narrower interpretation of provisions relating to educational use of copyrighted work. First of all, no such instance has been brought to the notice of the Department of Education, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India, which is the nodal Ministry for copyright. Further, it is quite likely that instances, if any, do not involve any commercial losses.

Enforcement of Copyright Law

IIPA has mentioned about the number of raids against pirates. It, however, has also mentioned a number of enforcement problems, including the increase in mobility of pirate wholesalers and retailers as enforcement has increased, occasional leaks of information from enforcement authorities to pirate operators, and the slow progress of cases through the courts. The Embassy would like to highlight that the Government of India has also greatly intensified anti-piracy operations.

The Government has also taken a number of measures to strengthen the enforcement of copyright law. A summary of these measures is given below:

Measures taken by the Department of Education, Ministry of Human resource Development, Government of India for strengthening the enforcement of the copyright and neighboring rights include constitution of a Copyright Enforcement Advisory Council (CEAC), creation of separate cells in state police headquarters, encouraging setting up of collective administration societies and organization of seminars and workshops to create greater awareness about copyright law among the enforcement personnel and the general public.

The CEAC is reconstituted from time to time to review periodically the progress of enforcement of the Copyright Act and to advise the government on measures for improving the enforcement. The present CEAC was constituted for a period of three years with effect from November 6, 1997. Additional Secretary, Department of Education is the chairman of the CEAC. The CEAC members include representatives of copyright industry organizations and chiefs of state police forces. The CEAC meets at least twice every year. The reconstituted CEAC has already met twice. The CEAC discusses in detail issues of enforcement, piracy, etc.

Special cells for copyright enforcement have so far been set up in the following 23 States and Union Territories: These are the States / Union Territories of Andhra Pradesh, Assam, A &N Islands, Chandigarh, Dadra & Nagar Haveli, Daman & Due, Delhi, Goa, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Meghalaya, Orissa, Pondicherry, Punjab, Sikkim, Tamil Nadu, Tripura and West Bengal. States have also been advised to designate a nodal officer for copyright enforcement to facilitate easy interaction by copyright industry organizations and copyright owners.

For collective administration of copyright, copyright societies are set up for different classes of works. At present there are three registered copyright societies. These are the Society for Copyright Regulations of Indian Producers of Films & Television (SCRIPT) for cinematography films, Indian Performing Rights Society Limited (IPRS) for musical works and Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL) for sound recordings. These societies, particularly the PPL and the IPRS, have been quite active in anti-piracy work. The PPL has even set up a special anti-piracy cell under a retired Director General of Police, and this cell has been working in tandem with the police.

The Government also initiates a number of seminars/workshops on copyright issues. The participants in these seminars include enforcement personnel like the police as well as representatives of industry organizations.

The Ministry is also proposing to have a few new schemes during the Ninth Five-Year Plan. These new schemes provide for extending financial assistance to the States for setting up/strengthening the special copyright enforcement cells in the State police, giving financial assistance for organizing training seminars and workshops for enforcement personnel, organizing seminars and workshops to create general awareness about copyright and for encouraging study of intellectual property rights in the educational system, besides modernizing the Copyright Office. A scheme is also on the anvil for extending financial assistance to Collective Administration Societies.

The IIPA has also suggested that a central body be set up at the federal level to coordinate enforcement. For the time being, the Government of India is working on strengthening the copyright enforcement cells at the State level.

Reforms in Judicial Processes

The Indian judiciary is seized of the matter of delay in administering justice and is handling cases as expeditiously as possible. It may also be mentioned here that Article 41.4 of the TRIPS Agreement creates no obligation on members to put in place a separate judicial system for the enforcement of intellectual property rights distinct from that for the enforcement of law in general. Further, provisional measures, such as injunctions and 'Anton Piller' orders, are available through the Indian courts to stop infringement and to contain any damages.

Modernization of Intellectual Property Administration System

Government of India has taken several measures to streamline and strengthen the intellectual property administration systems in the country. Two projects were recently implemented with the help of WIPO/UNDP for the modernization of patent information services and trademarks registry, details of which are given below:

Modernization of Patent Information Services

1. The Office of Patent Information System (PIS) was set up in 1980 with a view to provide scientific and technological information contained in patents documents to the users, namely scientists, researchers, universities, Indian Institutes of Technology and others for taking up further research and development. It is estimated that about 80% of the world's knowledge of viable and adaptable technology are contained in about 30 million patent documents. One million documents are being added every year, covering 400,000 inventions. If the information contained in these documents is made available to industry, it can provide information for further research, facilitate evaluation of technology to be purchased under licensing arrangements, and identify worldwide developments in specific fields.

2. It was, therefore, felt necessary to establish a modernized patent information service centre through upgrading and mechanization of procedures relating to collection, retrieval and dissemination of patent information, using state-of-the-art technology and trained personnel.

3. Accordingly, a project for modernization of PIS was taken up with the financial assistance of UPDP and Government of India (at a cost of US$1.22 million of which $0.69 million provided by LTNDP) and technical assistance of World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) in January, 1992. This project has been completed in June 1996.

4. As a part of activities, several awareness/training programs were organized in India for the benefit of scientific and industrial communities. Additional manpower to PIS was provided along with modem office equipment such as computers, CD-ROMS and on-line access to external and internal databases. Computerized Indian patent databases have also been established. All these activities are expected to result in better and improved services to the users.

Modernization of Trade Marks Registry

1. The use and promotion of trademarks helps inform consumers about goods and services available in the market. The use of trademarks facilitates identifying those responsible for putting those goods in the market. An effective trademarks system would help protect consumers against misleading practices. Therefore, it was recognized that in the interest of consumers, the Government of India should promote the use and provide effective protection for trademarks.

2. Accordingly, a project for modernization of trademarks registry was taken up in April 1993 at a cost of US$1.24 million, out of which US$ 0.58 million were provided by the UNDP. The project has been implemented in May 1996 with the technical assistance of WIPO.

3. Under the project, the capability of the Registry has been enhanced by modernizing and streamlining trade marks registration procedures; posts of electronic data processing personnel have been created; awareness programs organized; Registry has been strengthened in terms of modem office equipment; networking established between Head and Branch Offices, etc. It is felt that it would now be possible to issue registration certificate in a shorter period than before.

4. Further strengthening of the capabilities of the trademark registry is also being taken up in the Ninth Plan and a provision has also been incorporated in the Annual Plan 1997-98.

Modernization of Patent Offices

1. A proposal is now under consideration for taking up modernization of Patent Offices.

2. The Patent Offices, apart from grant of patent, perform other functions like public information and guidance, maintenance of public library and search room, production of journals, publication of official gazette, etc.

3. In view of the economic initiatives and liberalization measures taken by the Government since mid-1991, the number of applications for patents are expected to increase significantly. From a level of 3552 in 1991-92, it has increased to 8562 in 1996-97 and is expected to rise further in coming years. Accordingly, a proposal is under consideration for modernization of patent offices incorporating the following elements:-

a. Human Resource Development

b. Infrastructure Support and Strengthening

c. Computerization and Modernization

d. Elimination of backlog of patent applications

4. The project will be implemented in a period of 5 years. A detailed project report has already been prepared and the project has been included in Ninth Five-Year Plan and Annual Plan 1998-99.

The year 1999 witnessed the consideration and passage of major legislation with regard to protection of intellectual property rights in harmony with international practices and in compliance with India's obligations under TRIPS. These include:

1. The Patents (Amendment) Act, 1999 passed by the Indian Parliament on March 10, 1999 to amend the Patents Act of 1970 that provides for establishment of a mail box system to file patents and accords exclusive marketing rights for 5 years.

2. The Trade Marks Bill, 1999 which repeals and replaces the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 passed by the Indian Parliament in the Winter Session that concluded on December 23, 1999.

3. The Copyright (Amendment) Act, 1999 passed by both houses of the Indian Parliament, and signed by the President of India on December 30, 1999.

4. A sui generis legislation for the protection of geographical indications called the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration & Protection) Bill, 1999 approved by both houses of the Indian Parliament on December 23, 1999.

5. The Industrial Designs Bill, 1999 which replaces the Designs Act, 1911 was passed in the Upper House of the Indian Parliament in the Winter Session which concluded on December 23, 1999 and is presently before the Lower House for its consideration.

6. The Patents (Second Amendment) Bill, 1999 to further amend the Patents Act, 1970 and make it TRIPS compliant was introduced in the Upper House of Indian Parliament on December 20, 1999.

In addition to the above legislative changes, the Government of India has taken several measures to streamline and strengthen the intellectual property administration system in the country. Projects relating to the modernization of patent information services and trademarks registry have been implemented with help from WIPO/UNDP. The Government of India is implementing a project for modernization of patent offices at a cost of Rs.756 million incorporating several components such as human resource development, recruiting additional examiners, infrastructure support and strengthening by way of computerization and re-engineering work practices, and elimination of backlog of patent applications. An amendment to the Patent Rules was notified on June 2, 1999 to simplify the procedural aspects.

The Trade Marks Registry is also proposed to be further strengthened and modernized. A project for modernization was earlier implemented during 1993-96. Further strengthening of the Registry is being taken up at a cost of Rs.86 million. The main thrust now is to strengthen the infrastructure of the Trade Marks Registry and the early removal of backlog of pending applications, transfer of records to CD-ROM’s, re-engineering of work processes, appointment of additional examiners, etc.

As regards the aspect enforcement, Indian enforcement agencies are now working very effectively and there has been a notable decline in the levels of piracy in India. In addition to intensifying raids against copyright infringers, the Government has taken a number of measures to strengthen the enforcement of copyright law. Special cells for copyright enforcement have been set up in 23 States and Union Territories. In addition, for collective administration of copyright, copyright societies have been set up for different classes of works.

Concerns expressed over IPR protection & India’s response

It has been alleged that there is absence of effective patent protection in the pharmaceutical sector. India does provide for patents in the pharmaceutical sector. However, in terms of Section 5 of the Patents Act, the patents are presently restricted to the methods or process of manufacture and not extended to the substances/products themselves. In terms of the TRIPS Agreement, India has time till January 1, 2005 to extend patent protection to this area. The ten year transition period available for providing product patents to pharmaceutical products is within WTO rules.

It has been further alleged that India has failed to meet its current obligations required under Articles 70.8 and 70.9 of the TRIPS Agreement by implementing appropriate, conforming mailbox and exclusive marketing rights procedures. However, the Government of India has taken the following steps to meet its obligations under Articles 70.8 and 70.9:

1. On December 31, 1994, Government of India promulgated an Ordinance to provide a means to receive product patent applications in the fields of pharmaceutical and agricultural chemical products and also for grant of exclusive marketing rights. Pursuant to this measure the Indian Patent Office has been receiving product patent applications in those fields.

2. India has established a mail box system through administrative instructions. Numerous applications have already been filed in this mail box system, and many of them have been filed by US companies;

3. India has also made changes to its Patents Act to put in place a machinery for implementation of Articles 70.8 and 70.9 by providing for establishment of a mail box system to file patents and according exclusive marketing rights for 5 years. This provision was made in the Patents (Amendment) Act of 1999.

Concern has also been expressed over the compulsory licensing provision in the Patents (Amendment) Act, 1999. It may be noted that as per the provisions of Section 84 of Patents Act, 1970 and Clause 35 of Patents (Second Amendment) Bill, 1999, a compulsory license may be granted in case the patented invention has not met the reasonable requirement of the public at a reasonable price. This provision is intended to provide for necessary and adequate safeguard for the protection of public interest taking in to account the specific needs of a developing country like India.

This fact is supported by the US Health GAP Coalition. In their submission to the USTR, they have drawn attention to the announcement by President Clinton on December 1, 1999, that the US would henceforth take health concerns into account when formulating trade policies. They state that overly restrictive intellectual property regimes can - and have - lead to situations in which patent holders price commodities above levels at which they can feasibly be purchased in the developing world. When this happens with pharmaceuticals, a public health crisis ensues. Health GAP Coalition, therefore, requests USTR to view IPR decisions made by foreign governments in the context of their health concerns, especially those countries that are simply trying to ensure that their citizens have adequate access to medicines.

Furthermore, the compulsory licensing system has been in place since the inception of the Patents Act, 1970 in India. It is noteworthy that not a single case of misuse of this provision has been observed during the last 30 years. An application for compulsory license may be granted only after the applicant has approached the patentee prior to the application with an offer to grant license on reasonable terms and conditions (as per Clause 36 of Patents (Second Amendment) Bill, 1999). In determining whether or not to grant a compulsory license, the Controller of Patents is required to take in to account, the nature of the invention, the time that has elapsed since the sealing of the patent and the measures already taken by the patentee or any licensee to make full use of the invention (Section 85 of Patents Act, 1970). In settling terms of a compulsory license, the Controller of Patents is required to secure that the articles manufactured under the patent shall be available to the public at the lowest prices consistent with the patentees deriving a reasonable advantage from their patent rights (Section 97(1)(ii)). These provisions substantiate the extant of a non-discriminatory administration of compulsory licenses.

In addition, the Patents (Second Amendment) Bill, 1999 has provided for an appeals process, before an Appellate Board, on any decisions by the Controller of Patents including a grant of compulsory license (Clause 54) before approaching the Indian Courts. The Patents Law provides for compulsory license to avoid misuse of an Exclusive Marketing Right by the right holder. This provision meets a larger public interest, keeping in mind the specific Indian conditions and are in compliance with Article 31 of TRIPS.

The Indian Patent laws are neutral in their application to domestic or foreign inventions. Any disqualification, compulsory licensing, and exclusion from patentability, are provided for only in the larger interest to provide therein necessary and adequate safeguards for the protection of public interest, national security, bio-diversity, traditional knowledge, etc. These provisions are within the sphere allowed under Article 27, 30 and 31 of TRIPS.

It is to be noted that 1999 has been a year of great coherence of political will, resulting in the passage of major IPR laws and work toward the establishment of an effective administration mechanism.

India has one of the most modern copyright protection laws in the world. Major development in the area of copyright during 1999 was the amendment to the Copyright Act of 1957 to make it fully compatible with the provisions of the TRIPS Agreement. Called the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 1999, this amendment was signed by the President of India on December 30, 1999 and came into force on January 15, 2000.

The earlier 1994 amendment to the Copyright Act of 1957 had provided protection to all original literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works, cinematography, films and sound recordings. It also brought sectors such as satellite broadcasting, computer software and digital technology under Indian copyright protection.

The Copyright Act is now in full conformity with the TRIPS obligations.

The other important development during 1999 was the issuance of the International Copyright Order, 1999 extending the provisions of the Copyright Act to nationals of all World Trade Organization (WTO) Member countries.

Concern has been expressed about the allegedly slow judicial system in India and the procedural issues involved in trial and conviction. The Indian judiciary is handling cases as expeditiously as possible. The year that has gone by has again witnessed the versatility of the impartial and independent Indian judiciary when it comes to the issue of protection of intellectual property rights, amplified by the encouraging trends with Indian courts plugging in gaps in the statute with the common sense of the common law.

The Copyright Act, 1957 prescribes mandatory punishment for piracy of copyrighted matter commensurate with the gravity of the offense with an effect to deter infringement, in compliance with the TRIPS Agreement. Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957 provides that an offense of infringement of copyright or other rights conferred by the Act shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to three years with fine which shall not be less than fifty thousand rupees but which may extend to two lakh rupees (Rs. 200,000).

Section 63A provides for enhanced penalty on second or subsequent convictions, i.e. imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to three years and with fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees (Rs. 100,000) and which may extend up to two lakh rupees (Rs. 200,000). Section 63B provides that any person who knowingly makes use on a computer an infringing copy of a computer program shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven days but which may extend to three years and with fine which shall not be less than fifty thousand rupees but which may extend to two lakh rupees (Rs. 200,000).

For India where the per capita income at current prices is Rs.14,682/- or US $349, the quantum of the fines, which works out to be 14 times the per capita income, is quite a burden on an individual and would act as a strong deterrent.

As regards the reported requirement that actual knowledge be proved in criminal cases, the expressions “knowingly infringes or abets infringement” in Section 63 and “knowingly makes use” in Section 63B are included to protect bona fide users. It may be noted that the expression “knowingly” was there even in the analogous Section 7 of the Indian Copyright Act, 1914. Bringing the principle of “ignoratia juris reminem excusat” may not be appropriate in the case of copyright as there are quite a large number of works which are in the public domain that a person can use freely, and it is natural for many to presume that such works are outside the copyright regime. Copyright is a special right created by law to protect certain rights of authors while keeping a balance of the interest of the society. It will be too much to expect an ordinary user to sit in judgment like a court of law as to every single aspect of the right which may or may not be applicable to a work before using the same.

So far as Article 41 and 61 of the TRIPS Agreement are concerned, India has a modern and efficient judicial system that fits in with the general obligations provided in Article 41. Article 61 of the TRIP Agreement provides that remedies available shall include imprisonment or monetary fines sufficient to provide a deterrent consistent with the level of penalties applied for a crime of corresponding gravity. The Indian Copyright Act, provides for both imprisonment and fine which in the Indian context would be a sufficient deterrent.

Civil proceedings against piracy have been quite effective - a result unique in the global enforcement against copyright piracy. For instance, in 1999, the Motion Pictures Association (MPA), filed 3 civil actions against 3 Indian cable networks and obtained injunctive relief covering 45 cities and 8 million cable homes. MPA has estimated that by these injunctions alone, cable piracy has been brought down by 50%.

Further, provisional measures, such as injunctions and ‘Anton Piller’ orders, are available through the Indian courts to stop infringement and to contain any damages. Both foreign and domestic IPR holders are treated equally under Indian law.

Indian enforcement agencies are working effectively and there is a decline in the levels of piracy in India. In addition to intensifying raids against copyright infringers, the Government has taken a number of measures to strengthen the enforcement of copyright law. A summary of these measures is given below:

1. During the year the government continued to stress the need for strict enforcement of the Copyright Act and Rules. State governments and other Ministries were regularly requested to lay special attention to ensuring copyright protection in their functioning. Instructions were issued to officers in the government requesting them to ensure copyright protection, particularly of software, in their work situation.

2. The Government also brought out A Handbook of Copyright Law to create awareness about copyright amongst the stakeholders, enforcement agencies, professional users like the scientific and academic communities and members of the public. Copies of the Handbook were circulated free of cost to the state and central government officials and police personnel and also provided to participants in various seminars and workshops on IPR matters held during the year.

3. National Police Academy, Hyderabad and National Academy of Customs, Excise and Narcotics conducted several training programs on copyright for the police and customs officers. Modules on copyright have been included in their regular training programs.

4. The Department of Education, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India has initiated several measures in the past for strengthening the enforcement of copyrights that include constitution of a Copyright Enforcement Advisory Council (CEAC), creation of separate cells in state police headquarters, encouraging setting up of collective administration societies and organization of seminars and workshops to create greater awareness about copyright law among the enforcement personnel and the general public.

5. The CEAC is reconstituted from time to time to review periodically the progress of enforcement of the Copyright Act and to advise the government on measures for improving the enforcement. Additional Secretary, Department of Education is the chairman of the CEAC. The CEAC members include representatives of copyright industry organizations and chiefs of state police forces. The CEAC meets at least twice every year. It discusses in detail issues of enforcement, piracy, etc.

6. Special cells for copyright enforcement have so far been set up in 23 States and Union Territories, i.e. Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Chandigarh, Dadra & Nagar Haveli, Daman & Diu, Delhi, Goa, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Meghalaya, Orissa, Pondicherry, Punjab, Sikkim, Tamil Nadu, Tripura and West Bengal. States have also been advised to designate a nodal officer for copyright enforcement to facilitate easy interaction by copyright industry organizations and copyright owners.

7. For collective administration of copyright, copyright societies have been set up for different classes of works. At present there are three registered copyright societies. These are the Society for Copyright Regulations of Indian Producers of Films & Television (SCRIPT) for cinematography films, Indian Performing Rights Society Limited (IPRS) for musical works and Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL) for sound recordings. These societies, particularly the PPL and the IPRS, have been quite active in anti-piracy work. The PPL has even set up a special anti-piracy cell under a retired Director General of Police, and this cell has been working in tandem with the police.

8. The Government also initiates a number of seminars/workshops on copyright issues. The participants in these seminars include enforcement personnel like the police as well as representatives of industry organizations.

9. Several other measures to create general awareness about copyright and for encouraging study of intellectual property rights in the educational system, besides modernizing the Copyright Office, are on the anvil.

Consequent to the number of measures initiated by the government, there has been more activity in the enforcement of copyright laws in the country during the last year compared to previous years. As per the data relating to copyright offenses available with the National Crime Records Bureau, the number of copyright cases registered has gone up from 479 in 1997 to 802 in 1998. The number of persons arrested has increased from 794 in 1997 to 980 in 1998. The value of seizures has gone up from Rs.2.88 crore (28.8 million) in 1997 to Rs.7.48 crore (74.8 million) in 1998. These figures reflect the general improvement in the enforcement of the copyright law.

CHAPTER 5 :- CONCLUSTION & RECOMMENDATIONS:-

CONCLUSTION :-

The Courts while considering the question of grant of reliefs where parameters are not laid down in the statutory provisions will be guided by the norms accepted by the international community and would be justified in seeking guidance from the treaties and conventions on the subject so long they are not inconsistent with the municipal laws. The courts undoubtedly will be bound by the constitutional mandates and the law, and will have to strike a delicate balance between public welfare and private interests so that an atmosphere conducive to respect for the intellectual property rights of the nationals of the member states is created which would help in increased international trade and encourage the citizens to strive for excellence to produce intellectual property which will be recognized and enforced by all the courts of the member States.

In India there is a highly mature and developed legal system firmly imbedded in rule of law and the approach of judiciary in safeguarding the basic human rights and the majesty of law is amply reflected in the decisions of the Apex Court and the High Courts. The courts have frowned upon arbitrary actions of the administrative authorities or unfair and arbitrary approach of the authorities in their decision making process. There is judicial insistence on following the principles of natural justice and fair play by the authorities who make orders that may have an adverse impact on the rights of a person. As a safeguard against arbitrariness, the authorities are required to make reasoned orders and their decisions are required to be communicated to the concerned parties. The proceedings of courts are normally held in the open. With its independence secured against any arm twisting by outside forces the role that the Indian Judiciary can play in safeguarding the legally recognized rights including the intellectual property rights can put to envy any enlightened judicial system of any developed country. The fairness of the procedures reflected in our laws and recognition of equality rights of even aliens by virtue of Article 14 as their fundamental rights should generate sufficient confidence in our legal system to encourage the entrepreneurs to be sure of the protection of their intellectual property rights which are recognized by the municipal laws. The role that judiciary can play in protection of private and other rights will ultimately depend upon the perceptions of those who have to pay it. It is therefore important that they thoroughly understand the nature of the rights recognized by law, the need for their protection, the steps required to be taken as also the urgency of the matter. The establishment of Judicial Academy for providing periodic training and refreshers can keep the decision makes abreast of the needs of time and situations and be aware of the important role that they have to play.

The protection of intellectual property rights in India continues to be strengthened. There is a well-established statutory, administrative and judicial framework to safeguard rights, whether they relate to patents, trademarks, copyright or industrial designs.

Contributor - Smita V Nibude

Wednesday, May 30, 2012

Role of Judiciary in the Effective Protection of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR)