Fourth-year Law Notes & Flashcards

IPR Notes

1. R.G. Anand v. Deluxe Films, MANU/SC/0256/1978

Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: MANU/SC/0256/1978
Area: Copyright Law

This case is considered one of the most important decisions relating to copyright infringement in India. The plaintiff, R.G. Anand, was a well-known playwright who had written a stage play titled Hum Hindustani. The play revolved around the theme of provincialism in India and highlighted social tensions arising from regional discrimination. The defendants produced a Hindi film titled New Delhi, which also portrayed similar issues of regional prejudice. Anand alleged that the film producers had copied the story and dramatic structure of his play and therefore infringed his copyright.

The central issue before the court was whether the similarities between the two works constituted copyright infringement. The Supreme Court examined both the play and the film in detail and held that although the general theme was similar, the treatment, presentation, and expression were substantially different. The court emphasized that copyright protection extends only to the expression of an idea and not to the idea itself.

The ratio decidendi laid down by the court was that similarity of ideas or themes does not amount to infringement unless the expression of those ideas is copied in a substantial and material form. The court also introduced the test of whether an average viewer would gain the unmistakable impression that the latter work was a copy of the former. This case firmly established the idea–expression dichotomy in Indian copyright jurisprudence.

2. Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak, MANU/SC/4476/2007

Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: MANU/SC/4476/2007
Area: Copyright Law

This case dealt with the question of whether editorial work done on judicial decisions could attract copyright protection. The plaintiff, Eastern Book Company, publishes the well-known law report series Supreme Court Cases (SCC). The company claimed that it had invested significant effort and expertise in editing judgments of the Supreme Court by adding headnotes, paragraph numbering, cross references, and editorial corrections. The defendants reproduced these judgments and editorial features in their own electronic legal database.

The dispute reached the Supreme Court where the key issue was whether the editorial work involved sufficient originality to qualify for copyright protection. The court rejected the traditional “sweat of the brow” doctrine, which grants copyright merely based on labour or effort.

The Supreme Court held that copyright protection requires a modicum of creativity and not merely mechanical labour. It ruled that while the raw text of judgments cannot be copyrighted because they are public documents, the editorial inputs involving skill, judgment, and creativity can be protected.

The ratio decidendi established that copyright subsists only when there is minimal creativity in the work, thereby aligning Indian law with international standards of originality.

3. The Chancellor, Masters & Scholars of the University of Oxford v. Rameshwari Photocopy Services, MANU/DE/2497/2016

Court: Delhi High Court
Citation: MANU/DE/2497/2016
Area: Copyright / Fair Dealing

This case popularly known as the Delhi University Photocopy Case dealt with the scope of the fair dealing exception under copyright law. Several international academic publishers filed a suit against a photocopy shop operating within the premises of University of Delhi. The photocopy shop prepared course packs consisting of extracts from various academic books prescribed by professors for students.

The publishers argued that large portions of their copyrighted books were being reproduced without permission and that such reproduction amounted to copyright infringement. The defendants contended that the copies were prepared solely for educational purposes and therefore fell within the statutory exception under Section 52 of the Copyright Act.

The Delhi High Court dismissed the publishers’ claim and held that the reproduction of portions of books for educational instruction qualified as fair dealing. The court emphasized that copyright law must balance the rights of authors with the broader public interest in education and access to knowledge.

The ratio decidendi was that reproduction of copyrighted material for educational purposes within reasonable limits may fall within the fair dealing exception, particularly when it facilitates academic instruction.

4. Novartis AG v. Union of India, MANU/SC/0281/2013

Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: MANU/SC/0281/2013
Area: Patent Law

This landmark case concerned the interpretation of Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, which aims to prevent “evergreening” of pharmaceutical patents. Novartis AG sought a patent in India for a modified version of its cancer drug Imatinib Mesylate, marketed internationally as Glivec. The Indian Patent Office rejected the application on the ground that the modified form did not demonstrate enhanced therapeutic efficacy.

Novartis challenged this rejection, arguing that the modified form of the drug had improved properties such as better stability and bioavailability. The case ultimately reached the Supreme Court of India.

The Supreme Court upheld the rejection of the patent application and ruled that the improved form of the drug did not demonstrate significantly enhanced therapeutic efficacy as required under Section 3(d).

The ratio decidendi established that a new form of a known substance must demonstrate enhanced therapeutic efficacy to qualify for patent protection. The decision became globally significant because it protected access to affordable medicines in developing countries.

5. Bayer Corporation v. Union of India, MANU/SC/1804/2009

Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: MANU/SC/1804/2009
Area: Patent Law / Compulsory Licensing

This case involved the issue of compulsory licensing under the Indian Patents Act. Bayer AG held a patent over the cancer drug Nexavar, which was used for treating liver and kidney cancer. The drug was extremely expensive, costing around ₹2.8 lakh per month, making it inaccessible to most Indian patients.

An Indian pharmaceutical company, Natco Pharma, applied for a compulsory licence to manufacture and sell a generic version of the drug at a much lower price. The Controller of Patents granted the licence, allowing Natco to produce the drug while paying royalty to Bayer.

Bayer challenged the decision before the Bombay High Court, arguing that compulsory licensing violated its patent rights. The court rejected Bayer’s arguments and upheld the licence.

The ratio decidendi was that compulsory licences may be granted when patented products are not reasonably affordable or sufficiently available to the public. This case strengthened India’s commitment to balancing patent protection with public health concerns.

6. Biswanath Prasad Radhey Shyam v. Hindustan Metal Industries, MANU/SC/0255/1978

Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: MANU/SC/0255/1978
Area: Patent Law

This case dealt with the validity of a patent relating to improvements in metal casting equipment. The plaintiff claimed that he had invented a device used in the casting process and sought to enforce his patent rights against the defendant.

The defendant challenged the patent by arguing that the invention lacked novelty and did not involve any inventive step. The Supreme Court examined the invention and concluded that it was merely a minor modification of existing technology.

The court held that a patent can only be granted for genuine inventions involving technical advancement and not for trivial or obvious improvements.

The ratio decidendi established that an invention must demonstrate novelty, utility, and inventive step to qualify for patent protection.

7. Yahoo! Inc. v. Akash Arora, 1999 PTC 201 (Del)

Court: Delhi High Court
Citation: 1999 PTC 201 (Del)
Area: Trademark Law

This case addressed the issue of whether internet domain names could be protected under trademark law. Yahoo! Inc. discovered that the defendant had registered the domain name YahooIndia.com, which closely resembled its well-known trademark and domain name.

Yahoo argued that the defendant was attempting to mislead internet users by creating confusion between the two websites. The defendant argued that domain names were merely internet addresses and not trademarks.

The Delhi High Court held that domain names serve the same function as trademarks because they identify the source of services on the internet. The court granted an injunction restraining the defendant from using the domain name.

The ratio decidendi was that domain names are entitled to protection under trademark law and use of deceptively similar domain names constitutes passing off.

8. Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., MANU/SC/0199/2001

Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: MANU/SC/0199/2001
Area: Trademark Law

This case involved a dispute between two pharmaceutical companies over similar drug names: Falcigo and Falcitab. The plaintiff argued that the similarity between the names could mislead consumers and medical practitioners.

The Supreme Court noted that confusion in pharmaceutical products could have serious consequences for patient health. Therefore, courts must apply stricter standards when evaluating similarity between drug names.

The court held that even minor phonetic or visual similarities between medicinal products may lead to dangerous consequences.

The ratio decidendi was that courts must adopt stricter tests in pharmaceutical trademark cases because confusion between drugs can endanger public health.

9. Milmet Oftho Industries v. Allergan Inc., MANU/SC/0512/2004

Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: MANU/SC/0512/2004
Area: Trademark Law

This case concerned the protection of foreign trademarks that had acquired global reputation but were not yet used in India. An Indian company registered a trademark similar to that of a foreign pharmaceutical company that had an established reputation internationally.

The Supreme Court held that multinational companies with a worldwide reputation should not be deprived of protection merely because they had not yet entered the Indian market.

The ratio decidendi established that trans-border reputation and international goodwill may be sufficient to protect a trademark even in the absence of actual use in India.

10. F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. v. Cipla Ltd., 2008 (37) PTC 71 (Del)

Court: Delhi High Court
Citation: 2008 (37) PTC 71 (Del)
Area: Patent Law

This case involved a patent dispute over the cancer drug Tarceva. F. Hoffmann-La Roche held the patent for the drug and sued Cipla Ltd., alleging that Cipla’s generic version infringed its patent rights.

Cipla argued that the patent was invalid and that access to affordable medicines should be prioritized. The Delhi High Court examined both the patent validity and public interest considerations.

The court allowed Cipla to continue selling the drug while the dispute was examined, highlighting the importance of balancing patent rights with access to medicines.

The ratio decidendi emphasized that courts must carefully balance the enforcement of patent rights with public interest, particularly in cases involving life-saving medicines.