NALSAR

Five-Years Integrated B.A., LL.B. (Hons.) Programme

4th Year
Intellectual Property Law
Course Outline (June-October 2024 Semester)

Mr. Sourabh Bharti & Dr. Rohan Cherian Thomas

Course Portrayal: The scope of the course is to acquaint students with the major areas of
Intellectual Property Law.

Course Objective: The objective is to cement the foundations of IPR law in students.
Theoretical underpinnings along with subject-matter basics must be thoroughly ingrained in
the students’ learning. IPR law discourse involves concerns of diverse kinds (often pitted
against each other) and how most developments in IP law are results of tensions created by
these interests as and when they come face to face with each other. The students would
also be therefore encouraged to see the social, political, moral and philosophical sides of the
legal disputes involving Intellectual Property Rights.

COURSE OUTCOMES:

CO1: To become familiar with the theoretical underpinnings and historical evolution of
Intellectual Property Law.

CO2: To examine various subject matters of Intellectual Property Law.

CO3: To familarise students with the various economic and non-economic rights under
various IP subject-matters.
CO4: To critically analyze the intersection between private IP right and public right of
access/use of IP goods/services.
CO5: To formulate constructive opinions on various problematic areas in IP Law.

TEACHING METHODOLOGY:

Teaching will be mainly done through lectures delivered by the course instructors and the
weekly tutorials conducted by the Tutors. The assignments provide a platform for a deeper
engagement with the issues outlined for coverage in the course. The readings include
significant judicial decisions and articles/book extracts authored by leading scholars and
practitioners. We are scheduled to engage 65 class hours.

LECTURE PLAN:
65 Lectures

TOPICS LECTURES

Module 1 IP - Putting it in Perspective 10 Lectures

Module 2 Copyright Law & Related Rights 18 Lectures

Module 3 Law of Trademarks 10 Lectures

Module 4 Law of Patents and Plant Variety Protection 13 Lectures

Module 5 Design Law 5 Lectures

Module 6 Geographical Indications 5 Lectures

Module 7 Undisclosed Information and IC Layouts 4 Lectures

Evaluation Scheme:

For the July-October 2024 semester, the scheme is as follows:-

 Mid-Term (25 marks)

 End-Term (50 marks)
 Project and Presentation (25 marks)

Module 1: Intellectual Property – Putting it in Perspective

This module looks to dive into a comprehensive exploration into the theoretical
underpinnings of intellectual property law. Our objective is to delve into the fundamental
principles that shape the creation, interpretation, and evolution of IP law, examining how
these principles interact with broader social, economic, and technological contexts.

We will begin by tracing the historical development of intellectual property rights, exploring
the philosophical justifications for their existence, from natural rights theories to utilitarian
approaches. This foundation will enable us to critically assess the rationale behind various
forms of IP subject-matter.

This module shall engage students with key theoretical frameworks merged with
contemporary ideas, such as striking balance between innovation & public access,
globalization & erosion of traditional innovation, digital challenges etc. In this regard, the
module also looks to consider the role of international treaties and organization in shaping
national IP policies.

Core Reading:

 William Fisher, Theories of Intellectual Property, published in New Essays in the Legal
and Political Theory of Property, Cambridge University Press 2001.
 Peter Drahos, Developing Countries and International Intellectual Property Standard
Setting (1995).
 Catherine Seville, The Emergence and Development of Intellectual Property Law in
Western Europe in The Oxford Handbook of Intellectual Property Law (2017).

Recommended Reading:

 Susan Sell, Intellectual Property and Public Policy in Historical Perspective:

Contestation and Settlement, 38 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 267 (2004).
 Robert Merges, Justifying Intellectual Property – Chapter 1 (Introduction);
 Mark Lemley, Faith-Based Intellectual Property, 62 UCLA L. REV. 1328 (2015).
 Robert P. Merges, Against Utilitarian Fundamentalism, St. John's Law Review, Vol.
90, No. 3, (2017)
 National IPR Policy, 2016, Govt of India, Ministry of Commerce and Industry.

Module 2 – Copyright Law & Related Rights

Students shall learn various principles and intricacies of Copyright Law. This law serves as a
fundamental pillar in protecting the rights of creators, fostering innovation and balancing
the interests of the public and right-holders. Students shall learn to analyze key legal
provisions, landmark cases and contemporary issues.

This module exposes students to exclusive rights such as reproduction, distribution and
adaptation rights along with exceptions to these rights. The application of these rights and
their enforcement is seen from a critical lens, to better appreciate the impact of copyright
law.

With the aid of performer's rights, the performer can control the use of their performances,
thereby safeguarding their creative contributions from unauthorized exploitation. Similarly,
broadcaster's rights protect the interests of broadcasting organizations in their program-
carrying signals. These rights ensure broadcasters can control the reproduction,
rebroadcasting, and distribution of their broadcasts, which is essential in an era of rapid
technological advancement and global content distribution.
Core Reading:

 Copinger and Skone James on Copyright, Volume One, Sweet & Maxwell, South
Asian Edition, 2008 Pg.50-96.
 Carys J. Craig, Resisting "Sweat" and Refusing Feist: Rethinking Originality After CCH,
UBC Law Review 40.1 (2007): 69-120.
 Amy B Cohen, Copyright Law and the Myth of Objectivity: The Idea/Expression
Dichotomy and the Inevitability of Artistic Value Judgements, Indiana Law Journal
1990.
 Rohan Cherian Thomas, Re-Assessing the Criteria for Determining Subsistence and
Grant of Copyright with Focus on India, 8 KIIT Student L Rev 86 (2021).
 Owen Morgan, International Protection of Performers’ Rights, Hart Publishing, 2002,
31-52.
 M. Sakthivel, Broadcaster’s Rights in the Digital Era: Copyright Concerns on Live
Streaming, 181-213 Brill Nijhoff, 2020.
 Ana Ramalho, Intellectual Property Protection for AI-Generated Creations,
Routledge, 2022, 6-24.
 Dennis Lim, ‘Prejudice to Honour or Reputation in Copyright Law’ (2007) 33 Monash
University Law Review 290.

Recommended Reading:
 Luke McDonagh, Copyright, Contract and FOSS in Free and Open-Source Software:
Policy, Law, and Practice, Oxford, 2013 69-108.
 Shyamkrishna Balganesh, The Normativity of Copying in Copyright Law, Duke Law
Journal, Vol 62, Issue 2, 2012.
 Rajya Sabha, Department Related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Commerce,
One Hundred and Sixty-First Report: Review of the Intellectual Property Rights
Regime in India, 64-71, 2021.
 Mira T Sundara Rajan, Moral Rights in Digital Age: New Possibilities for the
Democratization of Culture. International Review Of Law Computers & Technology,
Volume 16, No. 2, Pages 187–197, 2002
 Pamela Samuelson, A fresh look for Nonliteral Copyright Infringement, Northwestern
University Law Review, Vo. 107, Issue 4, 2013.
 Rahul Cherian Jacob, Sam Taraporevala & Shamnad Basheer, The Disability Exception
and the Triumph of New Rights Advocacy, 5 NUJS L. Rev. 603, 2016.

Cases:
 Soya Private Limited v Narayani Trading Company MANU/MH/0879/2021.
 Anil Gupta v Kunal Das Guptac AIR (2002) Delhi 379.
 Eastern Book Company v D.B.Modak (2008) 1 SCC.
 Institute of Inner Studies v Charlotte Anderson MANU/DE/0084/2014.
 Lucasfilms v Ainsworth [2011] UKSC 39.
  Sawkins v Hyperion Records [2005] WLR 3281.
 Lesli S Klinger v Conan Doyle Estate, 755 F.3D 496 (2014).
 John Wiley v Prabhat Chander Kumar Jain 2010 (44) PTC 675 (Del).
 Raj Rewal v Union of India Delhi High Court 260 (2019) DLT 190.
 Najma Heptulla v Orient Longman ltd. AIR 1989 Del 63.
 Chancellor, Masters & Scholars of University of Oxford and Others v Rameshwari
Photocopy Services and Ors. (2017) 69 PTC 123.
 India TV Independent News Service v Yashraj Films Pvt. Ltd. MANU/DE/3928/2012.
 Myspace v Super Cassettes, MANU/DE/3411/2016.

Module 3 – Law of Trademarks

This segment is designed to immerse the student in the complex and fascinating world of
trademarks. It is a critical area of intellectual property law that safeguards the identity and
reputation of businesses and their products/services in the marketplace.

Trademarks are pivotal in the commercial sphere, serving as the distinguishing markers that
help consumers identify and differentiate between goods and services. They encompass a
range of identifiers, including words, logos, slogans, and even colors and sounds. The
protection of these marks not only ensures fair competition but also enhances consumer
trust and economic efficiency.

Core Reading

 VK Ahuja, Law Relating to Intellectual Property Rights, 2021 3 rd Edition, 261-274 &
279-306.
 Frank I. Schechter, The Rational Basis of Trademark Protection, Harvard Law Review,
Vol.40 No.6 (Apr., 1927).
 Michael Spence, Passing Off and the Misappropriation of Valuable Intangibles, (1996)
112 L.Q.R.July.
 Neal R. Platt, Good Will Enduring: How to Ensure that Trademark Priority will not be
Destroyed by the Sale of a Business, Volume 99 Trademark Reporter Issue 3 788-809
2009.
 Gangjee, Dev S., The Polymorphism of Trademark Dilution in India (September 25,
2008). Transnational Law & Contemporary Problems, Vol. 17, 2008, Available at
SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1273711 .

Recommended Reading:
 Sidney A. Diamond, The Historical Development of Trademarks, 73 TRADEMARK REP.
222 (1983).
 Keith M. Stolte, How Early Did Anglo-American Trademark Law Begin - An Answer to
Schechter's Conundrum, 88 TRADEMARK REP. 564 (1998).
  W.Landes and R. Posner, Trademark Law: An Economic Perspective (1987)30(2)
Journal of Law and Economics.
 Mathias Strasser, The Rational Basis of Trademark Protection Revisited: Putting the
Dilution Doctrine into Context, 10 Fordham Intell. Prop. Media & Ent. L.J. 375 (2011).
 Howell, Trademarks, Registered Designs and the Monopolisation of Functional
Shapes: A Consideration of Lego and Dyson, European Intellectual Property Review,
Vol. 33 (2011).
Cases:
 Dyson Ltd. v Registrar of Trade Marks Case C-321/03[2007] ECR 1-687.
 Ralf Sieckmann v Deutsches Patent und Markenamt [2003] RPC 685, ECJ.
 Shield Mark BV v Joost Kist, 2003 case C-283/01, ECJ.
 Imperial Tobacco Company v Registrar of Trademark, AIR 1968 Cal 582.
 Procter & Gamble Co. v OHIM, C-383/99 , ECJ.
 Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v. MGM [1999] R.P.C. 117.
 Amritdhara Pharmacy v. Satya Deo Gupta, 1963 AIR 449.
 Reckitt & Colman Ltd v Borden Inc, [1990] 1 All E.R. 873.
 Colgate Palmolive v Anchor Health, 108 (2003) DLT 51.
 Sony Kabashuki Kaisha v Mahaluxmi Textile Mills (41) PTC 184 (Cal).
 N.R. Dongre v Whirlpool Corporation, (1996) 5 SCC 714.
 ITC Ltd. v Phillip Morris Products SA and Others 2010(42) PTC 572(Del).
 Snapdeal Pyt Ltd. v GoDaddy.com LLC 2018 SCC Online Del 7871.
 Dabor India Ltd. v Colorteck Meghalaya Pvt Ltd. 167(2010) DLT 278 .
 Hawkins Cookers Limited v Murugan Enterprises, 2012(50) PTC 389(Del).
 Arsenal v Reed [2003] EWCA Civ 696.

Module 4 – Law of Patents and Plant Variety Protection

This module is designed to provide you with a comprehensive understanding of patent law,
encompassing both theoretical foundations and practical applications. We will explore the
criteria for patentability, and the substantive rights conferred upon patent-holders.
Moreover, we will delve into the processes involved in securing patent protection.

Since a patent has broad implications on society and industry, a study of policy
considerations becomes imperative. We shall look at landmark cases that have shaped
patent jurisprudence, the evolving international framework and the emerging challenges in
this dynamic field, including issues related to biotechnology, software patents, and the
impact of AI.

Plant Variety Intellectual Property (PVP) is a specialized branch of intellectual property law
that grants breeders exclusive rights to new, distinct, uniform, and stable plant varieties.
These rights incentivize innovation by rewarding breeders for their contributions to
agricultural progress, while also ensuring that the benefits of such innovation are accessible
to society. This delicate balance between private interests and public good is at the heart of
PVP law.

Core Reading

 Thomas Cotter, What Exactly Is Patent?, Patent Wars, How Patents Impact Our Daily
Lives, OUP, 2018, Pg. 1-7.
 International Sources of Patent Law – Page 546-553, Tanya Aplin and Jennifer Davis,
Intellectual Property Law: Text, Cases and Materials, Oxford
 Kalyan C Kankanala, Arun K Narasani & Vinita Radhakrishnan, Indian Patent Law and
Practice, 2010, Oxford, 17-43.
 MS Gupta, Sufficiency of Disclosure in Patent Specification, Journal of IPR, Vol 14,
2009, 307-316.
 Elizabeth Siew-Kuan NG, Patenting Human Genes: Wherein Lies the Balance between
Private Rights and Public Access in India and the United States?, Vol 11 Issue 1 2015,
Indian Journal of Law and Technology.
 Naina & Jasmeet Gulati, Knowledge/Skill Standards of A "Person Skilled In Art": A
Concern Less Visited, 17 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 588 (2018).
 Elizabeth Verkey, Intellectual Property: Law and Practice, EBC, 2015, 551-586.

Recommended Reading:
 Adarsh Ramanujan, Patent Law Cases and Materials: A Syntheses for India, Thomson
Reuters, Vol 1 2021, 752-761.
 Navi Radjou, Jaideep Prabhu & Simone Ahuja, Jugaad Innovation, Jossey-Bass, 2012,
1-28.
 Shamnad Basheer, Making Patents Work: Of IP Duties and Deficient Disclosures,
Queen’s Mary Journal of Intellectual Property, 2017.
Cases:
 Diamond v Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (1980).
 Association for Molecular Pathology v Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576 (2013).
 Alice Corp. v CLS Bank International 573 U.S. 208 (2014).
 Atlas Powder Company v IRECO Incorporated 190 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir.1999).
 KSR International v Teleflex Inc. 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
 Biswanath Prasad Radhey Shyam v Hindustan Metal Industries Ltd (AIR 1982 SC
1444).
 In Re Dane K. Fisher and Raghunath v Lalgudi 421 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
 Consolidated Electric Light Co. v McKeesport Light Co. 159 u.S.465(1895).
 Generics (UK) Ltd v H Lundbeck A/S [2009] UKHL12.
 Young Dental Manufacturing Company, Inc. v Q3 Special Products Inc., 891 F.Supp.
1345.
 Phillips v AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
 Larami Corporation v Amron, 27 U.S.P.Q2d 1280 (E.D. Pa 1993).
 Bayer Corporation v Union of India 2014 SCC Online Bom 963
 Madey v. Duke, 307 F.3d 1351 (Fed Cir 2002)
  Merk v. Integra Life sciences 1, 545 U.S. 193 (2005)
 Bayer Corporation v Union Of India & Ors. 2019 SCC OnLine Del 8209.
 Novartis v Union of India 2013 AIR SC 2047.

Module 5 – Design Law

Industrial design encapsulates the aesthetic and functional aspects of products, which
include the shape, configuration, pattern, and ornamentation applied to articles of
manufacture. These designs not only enhance the marketability of products but also
contribute significantly to brand identity and consumer preference. In an era where visual
appeal and user experience drive consumer choices, protecting these designs becomes
paramount.

Core Reading:

 Sam Ricketson & Uma Suthersanen, The Design/Copyright Overlap: Is there a

Resolution? In Overlapping Intellectual Property rights, Oxford, 2013, 159-188.
 Hemant Thadani & Manu Saurastri, India, in Design Rights: Functionality and Scope
of Protection, 2022, 2nd edition, 389-414.
 Lisa P Lukose & Chahat Abrol, Need for Unregistered Design Rights in India: A
Contemplative Cogitation, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, Vol 29, 2024, 33-
42.

Cases:
 Dabur India Ltd. v Amit Jain MIPR 2007 (2) 257.
 Dart Industries Ltd. v Techno Plast Ltd. 2007(35) PTC 129 (Del).
 Steelbird Hi-Tech India Ltd. v S.P.S. Gambhir & Ors. MIPR2014(1)277.
 Amit Jain v Ayurveda Herbal and Ors MIPR 2015 (2)1.
 Ritika Private Limited v Biba Apparels Private Limited 230(2016)DLT109.
 OK Play India Limited v Mayank Aggarwal and Ors. MIPR 2017 (1) 176.
 A.C. Footwear Co. and Anr. v Deiem (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. 124 (2005) DLT 278.
 Whirlpool of India Ltd. v Videocon Industries Ltd. MIPR 2014 (2) 316.
 Carlsberg Breweries A/S Vs. Som Distilleries and Breweries Limited, 2017 (70) PTC
413 (Del).
 Microfibers v Girdhar 2006 (32) PTC 157 Del.

Module 6 – Geographical Indications

GIs are not merely legal instruments; they serve as powerful economic tools that can
enhance the marketability of regional products, thus fostering rural development and
preserving traditional knowledge. They also play a critical role in protecting cultural
heritage, ensuring that traditional methods and local expertise are recognized and
sustained.
While GIs offer substantial benefits, they also present unique challenges and controversies.
Issues such as the tension between GIs and trademarks, the potential for over-
commercialization, and the enforcement of GI rights across borders will be thoroughly
examined. We will engage in critical discussions about the balance between protecting local
interests and fostering international trade, and the potential for GIs to be misused or
manipulated.
Core Reading:

 Dev Gangjee, Relocating the Law of Geographical Indications, Cambridge, 2012,213-

237.
 Andrea Tosato, The Protection of Traditional Foods in the EU: Traditional Specialities
Guaranteed, European Law Journal Vol 19 Issue 4, 545-576, 2013.
 Dev Gangjee, Overlaps between Trademarks and Geographical Indications in In
Overlapping Intellectual Property rights, Oxford, 2013, 277-296.

Recommended Reading:
 Irene Calboli, Geographical Indications of Origin, Economic Development, and
Cultural Heritage: Good Match or Mismatch?, Indian Journal of Intellectual Property
Law, Vol 11, 11-34, 2020.
 Akanksha Jumde & Nishant Kumar, Protection of Traditional Art Forms under
Geographical Indications Law: A Case Study of Madhubani and Sujini Art Forms in
Bihar India, Journal of IP Law & Practice, Vol 16 No 7, 2021, 647-665.

Module 7 – Undisclosed Information & IC Layouts

Undisclosed information, often referred to as trade secrets, constitutes a vital asset for
many organizations, underpinning competitive advantage and innovation. Unlike patents or
copyrights, trade secrets are not publicly disclosed, which necessitates unique legal
protections and strategies to ensure their confidentiality and value. This module will provide
you with a comprehensive understanding of the legal definitions, scope, and practical
implications of protecting such information.

Integrated circuits (ICs) form the backbone of modern electronics, driving everything from
consumer gadgets to sophisticated industrial systems. The layout design of these circuits is a
meticulous and innovative process, often representing significant intellectual investment
and technical expertise.

Core Reading:
 Ellen ‘t Hoen, Protection of Clinical Test Data and Public Health: A Proposal to End
the Stronghold of Data Exclusivity in Access to Medicines and Vaccines, Springer
2022, 183-200.
 22nd Law Commission Report, Report No. 289, Trade Secrets and Economic
Espionage, 2024, 98-117.
 Atul Gupta, Integrated Circuits & IPR in India, Journal of IPR Vol 10 (2005) pp. 474-
479.
PROGRAMME OUTCOMES:

Five-Year Integrated B.A.,LL.B. (Hons.)

PO1-Professional Competence: Demonstrate competence and capacity to read statutes,

understand precedents, identify legal issues, draft legal documents and apply legal
knowledge to practical legal problems. Appreciate and inculcate moral and ethical
responsibilities of the noble profession of an advocate.

PO2-Social Justice and Rule of Law: Uphold the rule of law and promote the constitutional
values and objectives of social justice.

PO3-Critical Thinking and Reflections: Contribute to legal scholarship through critical

appraisal of laws and theories including their application in various socio-legal contexts.

PO4-Creative Problem Solving: Predict, mitigate, and solve complex problems and engage
in conflict resolution by adopting context-appropriate inclusive methods.

PO5–Advocacy: Capacity to participate and influence deliberations on issues of local,

national or international importance using broader advocacy skills of an individual trained in
law.

CO-PO MAPPING:

Course Outcomes Programme Outcomes

PO1 PO2 PO3 PO4 PO5

CO1: To become familiar with the theoretical Yes Yes Yes No Yes
underpinnings and historical evolution of
Intellectual Property Law.

CO2: To examine various subject matters of Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Intellectual Property Law.
CO3: To familarise students with the various Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
economic and non-economic rights under
various IP subject-matters.
CO4: To critically analyze the intersection Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
between private IP right and public right of
access/use of IP goods/services.
CO5: To formulate constructive opinions on Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
various problematic areas in IP Law.
*****