Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Legislations Governing IPR in India - Patent, Trademark
Legislations Governing IPR in India - Patent, Trademark
DESIGNS
• Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) are the rights given to persons over the creations
of their minds.
• They usually give the creator an exclusive right over the use of his/her creation for a
certain period of time.
• Essentially, these are rights to stop others from copying or counterfeiting.
Branches of Intellectual Property
PLANT VARIETIES
PATENT
TRADE
SECRETS TRADEMARK
INTEGRATED
CIRCUITS AND
LAYOUTS
COPYRIGHTS
GEOGRAPHICAL
INDICATION
DESIGNS
WHAT IS PROTECTED UNDER WHAT?
Example:-
Brand/ Logo
Trademark
Barrier coated
Bottle/ Can
plastic
Design
container
• The main objective behind the introduction and passing of the Patents (Amendment) Bill, 2005 was to meet India’s
deadline i.e, 31st December, 2004, to comply with the TRIPS Agreement.
Mere
discovery of a
scientific
principle
Frivolous Mere
inventions or rearrangement
against natural of known
laws devices
Non-
Patentable
Mathematical
or business Agricultural
methods, method
algorithms
Plants, animals
and
therapeutic
treatment
Copyrights
• Copyrights are given over artistic works.
• Copyrights are considered territorial rights, which
means that they do not extend beyond the territory
of a specific jurisdiction.
• The exclusive right given by law for a certain
term of years to an author, composer etc. (or
his assignee) to print, publish and sell copies
of his original work”
WHAT COPYRIGHTS PROTECT?
H
First Copyright Act
Indian Copyrights
Act, 1957 w.e.f
I
in India in 1914.
1958.
S
T
Amendments in
1983, 1984, 1992,
O
1994 and 1999 and
2012.
R
Y
• The Indian Copyrights Act, 1957 was effected over the whole country from 21st January, 1958.
INDIAN
COPYRIGHTS
Created Copyright ACT, 1957 –
Office and Copyright Salient discouraging and preventing
Board Features widespread video piracy.
• The 2012 amendments make Indian Copyright Law compliant with the Internet Treaties – the
WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) and WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT).
Period of protection:
- varies (usually 10 years)
- can be renewed indefinitely
Providing for an
appellate board for Enhanced punishments for
speedy disposal of offences relating to
appeals trademarks.
TRADEMARK
ACT, 1999–
Providing for registration Salient Registration of trademarks for
of trademarks for
Features services as well in addition to
services.
goods.
THE AMUL v/s ICHAMTI CASE
1. Ichhamati Co-operative Milk Producers’ Union Limited filed an application for registration of the mark ‘IMUL’ under class
29 (milk goods and other dairy products) of the Trademarks Act, 1999.
2. After the advertisement of this application, Kaira District Co-Operative Milk Producers’ Union Limited (appellant) opposed
registration of the trademark.
3. The opposition was based on the ground that the appellant was carrying on a well established business of manufacturing,
marketing and exporting milk products under the name AMUL since 1955.
4. By virtue of its long, continuous and extensive use of the trademark, it was contended that the public now associated ‘AMUL’
with the appellant’s products. Therefore, the respondent’s adoption of the mark IMUL would cause confusion among the public
and in the trade as it was deceptively similar to the appellant’s trademark.
5. The registrar, however, found that the respondent’s adoption of the mark IMUL was honest and was not deceptive because
respondent had been using this mark since 2001 and its turnover had increased continuously since then.
6. Against this order, the appellant appealed to the IPAB [Intellectual Property Appellate Board].
7. After perusing several cases, the IPAB held that a statement showing increase in sales turnover (by way of affidavit) was no
ground to grant registration of a trademark that was deceptively similar to AMUL’s trademark. It was held that the mark
(IMUL) was phonetically similar to AMUL, except for the first letter ‘A’ and ‘I’.
8. The IPAB held that AMUL was a well known mark and the registration of a deceptively similar mark ought not to have been
allowed.
Thank You!