Transcript Slide 1

Intellectual Property Rights in India:
Overview and Enforcement Risks
Sheila N. Swaroop
July 29, 2010
3rd Annual India Trade Conference
IP Rights Available in India
 Patent
 Trademark
 Geographical Indicator
 Copyright
 Industrial Design
 Trade Secret
 Combination of statutory and common law rights
2
© 2010 Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear LLP
Patent Enforcement
 Governed by the Patents Act
 Available remedies
 Injunction, including temporary relief
 Monetary damages (lost profits or accounting)
 Seizure and destruction
 Co-owner of a patent may not license or assign without
the other owner(s)’ consent (§ 50)
3
© 2010 Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear LLP
Trademark Enforcement
 Includes both civil and criminal components
 Can recover damages, injunction, destruction of
infringing labels and marks in a civil action
 Can bring action even without registering a trademark
 Criminal penalties include imprisonment, fine, and
forfeiture
4
© 2010 Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear LLP
Geographical Indicator
 "Geographical indications are…indications, which identify
a good as originating in the territory…or a region or
locality in a territory, where a given quality, reputation or
other characteristic of the good is essentially attributable
to its geographical origin." TRIPS, Article 22
 Most commonly indicates the place of origin of the goods
 Example: “Darjeeling” for tea
 Enforcement similar to trademarks
5
© 2010 Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear LLP
Copyright Enforcement
 Copyright owner can seek an injunction, damages,
accounting, and can block the importation of infringing
works made outside of India (§§ 53, 55 of Copyright Act)
 Copyright owner can obtain infringing copies and plates
for producing infringing copies (§ 58 of Copyright Act)
 Criminal penalties include imprisonment and fines and
permit seizure of infringing goods
6
© 2010 Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear LLP
Industrial Designs
 Protects ornamental or aesthetic aspect of an article
 Does not protect technical features
 Precludes any trademark or artistic works
 Applied to products such as handicrafts, medical
instruments, watches, jewelry, house wares, electrical
appliances, vehicles and architectural structures
 Enacted to comply with TRIPS, Articles 25-26
 Enforcement is similar to copyright actions
7
© 2010 Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear LLP
Trade Secret Protection
 No comprehensive act to protect trade secrets. The
closest is § 27 of the Contract Act that bars a person from
disclosing any information (or “goodwill”) as result of a
contract.
 India is required to provide trade secret protection per
TRIPS Article 39
 Common law trade secret protection depends on
agreement between the parties as well as the measures
taken to protect the secret information
 Remedies may include injunction as well as
compensation for any losses due to disclosure
8
© 2010 Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear LLP
Recent Patent Case
 Bayer Corp. v. Cipla Ltd. (2009)
 Dispute over a generic company’s ability to obtain a
marketing license for a drug subject to patent coverage
 Cipla applied for and received a license from Drug
Controller of India (DCI) to manufacture, sell, and
distribute a generic form of Bayer’s cancer drug
'Nexavar'
 Bayer argued that no marketing license should be
granted prior to expiration of Bayer’s patent
 The High Court of Delhi sided with Cipla and declined to
find “patent linkage” between marketing license granted
by DCI and any patents
9
© 2010 Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear LLP
Recent Patent Developments
 High Court of Delhi recently held that the tests for
patentability are the same worldwide and deferred to
German court’s decision to reject corresponding German
patent
 India’s Supreme Court has acknowledged current delay
in pendency of IP lawsuits. Directed that such suits must
be continued day-to-day and can only be adjourned for
exceptional reasons.
 Indian government has made database of traditional
knowledge available to Patent Examiners in the U.S. for
prior art searching
10
© 2010 Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear LLP
Recent Copyright Case
 Warner Brothers Entertainment Inc. v. Santosh V G (2009)
 Plaintiff owned a copyright in a cinematograph film
 Defendant imported film into India and rented it
 Defendant asserted “copyright exhaustion” defense: once copy of
the film was placed into the market, the copyright owner no
longer had control over it
 The High Court of Delhi determined that certain copyrighted work
(including computer programs, artistic works, cinematograph
films) were not subject to copyright exhaustion. Owners can
continue to exercise rights in a particular copy of the work
regardless of whether it has been sold previously.
11
© 2010 Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear LLP
Recent Industrial Design Case
 Mattel Inc v. Jayant Agarwala (2009)
 Defendant provided an online version of Mattel’s game Scrabble
called “Scrabulous”
 Mattel alleged trademark and copyright infringement
 Mattel prevailed on trademark claim, but not on copyright
 The Delhi High Court held that Mattel lost its copyright in the
board game because of § 15(2) of the Copyright Act

If a copyright in any design could have been registered under
the Designs Act, but has not been so registered, it ceases to
exist once the copyright design has been applied to an
industrial process more than 50 times
 Adverse copyright holding against Mattel appealed
12
© 2010 Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear LLP
Summary of IP Risks
 Be aware of India-specific intellectual property rights
 Before acquiring IP rights, make sure all co-owners have
consented to the transfer of rights
 Prior to launching product, conduct clearance searches
for pre-existing trademarks, geographic indicators
 Prepare for the possibility of lengthy litigation
13
© 2010 Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear LLP
Sheila N. Swaroop
2040 Main St., 14th floor
Irvine, CA 92614
(949) 721-7646 (direct)
(949) 760-9502 (fax)
[email protected]
kmob.com