Intellectual Property Rights MCQs for Judiciary, Page 3

Correct answer: D. Is applied to the article by any industrial process or means, whether manual, mechanical, or chemical, separate or combined, and in the finished article appeals to and is judged solely by the eye; functional features not judged by the eye are excluded

Section 2(d) of the Designs Act, 2000 defines 'design' as features of shape, configuration, pattern, ornament, or composition of lines or colours applied to any article by any industrial process or means, whether manual, mechanical, or chemical, separate or combined, which in the finished article appeal to and are judged solely by the eye. Three critical requirements emerge: first, the design must be applied to an article by an industrial process (handmade article designs are covered under the artistic works exception in the Copyright Act); second, the design must be visible in the finished article (internal features invisible in the finished product are excluded); and third, the design must appeal to and be judged solely by the eye (purely functional features that are dictated by technical function rather than aesthetic choice cannot be protected as designs). The eye-appeal requirement ensures that design protection covers aesthetic features that influence consumer purchasing decisions based on visual appeal, not technical features that confer a functional advantage. This distinction is critical in the overlap between designs and patent protection.

Source note: Section 2(d), Designs Act 2000

Correct answer: B. 10 years initial term, extendable for one further period of 5 years, giving a maximum of 15 years

Section 11 of the Designs Act, 2000 provides that the copyright in a registered design shall initially subsist for ten years from the date of registration. The registration may be extended for a further period of five years on application made in the prescribed manner before the expiry of the initial ten-year period. The total maximum period of design protection in India is therefore fifteen years (ten years initial plus five years extension). This limited term reflects the policy that industrial design protection is a relatively short-term right appropriate for the commercial lifecycle of product designs, which typically undergo frequent changes and model refreshes in the marketplace. After the maximum fifteen-year term, the design enters the public domain and can be freely copied by anyone. This contrasts sharply with trade marks (which can be maintained indefinitely) and copyright (life plus sixty years), but is still significantly longer than the protection available in some other jurisdictions (the EU provides a maximum of twenty-five years for registered designs).

Source note: Section 11, Designs Act 2000

Correct answer: A. The design itself may be known (e.g., a pattern or motif from traditional art), but its specific application to a particular class of articles is novel; applying a known pattern to a new category of product creates an 'original' design

The concept of 'new in application' under Section 2(g) of the Designs Act, 2000 captures a broader scope of protectable creativity than the mere requirement of novelty in design itself. It recognises that applying a known design element to a new category of article involves a creative act that is distinct from merely reproducing a known design on known articles. For example, a traditional floral motif drawn from Indian folk art may not be new in itself, but applying that motif to, say, smartphone cases (a product category that did not exist when the motif was created) would involve originality in application and would be protectable. This provision ensures that traditional design elements and cultural motifs are not completely excluded from design protection solely because the motifs themselves are ancient or widely known. The applicant's creative contribution lies in the selection of the motif and its adapted application to a new article, and this contribution is sufficient for protection under the Designs Act, 2000.

Source note: Section 2(g), Designs Act 2000

Correct answer: D. Where a design has been registered under the Designs Act, the copyright protection available for the artistic work underlying the design is limited by Section 15 of the Copyright Act, 1957; once the design has been applied industrially and more than fifty articles have been produced, the copyright in the underlying artistic work ceases, leaving only the design protection under the Designs Act

In Bharat Glass Tube Limited v. Gopal Glass Works Limited (2008) 37 PTC 1 (SC), the Supreme Court comprehensively addressed the overlap between copyright and design protection. The court applied Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957, which provides that where a design is capable of being registered under the Designs Act, 2000 and the author or any person authorised by the author applies that design to any article more than fifty times by an industrial process, the copyright in the design (as an artistic work) ceases. This cut-off provision is designed to prevent the perpetual copyright term (life plus sixty years) from being used to protect what are in substance industrial designs, which are subject to the much shorter fifteen-year protection under the Designs Act. The court in Bharat Glass Tube confirmed this interpretation and clarified the conditions under which a work crosses from being primarily an artistic work (protected by copyright) to an industrial design (requiring registration under the Designs Act and subject to the shorter term). This case must be read together with the later Crocs v. Bata decision.

Source note: Section 15(2), Copyright Act 1957; Bharat Glass Tube Ltd. v. Gopal Glass Works Ltd., (2008) 37 PTC 1 (SC)

Correct answer: D. Whether the alleged infringing design, as applied to the article, is an obvious imitation or fraudulent imitation of the registered design, judged from the perspective of a person with reasonable knowledge and experience of the type of article and its designs

Section 22(1) of the Designs Act, 2000 defines piracy as the application of a registered design or its imitation to any article in any class in which the design is registered for purposes of sale or offering for sale, without the licence of the registered proprietor. The courts have interpreted 'obvious imitation' to mean a design that clearly and plainly imitates the registered design without any substantial creative variation, while 'fraudulent imitation' suggests an attempt to copy the registered design while making minor alterations to evade detection. The standard for comparison, as applied by Indian courts, involves assessing the overall visual impression of the two designs from the perspective of a person familiar with the type of article: if the infringing design would, to such a person, be understood as the registered design or a close imitation of it, piracy is established. Perfect identity is not required; substantial visual similarity that creates an impression of the registered design is sufficient. In Samsonite Corporation v. Vijay Sales (1998) 18 PTC 372 (Del), the court applied this holistic visual comparison approach.

Source note: Section 22, Designs Act 2000; Samsonite Corporation v. Vijay Sales, 1998 (18) PTC 372 (Del)

Correct answer: D. The overall appearance or get-up of a product's packaging can attract protection both as a registered design (under the Designs Act) and as a trade mark (under the Trade Marks Act) or through passing off if it has acquired distinctiveness; the two forms of protection are not mutually exclusive, and the expiry of design protection does not necessarily extinguish all trade mark or passing off rights in the distinctive trade dress

In Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. v. Wyeth Ltd. (2010) 44 PTC 589 (Del DB), the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court addressed the overlap between design protection and trade mark/passing off protection for product packaging (trade dress). The court confirmed that the overall get-up or trade dress of a product - the combination of colours, shapes, and graphic elements that collectively identify a product to consumers - can attract simultaneous protection under multiple IP regimes: as a registered design under the Designs Act (for the specific packaging design), as a registered trade mark (if the trade dress functions as a source identifier), and through passing off (if the trade dress has acquired distinctive goodwill). The key insight is that these different protections serve different functions: design protection protects the aesthetic investment in creating a unique appearance; trade mark and passing off protect the commercial goodwill associated with the distinctive appearance as a source identifier. The expiry of a design registration therefore does not automatically extinguish trade mark or passing off rights that have independently built up goodwill in the trade dress.

Source note: Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. v. Wyeth Ltd., (2010) 44 PTC 589 (Del DB)

Correct answer: A. No provision for pre-grant or post-grant opposition by third parties; the only mechanism for challenging a registered design is through a cancellation petition to the High Court under Section 19 of the Designs Act, 2000, which can be filed at any time during the registration period

One of the distinctive procedural features of the Designs Act, 2000 compared to both the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and the Patents Act, 1970 is that there is no provision for opposition proceedings (either pre-grant or post-grant) by third parties in the normal registration process. Under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, Section 21 provides a four-month post-advertisement opposition period, and under the Patents Act, 1970, Sections 25(1) and 25(2) provide for both pre-grant and post-grant opposition. Under the Designs Act, 2000, the registration process involves examination and registration without public opposition. The only mechanism for a third party to challenge a registered design is by filing a petition for cancellation under Section 19 of the Designs Act, 2000, which can be filed at any time during the registration term on grounds including that the design was not new or original at the date of registration, was contrary to public order or morality, or was not a 'design' within the meaning of the Act. Cancellation applications are heard by the Patent Office (Controller of Designs).

Source note: Section 19, Designs Act 2000

Correct answer: A. The registered proprietor (typically an association of producers or a government body such as the Tea Board) holds the gi registration and represents the community's interests; authorised users are individual producers in the designated region who are registered under Section 17 and are entitled to use the gi on qualifying goods; only authorised users can file an infringement action under Section 22 in their own name

The GI Act, 1999 creates two distinct categories of interest holders: the registered proprietor and authorised users. The registered proprietor (defined in Section 2(k) and registered under Chapter II) is the person (typically an association of producers, a producer organisation, or a governmental body) in whose name the GI is registered. The registered proprietor does not necessarily produce the goods; it represents the collective interests of the regional producers. Authorised users are the individual producers in the designated region who produce the goods according to the specification and are registered under Section 17. Only authorised users and the registered proprietor are entitled to use the GI; Section 22 provides that both the registered proprietor and any authorised user may institute infringement proceedings. The registered proprietor acts as a custodian of the GI on behalf of the community, while authorised users are the direct beneficiaries who use the GI commercially on their products.

Source note: Sections 2(k), 17, 22, GI Act 1999

Correct answer: A. A gi cannot be owned or assigned to a single person or entity; it belongs collectively to all producers in the designated region who produce goods in accordance with the specified standards, and any one of them can use the gi without licensing from the others, unlike a trade mark which grants exclusive rights to one owner

The collective nature of a geographical indication is its most distinguishing characteristic from an individual trade mark. A GI belongs collectively to the community of producers in the designated region: all producers who satisfy the GI's defined standards and conditions of production are entitled to use the GI. No single producer owns the GI exclusively, and the right cannot be assigned or licensed exclusively to one entity. In contrast, a registered trade mark grants exclusive rights to its individual owner who can prevent all others (including other producers in the same region) from using the mark. This collective nature makes GIs particularly suited to protecting the heritage and livelihoods of communities of artisans and farmers whose products derive their value from place-specific traditions. Sections 36 to 37 of the GI Act, 1999 regulate authorised users and their rights to use the GI, while Section 22 protects the GI against infringement by any person using the indication for goods not originating from the specified region.

Source note: Sections 22-37, GI Act 1999

Correct answer: D. Protected the collective right of all tea growers in the Darjeeling hill region to use the 'Darjeeling' appellation, while preventing others outside the region from selling tea under that name; it also established the Darjeeling logo as a certification mark internationally

The Geographical Indication registration for Darjeeling tea, granted under the GI Act, 1999, was a landmark in Indian intellectual property history. The Tea Board of India, which applied for and holds the GI as the 'Association of Persons' representative for Darjeeling tea growers, obtained registration that collectively protects the right of all authorised producers in the Darjeeling tea-growing region to use the 'Darjeeling' name. This prevents commercial entities outside the region from selling tea labelled as 'Darjeeling tea,' which was a significant problem before the GI registration. Simultaneously, the Tea Board obtained trademark registrations for the Darjeeling logo (a woman picking tea leaves) in multiple countries, giving internationally enforceable protection. The GI for Darjeeling tea was the result of years of advocacy by the Tea Board to protect one of India's most iconic and economically valuable agricultural products from counterfeiting and imitation in global markets.

Source note: GI Act 1999; Darjeeling Tea GI Registration

Correct answer: B. That the goods have specific qualities or a reputation that are fundamentally due to their geographical origin (the natural environment, human factors, or both) in a particular defined territory, and that these qualities would not be replicable if the goods were produced elsewhere

A geographical indication (GI), as defined in Section 2(e) of the GI Act, 1999 and Article 22 of the TRIPS Agreement, identifies goods whose quality, reputation, or other characteristic is essentially attributable to their geographical origin. The link between the product and its place of origin may be based on natural factors (soil, climate, water), human factors (traditional methods, craftsmanship, recipe), or both. The defining feature is that the specific quality or reputation cannot be replicated if the goods are produced outside the designated area because the special conditions (natural or human) that give the goods their distinctive character exist only in that place. Classic examples include Darjeeling tea (unique flavour from high-altitude growing conditions), Kanchipuram silk (traditional weaving methods and natural silk from the region), Alphonso mangoes (soil and microclimate of Ratnagiri), and Kolhapuri chappals (traditional leather craft techniques). The GI is a collective right: it belongs to all producers in the designated region who produce the goods according to the specified standards.

Source note: Section 2(e), GI Act 1999; Article 22, TRIPS Agreement

Correct answer: B. Ten years from the date of registration, renewable indefinitely for further periods of ten years upon payment of the prescribed renewal fee

Section 18 of the GI Act, 1999 provides that the registration of a geographical indication shall be for a period of ten years. Section 19 provides that a registered GI may be renewed from time to time, for further periods of ten years each, on payment of the prescribed renewal fee. This framework is broadly similar to the renewal regime for trade marks under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which also provides for ten-year terms renewable indefinitely. The indefinitely renewable nature of GI registration is appropriate because GIs protect community and heritage-based rights that do not have a natural expiry date: the link between a product and its geographical origin is a permanent characteristic of the product, not a time-limited innovation. Unlike patents (which have a fixed twenty-year term representing a specific public policy balance between incentivising innovation and ensuring public access), GIs have no inherent reason to expire. Failure to renew results in removal from the register, but a GI can be restored if the lapse was due to oversight and the goods are still produced in the specified region.

Source note: Sections 18-19, GI Act 1999

Correct answer: C. The gi has become a generic name in the trade for the type of goods (i.e., the term has become a common name for the class of goods rather than an indication of geographical origin)

Section 9 of the GI Act, 1999 sets out the absolute grounds on which registration of a geographical indication shall be refused. These include: (a) that the GI is likely to cause confusion or to deceive the public; (b) that it is contrary to public order or morality; (c) that it would be against law; (d) that the GI has become a common name for the goods (generic designation); and (e) that the name consists of a false geographical indication. The 'genericness' ground (option B) is particularly important: if a geographical name has over time come to be used as the common generic name for a type of product rather than as an indication of geographic origin, it loses its character as a GI. Classic international examples of genericness include 'champagne' used generically for sparkling wine, and 'cheddar' used generically for a type of cheese (though both remain protected in some jurisdictions). The application of the generic defence in GI law is complex because it requires evidence of how consumers and the trade actually use and perceive the name in question.

Source note: Section 9, GI Act 1999

Correct answer: D. A homonymous gi is one that is identical to, or closely resembles, another gi registered for the same type of goods from a different geographical region; Section 10 allows the Registrar to register homonymous GIs with appropriate conditions and limitations to protect producers from being confused with those in the other region, provided each gi designates a genuinely different geographical area

Homonymous geographical indications are GIs that are identical or very similar to each other (they sound the same or look the same) but denote different geographical areas for the same type of product. A classic example is 'Champagne' as a name used both for the French wine-producing region and for a region in Belgium, or two different wine regions in different countries that happen to share the same name. Section 10 of the GI Act, 1999 provides a mechanism for dealing with such homonymous GIs: both may be registered if they genuinely designate different geographical regions and with appropriate conditions ensuring that consumers can distinguish between them. The conditions imposed by the Registrar may include requirements for clear labelling identifying the specific country or region of origin to prevent consumer deception. This provision reflects TRIPS Article 23(3), which requires WTO members to have procedures to address conflicting homonymous GIs for wines, extended in India's GI Act to other products as well.

Source note: Section 10, GI Act 1999; Article 23(3), TRIPS Agreement

Correct answer: B. Injunction, damages or account of profits, and delivery up of infringing labels and goods; additionally, additional damages may be awarded where the infringement is flagrant

Section 67 of the GI Act, 1999 provides the civil remedies available to a registered proprietor, authorised user, or producer entitled to use a geographical indication upon establishing infringement under Sections 22-24. These remedies mirror those available for trade mark infringement and include: (a) injunction (both interim/interlocutory and permanent) to prevent further infringement; (b) damages for the harm caused by the infringement, or alternatively, account of profits earned by the infringer through the unauthorised use; (c) additional damages in cases of flagrant infringement, having regard to the flagrant nature of the infringement and the benefit accruing to the defendant; and (d) delivery up and destruction of goods bearing infringing GI indications and labels. The GI Act, 1999 also provides criminal remedies under Section 38, including imprisonment and fine, for false application of a geographical indication. The structure of civil and criminal remedies for GI infringement closely parallels that available under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, reflecting the GI's function as a collective IP right warranting equivalent protection.

Source note: Sections 22, 67, 38, GI Act 1999

Correct answer: B. Establishing a legal framework that prevents producers outside the designated geographical area (and those not using the traditional production methods specified in the gi registration) from selling their products under the gi name; this combats both counterfeiting of the specific product and the marketing of inferior non-authentic products under the prestigious regional name, protecting both producers' livelihoods and consumer interests

The registration of GIs for handicraft products like Kutch embroidery (known for its distinctive mirror-work embroidery from the Kutch region of Gujarat) and Pashmina (fine wool from Cashmere goats in the Himalayan regions) serves the dual protective function characteristic of GI protection. First, it prevents misappropriation: producers outside the designated region cannot label their products with the protected GI name, even if their goods are of comparable quality, because the geographical link is definitional. Second, it preserves authenticity standards: the GI registration includes a specification of the traditional production methods; producers using the GI name must follow these methods, preventing dilution of quality through shortcuts. For artisan communities, GI registration also provides a commercial platform for market differentiation: consumers willing to pay premium prices for authentic, traditionally produced items can confidently identify them through the GI. This both protects the livelihoods of traditional artisans and preserves cultural heritage practices that might otherwise be replaced by mass-produced imitations.

Source note: GI Act 1999; India GI Registry records

Correct answer: C. A gi derives its value from its link to a specific geographical territory and the community of producers in that region; if it could be assigned or licensed to producers outside the region (like an individual trade mark), the geographical link that is the gi's essential defining characteristic would be severed, and the indication would mislead consumers about the geographical origin of goods

Section 24 of the GI Act, 1999 expressly prohibits assignment, transmission, licensing, or any similar transfer of a geographical indication. The prohibition is fundamental to the concept of GI protection: a GI is not an individually owned right that can be bought and sold like a trade mark; it is a collective right attached to a geographical territory and inextricably linked to the producers in that territory. If a GI could be licensed to producers outside the designated region, or assigned to a commercial entity that could then exploit the name commercially without any connection to the region, the indication would become deceptive - it would mislead consumers about the geographical origin of the goods. The non-assignability of GIs also reinforces their character as community rights: the GI belongs to the community as a whole, and no individual producer, association, or authority can unilaterally transfer it. This stands in sharp contrast to trade marks, which can be freely assigned with or without the goodwill of the business under Sections 37-45 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

Source note: Section 24, GI Act 1999

Correct answer: B. The answer depends on whether the use of 'Kanchipuram-style' misleads the public into believing the sarees originate from Kanchipuram; Section 22 prohibits use of a gi 'in a manner which misleads the public as to the true place of origin'; describing sarees as 'Kanchipuram-style' or 'in the style of Kanchipuram' might not directly infringe the gi if it is clear that the sarees are not from Kanchipuram, but exploiting the reputation of the gi name could constitute passing off or violate Section 22 if the overall impression creates confusion about origin

Section 22 of the GI Act, 1999 prohibits the use of a geographical indication in any manner which represents or suggests that goods have originated in a geographical area other than the true place of origin, so as to mislead the public as to the geographical origin of the goods. The key test is whether consumers are misled about geographical origin. The use of 'Kanchipuram-style' is a nuanced case: on one hand, the word 'style' signals that the product is inspired by but not from Kanchipuram; on the other hand, leveraging the reputation of the famous GI name to sell an imitative product raises passing off concerns. Section 22(1)(c) further prohibits any use 'which is a false representation to the public as to the nature, manufacturing process, characteristics, quality or geographical origin.' The answer therefore depends on the overall impression conveyed to a typical consumer in the context of the specific marketing. This type of GI 'evocation' - invoking the GI's reputation without directly using the name - is precisely the mischief that stronger GI protection (like Article 23 of TRIPS for wines and spirits) would clearly prohibit.

Source note: Section 22, GI Act 1999; TRIPS Articles 22-23

Correct answer: D. India's gi Act, 1999 provides protection equivalent to the Article 23 enhanced level for all registered GIs, not just wines and spirits; any gi registered under the Act is protected against use by producers outside the designated region regardless of whether the goods are of the same kind and regardless of any qualifying language

The TRIPS Agreement provides two levels of GI protection: Article 22 provides a general standard requiring protection against uses of GIs that mislead the public about the geographical origin of goods. Article 23 provides a higher level of protection specifically for wines and spirits: it prohibits the use of a GI for wines or spirits even if the true origin is also indicated (e.g., 'Champagne-style sparkling wine from India' would be prohibited). India's GI Act, 1999 is notable for going beyond the TRIPS minimum by providing protection broadly equivalent to the Article 23 enhanced standard for all GI-registered goods, not merely wines and spirits. Section 22 of the GI Act, 1999 prohibits the use of a registered GI in a manner likely to mislead, but the overall framework and the remedies available under the Act provide robust protection for all categories of GI-registered goods, which is more protective than the basic Article 22 standard requires for goods other than wines and spirits.

Source note: Articles 22-23, TRIPS Agreement; Section 22, GI Act 1999

Correct answer: A. File a single international application in one language through their national IP office or directly with wipo, designating multiple member states in which design protection is sought; each designated office then examines the application according to its own national law

The Hague System for the International Registration of Industrial Designs, governed by the Hague Agreement Concerning the International Deposit of Industrial Designs, provides a centralised filing mechanism similar to the PCT (for patents) and Madrid System (for trade marks). An applicant can file a single international application in one language (English, French, or Spanish) with a single set of fees, designating multiple member states in which they seek design protection. WIPO examines the application for formal compliance and, if accepted, registers the design and notifies the IP offices of the designated states. Each designated national office then applies its own national law to determine whether to grant protection. India is in the process of acceding to the Hague Agreement; as of the knowledge cutoff, India had not yet formally acceded, meaning that Indian design applicants must file separate national applications in each country where protection is sought, without the benefit of the centralised Hague system. The Hague System, like the PCT and Madrid System, does not create a 'world design right'; it simplifies the procedural aspects of multi-country design protection.

Source note: Hague Agreement; Designs Act 2000

Correct answer: C. Traditional knowledge, traditional cultural expressions (folklore), and genetic resources, with the goal of preventing misappropriation and ensuring benefit-sharing with indigenous and local communities that are custodians of these resources

The WIPO Intergovernmental Committee on Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore (IGC) was established by WIPO's General Assembly in 2000 to develop an international instrument (or instruments) for the effective protection of traditional knowledge, traditional cultural expressions (TCEs or folklore), and genetic resources. The IGC's work is driven by developing and indigenous-nation concerns about bio-piracy and the misappropriation of traditional knowledge and cultural expressions by commercial entities. India has been an active participant in the IGC and has advocated strongly for effective international protection of traditional knowledge. Domestically, India has created the Traditional Knowledge Digital Library (TKDL) as a proactive defensive measure against bio-piracy patents. The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit-Sharing (ABS, 2010) are complementary international instruments that address benefit-sharing when genetic resources are accessed, requiring free, prior, and informed consent of source communities and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the commercialisation of genetic resources.

Source note: WIPO IGC; Nagoya Protocol 2010; TKDL India

Correct answer: D. Enhance transparency and accountability in the functioning of copyright societies by requiring improved financial reporting, more equitable distribution of royalties to members, clearer tariff structures, and reduced administrative deductions; the Rules also aimed to facilitate digital collection and distribution of royalties in the era of streaming

The Copyright (Amendment) Rules, 2021 were notified on 30 March 2021 and introduced several reforms to the regulatory framework governing copyright societies (CMOs) under Section 33 of the Copyright Act, 1957. The key objectives of the 2021 Rules included: (a) improved transparency and financial accountability - CMOs must file annual reports, financial statements, and distribution statements with the Copyright Office; (b) equitable distribution of royalties - CMOs must distribute collected royalties to members within specified timeframes and with defined maximum administrative deductions; (c) digital governance - CMOs must maintain digital registers and facilitate online registration of works and claims; and (d) enhanced oversight by the Copyright Office. These reforms addressed longstanding complaints from authors and performers that collecting societies were retaining excessive administrative fees and delaying or withholding distribution of royalties. The 2021 Rules also aligned CMO governance with the WIPO Recommendations on collective administration of copyright and related rights.

Source note: Copyright (Amendment) Rules, 2021; Section 33, Copyright Act 1957

Correct answer: A. Colour marks in the pharmaceutical sector face an additional functionality concern: if a colour serves a functional purpose (such as distinguishing dosage strength, indicating active ingredient, or conforming to regulatory colour coding standards for medicines), it cannot be monopolised as a trade mark because doing so would improperly give one manufacturer an exclusive right over a functional feature that competitors also need to use

The protectability of colour marks in the pharmaceutical sector is subject to an important limitation: the functionality doctrine. If a particular colour of a pharmaceutical tablet is dictated by its active ingredient (the drug naturally produces that colour), by regulatory requirements (health authorities may require specific colours for specific drug categories or dosage strengths), or by the need to communicate to patients and healthcare professionals about the drug (such as warning colours or strength indicators), then the colour serves a functional rather than a purely source-identifying purpose. A trade mark monopoly over a functional feature is problematic because it prevents competitors from using features that they legitimately need for their products to function or to comply with regulations. This is distinct from a purely arbitrary colour choice (such as a purely aesthetic blue for tablet coating with no functional significance) which could in principle be protected as a trade mark with acquired distinctiveness. The interplay between the colour trade mark doctrine and pharmaceutical regulatory requirements makes this a particularly complex area in India.

Source note: Trade Marks Act 1999, Section 9(3); pharmaceutical colour mark jurisprudence

Correct answer: B. The work may be reproduced and distributed provided: (a) appropriate credit is given to the author (attribution requirement - by); and (b) the reproduction is not for commercial purposes (non-commercial restriction - nc); commercial use requires separate permission from the rights holder

Creative Commons licences are standardised conditional copyright licences that allow creators to share their works with specified permissions and restrictions. A CC BY-NC (Attribution, Non-Commercial) licence grants the public a licence to reproduce, distribute, and adapt the work subject to two core conditions: (a) Attribution (BY): the reproducer must give appropriate credit to the original author, including the author's name, the title of the work, and the licence URL, as specified; and (b) Non-Commercial (NC): the reproduction must not be for commercial purposes. Commercial use includes any activity primarily intended for commercial advantage or financial compensation. A university researcher may reproduce and distribute a CC BY-NC work in academic publications without charge, but a commercial publisher may not reproduce it in a paid textbook without obtaining a separate commercial licence from the rights holder. Creative Commons licences operate by conditioning the grant of rights: if the conditions are not met, the licence is not complied with and the use may constitute copyright infringement. Creative Commons licences operate internationally and are governed by the local copyright law of the applicable jurisdiction.

Source note: Creative Commons licensing; Copyright Act 1957

Correct answer: D. Repair the patented product (restoring it to its original working condition by replacing worn or damaged components) without infringing the patent; however, substantially reconstructing the patented product (essentially manufacturing a new instance of the patented invention under the guise of repair) constitutes infringement of the patent because it goes beyond mere maintenance and amounts to making the patented product

The repair versus reconstruction doctrine in patent law addresses the tension between a purchaser's right to use and maintain goods they have purchased (supported by the exhaustion doctrine) and the patent holder's exclusive right to make the patented invention. The general principle is that repair of a purchased patented product - replacing worn parts, restoring functionality, maintaining the product in working condition - falls within the purchaser's permitted use and does not require a licence from the patent holder. However, reconstruction - essentially manufacturing a new instance of the patented invention under the guise of repair, particularly when the reconstruction involves creating the most inventive and distinguishing element of the patent - crosses into infringement. The distinction is fact-specific and depends on the nature of the patented invention, what components were replaced, and whether the replacement amounts to making the patented article. This doctrine is particularly relevant in the spare parts and refurbishment industries and has been applied in UK and US patent cases, with Indian courts following similar reasoning.

Source note: Patent law doctrine; Section 48, Patents Act 1970