Intellectual Property Rights MCQs for Judiciary, Page 8

Correct answer: D. Marks used to identify and distinguish the services of one person from the services of other persons in trade, just as a trade mark identifies goods

The Trade Marks Act, 1999 extended trade mark protection to service marks for the first time in Indian law, explicitly including 'services' within the scope of protection under Sections 2(1)(z) and 2(1)(zb). A service mark performs precisely the same commercial function as a trade mark for goods: it identifies and distinguishes the services of one provider from those of another, indicating commercial origin to consumers. In Balakrishna Hatcheries v. Nandos International Ltd. (2007) 35 PTC 295 (Bom), the Bombay High Court confirmed that the Nandos mark used in connection with restaurant services was protectable as a service mark in India, even though the applicant operated primarily in South Africa. The court applied passing off principles to protect the mark's goodwill in relation to its restaurant services. Similarly, in Health and Glow Retailing Pvt. Ltd. v. Dhiren Krishna Paul (2007) 35 PTC 471 (Mad), the Madras High Court protected the 'Health and Glow' mark in connection with health and beauty retail services.

Source note: Balakrishna Hatcheries v. Nandos International Ltd., (2007) 35 PTC 295 (Bom); Sections 2(1)(z) and 2(1)(zb), Trade Marks Act 1999

Correct answer: D. Manufacturers from using trade mark law's potentially perpetual duration to protect aesthetic industrial designs that should be subject to the shorter term of the Designs Act, 2000; the provision ensures that where the shape is the primary value proposition of the product (rather than a source identifier), it cannot be monopolised through trade mark registration

Section 9(3)(c) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 excludes from registration shapes that give substantial value to the goods. This provision addresses the intersection of trade mark law with design law and copyright. If the shape of a product is primarily what makes it attractive and valuable to consumers (such as a particularly beautiful or distinctive product design), allowing it to be registered as a trade mark with potentially perpetual renewal would enable manufacturers to effectively use trade mark law to achieve what amounts to permanent design protection. Design protection under the Designs Act, 2000 has a maximum term of fifteen years; copyright in an artistic work that becomes an industrial design is subject to the Section 15(2) cut-off. The substantial value exclusion in Section 9(3) ensures that these deliberate term limitations cannot be circumvented by claiming shape trade mark protection for what is really an industrial design or aesthetic feature. This provision is consistent with EU Trade Mark Regulation Article 7(1)(e)(iii).

Source note: Section 9(3), Trade Marks Act 1999

Correct answer: B. A reproduction of the sound in the MP3 format and, in the case of a sound that can be notated in musical notation, a musical notation representation of the sound on a stave

Rule 26(5) of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017 specifically addresses the representation of sound marks. It provides that where an application is made for the registration of a trade mark that consists of a sound, the reproduction of the trade mark shall be submitted as an MP3 file not exceeding four megabytes. Where the sound mark can be notated in musical notation, the representation shall be in the form of musical notation. The Trade Marks Rules, 2017 (replacing the 2002 Rules) introduced provisions for sound marks that did not exist in the earlier regime, following the inclusion of non-traditional marks in modern trade mark practice. The Yodel mark of Yahoo! and the sonic logo of Intel are internationally famous examples of registered sound marks. In India, the roar of a lion and specific corporate jingles have been registered as sound marks. The MP3 format requirement satisfies the graphical (now 'electronic') representation requirement for sound marks, providing an objective and durable record of what is protected.

Source note: Rule 26(5), Trade Marks Rules 2017

Correct answer: B. Lava was found to be an 'unwilling licensee' - it had negotiated in bad faith and refused to enter into a frand licence with Ericsson while continuing to commercialise products implementing Ericsson's patented 2G and 3G standard essential technologies; damages were assessed applying a structured framework under the Delhi IPD Rules 2022 reflecting the royalty Lava would have paid under a frand licence

In Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v. Lava International Ltd. (CS(COMM) 65/2016, Delhi High Court, March 2024), the court resolved a long-running SEP dispute by finding that Lava was an 'unwilling licensee' - it had refused to negotiate in good faith and enter into a FRAND licence with Ericsson while continuing to sell mobile handsets implementing Ericsson's standard essential 2G and 3G patents. The court applied the Delhi IPD Rules 2022's structured damages framework and awarded approximately 244 crore rupees (around USD 27 million) plus interest, one of the largest IP damages awards in India's history. The judgment is significant for several reasons: it demonstrated India's willingness to award substantial patent damages calibrated to economic realities; it reinforced the principle that FRAND commitments impose reciprocal obligations on both SEP holders (to license on fair terms) and implementers (to negotiate and accept a FRAND licence in good faith); and it marked a turning point in India's reputation as a serious patent enforcement jurisdiction.

Source note: Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v. Lava International Ltd. (Delhi High Court, March 2024); Delhi IPD Rules 2022

Correct answer: C. Account of profits is an equitable remedy that allows the plaintiff to recover the profits the defendant made specifically as a result of the infringement; however, the plaintiff must elect between this remedy and damages before trial, because they are inconsistent remedies

Section 135(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 provides that in infringement or passing off suits, the plaintiff shall be entitled to relief by way of injunction and either damages or accounts of profits at their election. Account of profits (or an account of profits) is an equitable remedy derived from the law of unjust enrichment: it requires the infringer to disgorge the profits made from using the plaintiff's trade mark without authorisation. The theoretical justification is that the infringer should not be permitted to retain the benefit of their wrongful act. The election between damages and account of profits must be made before (or at the latest at the time of) the trial because the two remedies are inconsistent: damages compensate the plaintiff for their own loss, while an account of profits focuses on the defendant's gain regardless of the plaintiff's loss. In Milmet Oftho v. Allergan, the court noted that account of profits may be more beneficial than damages where the defendant's profits substantially exceed the plaintiff's provable losses.

Source note: Section 135, Trade Marks Act 1999

Correct answer: B. The definition of 'mark' under Section 2(1)(m) and 'trade mark' under Section 2(1)(zb) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 expressly includes 'combination of colours, ' provided the colour combination is capable of graphical representation and has acquired distinctiveness identifying the trade source

Section 2(1)(m) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 expressly includes 'combination of colours' within the definition of 'mark,' and Section 2(1)(zb) includes them within the definition of 'trade mark,' provided they are capable of being represented graphically and of distinguishing goods or services. In N. Ranga Rao v. Anil Garg (2006) 32 PTC 15 (Del), the Delhi High Court granted injunctive relief protecting the plaintiff's distinctive colour combination used on its agarbatti (incense sticks) packaging, holding that the colour scheme had acquired secondary meaning identifying the plaintiff as the commercial source. The court applied the passing off trinity and confirmed that trade dress (the overall visual appearance of a product) is protectable under both registered and unregistered trademark law. Colours that are functional (such as red for danger), however, cannot be monopolised. The distinctiveness requirement is strictly applied to colour marks to ensure that they do not unduly impede competition by allowing monopolisation of descriptive or functional colours.

Source note: N. Ranga Rao v. Anil Garg, 2006 (32) PTC 15 (Del); Section 2(1)(m), (zb), Trade Marks Act 1999

Correct answer: C. Tarnishment occurs when a famous mark is used in connection with inferior, unsavoury, or unwholesome goods or services, thereby damaging the mark's positive image, reputation, and integrity in the public mind

Trade mark dilution encompasses two principal forms: blurring and tarnishment. Tarnishment refers specifically to the damage to a famous mark's positive reputation caused by its association with inferior, objectionable, or unwholesome goods or services. When a well-known mark is tarnished, its image in the mind of the public is harmed because consumers associate it with something negative or substandard. This is distinct from blurring, where the distinctive character of a famous mark is whittled away by widespread use of similar marks across different product categories, reducing its capacity to act as a unique identifier. In ITC Limited v. Philip Morris Products S.A. (2010) 42 PTC 572 (Del), the court analysed both forms of dilution under Section 29(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Section 11(2), recognising that both forms constitute actionable harm to famous trade marks even in the absence of confusion. Indian courts have also addressed tarnishment in the context of disparaging comparative advertising under Section 29(8).

Source note: ITC Limited v. Philip Morris Products S.A., 2010 (42) PTC 572 (Del); Section 29(4), Trade Marks Act 1999

Correct answer: A. Whether a phrase in common English usage can be registered as a distinctive service mark for health and beauty retail services

In Health and Glow Retailing Pvt. Ltd. v. Dhiren Krishna Paul (2007) 35 PTC 471 (Mad), the Madras High Court addressed the registrability and protectability of 'HEALTH AND GLOW' as a service mark for retail health and beauty services. The court considered whether this combination of ordinary English words had acquired sufficient distinctive character to be protectable as a service mark. The court held that the combined phrase, while using common words, had been adopted and used by the plaintiff as a distinctive mark for its retail services, and had acquired secondary meaning identifying the plaintiff as the source of those services through extensive commercial use. The court granted interim relief restraining the defendant from using an identical mark. This case illustrates the principle that descriptive or laudatory phrases can acquire trade mark protection through extensive commercial use and consequent secondary meaning, even though they would not ordinarily be registrable at first without such use.

Source note: Health and Glow Retailing Pvt. Ltd. v. Dhiren Krishna Paul, 2007 (35) PTC 471 (Mad)

Correct answer: D. Identical to the goods or services for which the trade mark is registered, where such use is likely to cause confusion on the part of the public

Section 29(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 provides that a registered trade mark is infringed where a person uses, in the course of trade, a mark that is identical to the registered trade mark, in relation to goods or services identical with the goods or services for which the trade mark is registered, and such use is likely to cause confusion on the part of the public or is likely to have an association with the registered trade mark. Thus, even for identical marks applied to identical goods, the statute requires a likelihood of confusion, which is typically presumed when the mark and goods are both identical. Section 29(2) extends protection to situations of identical marks on similar goods, and similar marks on identical or similar goods, both requiring a likelihood of confusion. Section 29(4) provides the strongest protection for well-known marks, allowing an infringement action even where the goods are dissimilar, if the use takes unfair advantage of or is detrimental to the distinctive character or repute of the mark.

Source note: Section 29(1), (2), (4), Trade Marks Act 1999

Correct answer: D. A logo or artistic work used as a trade mark can simultaneously attract copyright protection as an artistic work under the Copyright Act, 1957, while also receiving trade mark protection; the two regimes operate independently

The overlap between trade mark protection and copyright protection in artistic works or logos is a well-recognised phenomenon in Indian intellectual property law. In Bata India Ltd. v. Pyare Lal and Co. (AIR 1985 All 242), the Allahabad High Court affirmed that an artistic work or logo can simultaneously attract both trade mark protection (either through registration under the Trade Marks Act or through passing off) and copyright protection as an original artistic work under the Copyright Act, 1957. The two forms of protection operate independently and serve different purposes: trade mark protection identifies commercial origin and protects against confusion, while copyright protects original creative expression against copying. The expiry of one does not affect the other. In practice, many well-known marks (logos, label designs, mascots) attract both forms of protection. This overlap between trade marks, copyright, and designs is explicitly acknowledged in the course materials from DU LB 4036 as an important area requiring careful analysis.

Source note: Bata India Ltd. v. Pyare Lal and Co., AIR 1985 All 242

Correct answer: C. A trade mark (Section 2(1)(zb)) is a mark used in relation to specific goods or services to identify their commercial origin; a trade name (or business name) is the name under which a business is conducted, which may or may not be used as a mark on goods; an unregistered trade name may be protected through passing off if it has acquired goodwill, even if it is not registered as a trade mark

A trade mark and a trade name are related but distinct concepts in Indian law. A trade mark (defined in Section 2(1)(zb) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999) is a sign used in relation to specific goods or services to distinguish their commercial origin. A trade name (or business name) is the name under which a business entity operates. A business name may also function as a trade mark if it is used on goods or services to identify their origin (for example, 'TATA' is both the trade name of the Tata group and a trade mark used on a wide range of products). An unregistered business name may be protected from imitation through the tort of passing off if it has acquired goodwill in the market. Importantly, incorporation of a company under the Companies Act, 2013 does not automatically confer trade mark rights: company name registration merely prevents another company from having the same name under that Act, without creating intellectual property rights enforceable against traders in different industries or regions. Trade mark rights require either registration under the Trade Marks Act or the establishment of goodwill through use.

Source note: Sections 2(1)(zb), 2(1)(za), Trade Marks Act 1999

Correct answer: A. Introduction of online or electronic filing of all types of trademark applications and documents, significant rationalisation of fee structures with differential fees for individuals, start-ups, small enterprises, and others, and revised timelines for examination and opposition proceedings

The Trade Marks Rules, 2017 introduced several important procedural and administrative changes to the Indian trade mark registration system. Key among these are: (a) mandatory electronic filing of trade mark applications, oppositions, and other documents, with physical filings permitted only in exceptional circumstances - this significantly improved processing efficiency and transparency; (b) rationalisation of official fees with different fee structures for individuals, start-ups, and small enterprises (who pay lower fees) compared with larger entities, making trade mark registration more accessible to smaller innovators; (c) revised timelines for examination, typically requiring the Registrar to issue an examination report within one month of filing; (d) provisions for new types of non-traditional marks including sound marks (Rule 26), collective marks, and certification marks; and (e) enhanced provisions for online hearing of matters. These reforms were part of the government's broader 'ease of doing business' initiative and brought the Indian trade mark registration process closer to international standards.

Source note: Trade Marks Rules, 2017

Correct answer: A. Accord to nationals of other WTO member states treatment no less favourable than that accorded to their own nationals with regard to intellectual property protection and enforcement

Article 3(1) of the TRIPS Agreement establishes the principle of national treatment, requiring each WTO member to accord to nationals of other members treatment no less favourable than it accords to its own nationals with respect to the protection of intellectual property, subject to limited exceptions expressly provided in TRIPS. National treatment is one of the two foundational principles of international intellectual property law, the other being Most Favoured Nation (MFN) treatment under Article 4. MFN treatment requires that any advantage granted to the nationals of one WTO member be extended immediately and unconditionally to the nationals of all other members. Together, national treatment and MFN treatment prevent discrimination between nationals and between foreign nationals in the provision of IP protection. Both principles were incorporated into Indian intellectual property legislation through amendments made to bring Indian law into conformity with TRIPS obligations following India's accession to the WTO in 1995.

Source note: Article 3, TRIPS Agreement; DU LB 4036 Course Materials

Correct answer: C. The knowledge or recognition of the trade mark in the relevant section of the public, including knowledge obtained as a result of promotion of the trade mark

Section 11(6) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 lists the factors to be taken into account when determining whether a trade mark is 'well-known': (a) the knowledge or recognition of the trade mark in the relevant section of the public, including knowledge obtained as a result of promotion; (b) the duration, extent, and geographical area of use of the mark; (c) the duration, extent, and geographical area of any promotion, including advertising, publicity, and presentation of the mark at trade fairs; (d) the duration and geographical area of any registration or application for registration; and (e) the record of successful enforcement of the rights in the mark, including the extent to which it has been recognised as a well-known mark by courts or Registrars in any country. Section 11(7) further provides that the Registrar shall, while considering the application for registration of a trade mark, protect the well-known trade mark against the identical or similar trade mark, even if such mark has been registered in India or abroad.

Source note: Section 11(6), Trade Marks Act 1999

Correct answer: B. File a formal request under Rule 124 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017 to have the mark included in the official list of well-known trade marks maintained by the Trade Marks Registry; judicial recognition alone does not result in automatic inclusion in the Registry's list

In Tata SIA Airlines Ltd. v. Registrar of Trade Marks (2023), the Delhi High Court clarified the procedural pathway for inclusion of a mark in the Registrar's official list of well-known trade marks. The court held that even though judicial bodies (courts, IPAB) may declare a mark well-known in the course of litigation, such judicial recognition does not automatically result in the mark being added to the Trade Marks Registry's statutory list of well-known marks. The proprietor must separately comply with Rule 124 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017, which prescribes the formal procedure for requesting inclusion in the list. The court dismissed the petition for a writ of mandamus directing the Registrar to include VISTARA in the list without the prescribed procedural compliance, holding that the formal publication and inclusion procedure cannot be bypassed. This case reinforces the principle that administrative procedures under intellectual property legislation must be strictly followed.

Source note: Tata SIA Airlines Ltd. v. Registrar of Trade Marks (2023); Rule 124, Trade Marks Rules 2017

Correct answer: D. Goods and services that are not similar to those for which the earlier well-known mark is registered, if use of the later mark would take unfair advantage of or be detrimental to the distinctive character or repute of the well-known mark

Section 11(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 extends the protection of well-known trade marks beyond the principle of similarity of goods under Section 11(1). It provides that a trade mark shall not be registered if it is identical with or similar to an earlier well-known trade mark in India and its use would take unfair advantage of, or be detrimental to, the distinctive character or repute of the earlier well-known mark, regardless of whether the goods or services of the later applicant are similar to those for which the earlier mark is registered. This is the concept of anti-dilution protection, which protects the unique commercial magnetism of famous marks across all categories of goods and services. The factors for determining whether a mark is a 'well-known trade mark' are set out in Sections 11(6) to 11(9), and include the extent of knowledge among relevant public, duration of use, and geographical extent of use.

Source note: Section 11(2), 11(6)-(9), Trade Marks Act 1999

Correct answer: A. The mark enjoyed trans-border reputation in India through international publications, advertisements in magazines available in India, and word of mouth, even without direct trading in India

In N.R. Dongre v. Whirlpool Corporation (1996) 5 SCC 714, the Supreme Court affirmed the doctrine of trans-border reputation in Indian trademark law. The court held that a mark can acquire goodwill and reputation in India even in the absence of direct trading activity within the country, provided the mark has become known to a substantial section of the Indian public through other means, such as international magazines and publications, advertisements, spillover from neighbouring markets, or word of mouth. Whirlpool's global reputation had permeated India through such channels. Consequently, the Indian defendant's adoption of the 'Whirlpool' mark was found to constitute passing off, even though Whirlpool had not itself actively traded in India. This case is foundational for the protection of internationally famous marks in India and is reinforced by Section 11(6) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which lists knowledge of the relevant section of the public as a factor in determining a well-known mark.

Source note: N.R. Dongre v. Whirlpool Corporation, (1996) 5 SCC 714

Correct answer: C. The TRIPS Agreement can and should be interpreted and implemented in a manner supportive of WTO members' right to protect public health and, in particular, to promote access to medicines; members have the right to determine what constitutes a national emergency and to grant compulsory licences

The Doha Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health, adopted by WTO Ministers in November 2001, was a landmark reaffirmation of the flexibilities available to WTO members in implementing TRIPS obligations in a manner consistent with their public health objectives. The Declaration affirmed: (a) that TRIPS can and should be interpreted in a manner supportive of the right to protect public health and promote access to medicines; (b) that each member has the right to grant compulsory licences and the freedom to determine the grounds for which such licences are granted; (c) that each member has the right to determine what constitutes a national emergency, with public health crises (including HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria, and other epidemics) representing cases of national emergency or extreme urgency; and (d) that least developed country members are not obligated to apply patent protection for pharmaceuticals until 2016 (subsequently extended to 2033). The Doha Declaration was directly relevant to India's compulsory licensing regime and the interpretation of Section 84 of the Patents Act, 1970 in cases like Natco v. Bayer.

Source note: Doha Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health, 2001; Section 84, Patents Act 1970

Correct answer: A. Are available in national legal systems to permit effective action against IP infringement, including expeditious remedies to prevent infringement, deterrent remedies against further infringement, and civil and criminal procedures meeting specified minimum standards; procedures must be fair, equitable, and not unnecessarily complicated or costly

Part III of the TRIPS Agreement (Articles 41-61) is an unprecedented feature of international IP law: it requires WTO members not merely to enact substantive IP rights but also to provide effective enforcement procedures. Article 41 sets out general obligations requiring that enforcement procedures be available to permit effective action against infringement, including expeditious remedies to prevent infringement and deterrent remedies against further infringement. Article 41(2) requires that procedures be fair, equitable, not unnecessarily complicated or costly, and subject to reasonable time limits. Articles 42-49 address civil and administrative enforcement procedures (including provisional measures, injunctions, damages, and evidence). Article 50 requires provisional measures (emergency injunctions) to be available. Articles 51-60 address border measures (customs seizure of infringing goods). Article 61 requires criminal procedures and penalties for wilful trade mark counterfeiting and copyright piracy at a commercial scale. India's procedural law for IP enforcement (including the Civil Procedure Code, Criminal Procedure Code, and the IP-specific provisions in the various Acts) is broadly compliant with these TRIPS requirements.

Source note: Articles 41-61, TRIPS Agreement

Correct answer: C. Developed countries (particularly wine and spirits exporters) that seek to limit Article 23 enhancement to maintain competitive advantages in global food markets, and developing countries (including India) that seek to extend enhanced gi protection to their traditional products such as agricultural goods and handcrafts, which suffer from the same counterfeiting and free-riding problems as wines and spirits

The debate over extending TRIPS Article 23 enhanced protection beyond wines and spirits to other products (called the 'extension debate') is one of the most contentious unresolved issues in international IP negotiations. Article 23 provides that members shall provide the means to prevent the use of GIs for wines and spirits even where the true geographical origin is also indicated (e.g., 'Champagne-style wine from Argentina'). Developing countries, including India, the African Group, and others, have argued that the same enhanced protection should be available for traditional agricultural products and handicrafts such as Basmati rice, Darjeeling tea, and Kanchipuram silk, which suffer from exactly the same counterfeiting and free-riding problems as wines and spirits. Developed countries, particularly the USA, Australia, New Zealand, and Chile (major wine exporters), have resisted extension, arguing that the current Article 22 standard provides sufficient protection and that extension would create additional trade barriers. India has been a consistent advocate for extension in the TRIPS Council and WTO Committee on Trade and Development.

Source note: Articles 22-23, TRIPS Agreement; WTO TRIPS Council negotiations

Correct answer: A. Minimum standards of intellectual property protection that all WTO member states must implement in their domestic law; members may provide stronger protection if they choose but cannot fall below the TRIPS minimum standards

The TRIPS Agreement establishes minimum standards of intellectual property protection that all WTO member states are obligated to incorporate into their domestic laws. Part II of TRIPS covers the substantive standards for copyright, trade marks, geographical indications, industrial designs, patents, layout designs of integrated circuits, and protection of undisclosed information (trade secrets). TRIPS Article 1(1) expressly provides that members may, but shall not be obliged to, implement in their law more extensive protection than is required by the TRIPS Agreement, provided such protection does not contravene the Agreement. The TRIPS Agreement thus creates a floor (minimum standard) but no ceiling: members can choose to provide stronger IP protection. The TRIPS Agreement is notable for being the first binding international agreement that incorporates IP obligations into the international trade framework, with WTO dispute settlement mechanisms available for enforcement against non-complying members. India made extensive amendments to its IP laws in 1999-2005 to comply with its TRIPS obligations.

Source note: Articles 1, 9-39, TRIPS Agreement

Correct answer: B. Be secret (not generally known or readily ascertainable to relevant circles), have commercial value because of its secrecy, and be subject to reasonable steps by the person lawfully in control of it to keep it secret

Article 39(2) of the TRIPS Agreement establishes three cumulative requirements for the protection of undisclosed information (trade secrets or confidential information): first, the information must be secret in the sense that it is not, as a body or in the precise configuration and assembly of its components, generally known among or readily accessible to persons within the circles that normally deal with the kind of information in question; second, the information must have commercial value because it is secret; and third, the holder must have taken reasonable steps under the circumstances to keep the information secret. Unlike patents, trade secrets are protected without registration and potentially for an unlimited period, but the protection is lost if the information is disclosed or independently discovered by others. India does not have a standalone trade secrets statute; protection is available through the law of contract (breach of confidence), common law (equitable principles), and, in some circumstances, the tort of unfair competition. The Information Technology Act, 2000 provides some protection for data confidentiality but is not a comprehensive trade secrets regime.

Source note: Article 39, TRIPS Agreement

Correct answer: B. India had until 1 January 2005 to extend full product patent protection to pharmaceutical and agrochemical products; during the transitional period, India was required to establish a 'mailbox' system to receive and preserve patent applications in these sectors, with an exclusive marketing right (emr) provision

Under Articles 65 and 70 of the TRIPS Agreement, developing countries like India were given transitional periods to bring their IP laws into conformity with TRIPS obligations. The most significant provision for India was that it had until 1 January 2005 to introduce product patent protection for pharmaceuticals and agrochemicals (India's 1970 Patents Act had permitted only process patents in these sectors, enabling the domestic generic pharmaceutical industry to thrive). During the transitional period (1995-2005), India was required under Article 70(8) to establish a 'mailbox' system to receive and preserve patent applications in these sectors; applicants filing during this period would have their applications examined from 1 January 2005. Article 70(9) required India to provide exclusive marketing rights (EMRs) to mailbox applicants who had received marketing approval in another country, until the application was examined after 2005. The 2005 amendments to the Patents Act (including the controversial Section 3(d)) implemented India's TRIPS obligations while incorporating significant flexibilities to protect access to medicines.

Source note: Articles 65, 70, TRIPS Agreement; Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005

Correct answer: D. Wipo administers international IP registration systems (pct for patents, Madrid for trademarks, Hague for designs), develops international IP norms through conventions and treaties, provides technical assistance to developing countries, and serves as a forum for IP policy discussions; however, wipo has no enforcement powers

The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is a specialised United Nations agency headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland, whose mandate is to promote the protection of intellectual property throughout the world through cooperation among states and, in appropriate cases, in collaboration with any other international organisation. WIPO's key functions include: (a) administering international IP registration and filing systems (PCT for patents, Madrid System for trade marks, Hague System for industrial designs, Lisbon System for GIs); (b) developing and administering international IP norms through treaties such as the Berne Convention, Paris Convention, PCT, WIPO Copyright Treaty, and WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty; (c) providing technical and legal assistance to developing and least-developed countries to strengthen their IP systems; (d) serving as a forum for debate and development of IP policy including emerging areas such as AI and IP, digital copyright, and traditional knowledge. Critically, WIPO has no enforcement powers: it cannot compel compliance or impose sanctions. Enforcement of IP obligations among WTO members is handled through the WTO dispute settlement system, not WIPO.

Source note: WIPO Convention 1967; DU LB 4036 Course Materials

Correct answer: B. Legal protection against the circumvention of effective technological measures (digital locks) applied by rights holders to control access to or use of their works, and legal protection against the removal or alteration of electronic rights management information attached to works

The WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT, 1996) and WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT, 1996) were adopted to update copyright law for the digital environment. Two key obligations are central to both treaties. First, the anti-circumvention obligation (Article 11 of WCT, Article 18 of WPPT): member states must provide adequate legal protection and effective legal remedies against the circumvention of effective technological measures (TPMs, such as encryption, access controls, and DRM systems) that rights holders use to protect their copyright works. Second, the rights management information obligation (Article 12 of WCT, Article 19 of WPPT): member states must protect against the removal or alteration of electronic rights management information (data identifying the work, the author, and the terms and conditions of use) attached to or associated with copyright works. India acceded to both the WCT and WPPT in 2018, and the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012 had already introduced provisions on technological protection measures and rights management information (Sections 65A and 65B of the Copyright Act, 1957) in anticipation of this accession.

Source note: Articles 11-12, WCT; Sections 65A, 65B, Copyright Act 1957