The Delhi High Court recently passed order on a 40-year-old disputes related to intellectual property rights.

The order was passed by the single-judge Bench of Justice Pratibha M Singh in a suit filed by PM Diesels Private Limited against Thukral Mechanical Works, restraining the latter from using the trademark ‘Fieldmarshal’.

The High Court noted that it has been a long-drawn battle spanning over 40 years, during which, PM Diesels incurred substantial costs to protect the mark ‘Fieldmarshal’ and to defend itself against the various proceedings filed by Thukral.

Apart from imposing substantial financial burden on PM Diesels in its efforts to protect the ‘Fieldmarshal’ mark, the litigation has also engaged this Court’s resources considerably.

The single-judge Bench further observed that more than 20 hearings at the final arguments stage have been spent by this Court to resolve the complex set of issues arising between the parties.”l

Passing a decree of actual costs, the High Court said the taxation officer shall quantify the costs.

It directed that the bill of costs in terms of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018 read with IPD Rules, be filed within four weeks.

PM Diesels had filed a suit in 1985 seeking injunction against the use of the mark ‘Fieldmarshal’ or any other mark deceptively similar to it.

The petitioner further sought an injunction restraining Thukral from passing off diesel oil engines, and parts such as pumps and electric motors under the mark ‘Fieldmarshal’.

Subsequently, 12 other cases came to be filed in the Court over the same trademark, seeking cancellation of the mark as well as those challenging the orders of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB).

In the past four decades, the case has traversed the Delhi High Court, the Karkardooma district court as well as IPAB over the last four decades.

The single-judge Bench held that Thukral will no longer be able to manufacture products under the mark ‘Fieldmarshal’.

Noting that Thukral Mechanical Works has been using the mark ‘Fieldmarshal’ for centrifugal pumps and other products, during the pendency of the suit, the High Court granted six months time to Thukral Mechanical Works to exhaust its stock.

The High Court further directed Thukral Mechanical Works not to manufacture any fresh product under the mark ‘Fieldmarshal’.

The Delhi High Court recently observed that an e-commerce platform cannot become a haven for infringers and it must protect the intellectual property rights of others.

During the hearing, a single judge bench of Justice C Hari Shankar noted that e-commerce websites are commercial ventures and are inherently profit oriented. He added that nothing is objectionable in this but while ensuring their highest returns such websites have also to sedulously protect intellectual property rights of others. 

Justice C Hari Shankar mentioned that e-commerce platforms in order to enhance their financial gains, cannot put in place a protocol by which infringers and counterfeiters are provided an avenue to infringe and counterfeit. Ruling that such a protocol has to meet with firm judicial disapproval, the court said that an e-commerce platform cannot become a haven for infringers.    

The following observations were made in an interim order restraining IndiaMART IndiaMESH Limited, which runs the e-commerce platform IndiaMART from providing any registered trademark of PUMA in respect of goods as a search option in its drop-down menu presented to prospective sellers when they register on IndiaMART platform.

Justice Shankar directed IndiaMART to take down all infringing listings containing any of the PUMA’s registered trademarks. Reportedly, the injunction will remain in force till the Court decides PUMA’s trademark infringement suit against IndiaMART.

PUMA lodged the case stating that several counterfeit goods bearing fake PUMA marks have been put up by third-party sellers on IndiaMART and when one searches for PUMA products on IndiaMART, these fake products are also displayed. Additionally, the High Court was informed that when a seller registers himself/herself on IndiaMART, a drop-down menu is provided by which the seller can represent himself/herself as a dealer of PUMA shoes.

Taking cognizance of the matter, Justice Hari Shankar held that by allowing the prospective sellers to register themselves without any prior verification, it can prima facie be said that IndiaMART has aided commission of the unlawful act of counterfeiting, using its platform as a springboard for the purpose. The single-judge bench emphasized that aiding is a step before abetting and providing an avenue for counterfeiting is also aiding in the misdemeanour.

Justice Shankar concluded that as IndiaMART IndiaMESH Limited has, therefore, prima facie aided the commission of the unlawful act of counterfeiting and infringement, it cannot claim the benefit of safe harbour under Section 79(1). Consecutively, the Court passed the interim order against IndiaMART.

Rajshri Rai: We recently celebrated Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Day. I feel women have a great amount of involvement in securing intellectual property (IP). In spite of this, there are lots of obstacles and challenges. What has been your experience in this regard?

Prof (Dr) UP Pandit: The theme of this year’s Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Day is extremely important. The establishment of World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) is celebrated as World IP Day all over the world. This year’s theme is: “Women and IP: Accelerating Innovation and Creativity”.

IP as it relates to women is very special. It is an inherent innate cultural way in which women enhance and spread traditional knowledge and skills. When we speak of India, this year’s theme becomes all the more important.

In India, women are not only securing Indian culture from generation to generation, they are also passing on culture and traditional knowledge to their offspring. Which means transmission of traditional knowledge to a new generation.

Of course, obstacles are present. However, in our society, women perform a lot of roles at the same time—that of a mother, wife and a professional. Now, she is a protector, preserver and transmitter of domain cultural knowledge as well.

RR: We would like to know how your patent department works. What was the situation before you took charge, and what’s your vision for the future?

Prof Pandit: My department deals with the administration of IP and authentication of IP rights. When we talk about IP, patent, trademark, copyright, design, geographical indication, all come under the domain of the department. The people who wish to certify/register their IP approach us. For patents, we have a Patent Act under which novelty, inventiveness and industrial applicability of a product is assessed.

If the product possesses the abovementioned elements, a patent can be provided. Some non-patentable inventions are also mentioned under Section 3. If an invention falls under Section 3, a patent can’t be granted. This is where legal and technical complexity comes up. Apart from legal knowledge, technical knowledge is also necessary. Which is why if I have a conversation with a lawyer, I mention that we can’t just look at this through a legal perspective only. Social utility is also important.
Many times we think the IP address is unique. My name is Unnat Pandit. Recently, someone made an account named as “Unnat Pandit Official”. I’m official Unnat Pandit and someone else took the name. That’s wrong. This is where disputes arise. Ethics in business is necessary. Unethical practices don’t sustain for long. Financial frauds are taking place, courts are passing judgments in such matters. But this is a territorial right, IP is a territorial right. This is a big legal complexity.
Last and the most important, IP is copyright. The yearly revenue in India is more than Rs 1.5 lakh crore even if we only consider Hindi movies and radio. Today, artificial intelligence is helping in creative writing. The question is: Whose copyright is it, the individual or of the machine?

Geographical Indication (GI) in IPR is different from all IPRs as it includes community rights. For instance, Banarasi silk, Moga silk. Basmati rice, Alphonso mangoes, all are GI tagged and protected as IP.

RR: You have talked about GI. How far have we progressed in securing GI rights for our native products? Do farmers, skilled workers and labourers benefit from GI? How are GI products being protected?

Prof Pandit: GI is a community right and within its community it is protected. The Act for GI protection came into being in 2000 and it was enforced in 2003.
With the promulgation of GI Act, India’s traditional community-based products were legally protected. For example, an Assam speciality is “Gamocha”. The GI application of “Gamocha” came in 2003, but the fact is “Gamocha” was there since long. It became a legal entity only in 2023. For a lawyer to make a GI registry should be an honour. In a lifetime of a lawyer’s profession making one GI product come in force will bestow a special joy to him. This is the power of GI.

RR: Neem is very special for Indians. However, the patent for it was granted in America. There are more than a dozen patents related to neem which have been issued in America. Haldi heals wounds and is also used as an antibiotic. The patent for haldi was also issued for two Indians, but in America. Do you feel the law isn’t strict enough to prevent different countries from issuing patents to properties that are owned by other nations?

Prof Pandit: Just like I said before, this is a territorial right. So, the things that are produced in India are meant to stay with India. The same thing goes for foreign countries. But the things that are being patented outside India are already a part of Indian IP. So, the things that are already well known and have an Indian origin can’t be patented outside India. This has always been a conflict. Different databases are also searched to provide certification for patents.

The Indian government has started a Traditional Knowledge Digital Library (TKDS) with the help of CSIR. More than 8,000 traditional plants and Ayurveda-related knowledge have been documented, and all the patent-providing departments have been provided with its access.

So, if someone reviews any invention based on Indian knowledge tradition, he can refer to our TKDS database. It is also accessible to the researcher so that he can further use that knowledge. The government of India has also taken a cabinet decision to bring TKDS in public domain.

RR: If we look at our laws, how do they protect our intellectual properties? How do our laws compare with other nations?

Prof Pandit: We are against evergreening of a product. Which means modifying a product slightly and getting a patent for it for a few more years. No big innovative technology is involved here. This is happening more with pharma products.

In India, Section 3 has been brought in specifically for such pharma-related evergreened products that do not have enhanced efficacy .If a product has enhanced efficacy, it will be certified and registered, otherwise it will be stopped. When I am talking about this rule, in different countries, such as South Africa and Indonesia, they have accepted our Section 3D. Even though there is no Section 3D in America, the US has openly said that if any drug is better than the one which is already available in the market, it will be granted.

Internationally our rules give us a balanced judgment. The Indian government is IP friendly. In the last nine years, we have brought changes in different rules and Acts 10 to 12 times.

RR: The IPR department is working in a transparent and efficient manner, yet we observe that violations and acts of corruption occur. How do you see the challenge?

Prof Pandit: We know there are all sorts of malpractices going on in our society. The moment I joined this division, I noticed a significant difference in the standard of IP morals and ethics. I also understood how and why we must proceed towards good IP ethics. Our minister often emphasizes the urgency of moving most of the things online. If our online presence strengthens, it can lead to a more transparent approach to things. Granting of IP rights will take less time and the process will be more transparent. IP protection will also become quicker and effective.

It can be done by changing mindsets. Obviously, such a change cannot be brought upon solely through one person. This needs to be done holistically by the IP ecosystem and IP fraternity as a whole. I strongly feel that anything that may be iniquitous should not be allowed to continue. We live in an ever changing, technological world and we should gear up to meet its challenges and make our dealings more ethical.

Recently, the Bombay High Court had arrested a patent official and given him a sentence of four years labelling him as a criminal. This goes on to prove that reprehensible and unethical actions are countered by law order and justice systems.

RR: Intellectual property and creativity are so much interlinked. Much creative work is done and its copyright is ensured. Yet despite the rules and regulations, stories are plagiarized, song lyrics pilfered and films copied. How challenging is the copyright landscape?

Prof Pandit: Copyright is voluntary in nature. Even without formal certification, we own this IP right. If copyright is not registered and somebody violates it, a case needs to be filed in the court or a police complaint can be filed. In certain cases, we can enforce the IP right by filing a case before the court, but this is minimal. We need more awareness about copyrights. About 1.5 lakh crore worth of copyright assets are extant in India.

Justice Hima Kohli of the Supreme Court has talked about the challenges which women face while securing and protecting their intellectual property rights (IPRs) in India.

Justice Kohl said that this all is due to the gender bias, discrimination at workplace, lack of awareness and education concerning IPR and limited access to legal resources and support.

Justice said that the women face unique challenges in securing and protecting their IPRs in India such as gender bias, discrimination in the workplace, lack of awareness and education concerning IPRs.

She further said that another significant challenge faced by women in India is the need for more legal resources and support. Many women are unable to access legal resources necessary to secure and protect their financial interest.

The justice talked about how women face challenges in securing and protecting their intellectual property rights due to cultural, linguistic, and geographical barriers to seeking legal assistance, limiting their participation.

It was on the occasion of World IP Day Celebrations at the Delhi High Court that the Supreme Court judge was addressing a gathering.

The Delhi High Court Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Union Minister Piyush Goyal also graced the occasion.

Justice Kohli, talked about adequate safeguards for inventors, authors, and creators.

She also spoke on conducive atmosphere for research and development that would help women step up.

She also suggested that generating and publicizing gender-focused data on women’s participation in innovation and IP could help policy-makers create more precise policies focusing on women.

Justice spoke about publicising gender-focused data that can provide policy-makers with the guidance to make surgically precise policies, focusing on women.

Justice Kohli added that despite of all the shortfalls, there still lies a hope for a brighter future ,as there are now more opportunities than ever before for women empowerment.

She said that through initiatives such as workshops, seminars, and mentoring programs, women are being educated about various forms of IP protection.

While addressing the stereotypes , justice pointed that gender biases in IP is critical to promoting gender equality and ensuring that women creators have an equal opportunity to succeed.

Justice Kohli emphasized on the need to change societal norms that limit the participation of women in the workforce, address biases in the legal system, and provide access to resources and support to women creators.

Justice emphasizes on the need to create opportunities for women to enter and advance in STEM fields and to ensure that women creators have access to resources to succeed.

The event also saw the participation of women industry leaders including judges, scientists and businesswomen who spoke of challenges and the way forward.

By Saksham Malik

The Competition Act, 2002, was enacted to promote and sustain competition in markets, protect the interest of consumers and ensure freedom of trade for market participants. The Act was recently amended through the Competition (Amendment) Bill, 2023, and this was the last stage of a long process undertaken to bring the Act in line with the market realities of the digital age. 

The process began with the report of the Competition Law Review Committee (CLRC) in 2019, followed by two iterations of the Bill in 2020 and 2022. Thereafter, the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance recommended changes to the 2022 draft in December 2022 (Finance Committee Report). After incorporation of these recommendations, the Bill was tabled in Parliament and passed in April 2023. 

Key thematic areas from the CLRC Report pertain to effects-based analysis and Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) exemptions in Section 4 of the Act, the inclusion of Hub and Spoke cartels (H&SC) in Section 3, Settlements & Commitments (S&C) frameworks and merger control thresholds. These areas are fundamental to understanding competition law reforms and may guide enforcement activity in the foreseeable future. 

Effects-based tests

Some experts believe that the establishment of a violation of Section 4 should be done subject to an effects-based test. Essentially, this means that instead of presuming anti-competitive harm, the alleged conduct should be analysed to determine the existence and extent of the harm alleged to be caused by it. Neither the CLRC Committee nor the 2020 and 2022 Bills, however, incorporated this concern in their respective drafts. However, the Finance Committee’s Report recommended the insertion of a provision that would mandate the CCI to undertake the test as part of its analysis.

The Committee reasoned that the inclusion of this test would eliminate the possibility of over-enforcement in new-age markets and allow parties to legally defend their actions on the basis of the pro-competitive effects of their conduct. However, the change was not incorporated in the final draft of the proposed law, i.e., the 2023 Bill. It must be kept in mind, however, that currently, the CCI undertakes this analysis at its own discretion and going forward, it may employ the test at an increased frequency. 

IPR exemptions

The existing Act allows parties to take a defence on the basis of protection of IPR only in allegations involving anti-competitive agreements, i.e., Section 3 of the Act. The CLRC recommended the extension of this exemption to Section 4 of the Act to enable meaningful protection of innovation by parties. The recommendation was incorporated in the 2020 Bill, but was subsequently dropped in the 2022 draft. The Finance Committee, in its report, recommended its inclusion to facilitate the protection of IP and harmonise Sections 3 and 4 of the Act.

However, the recommendation was not incorporated in the 2023 Bill, despite two committees recommending its inclusion. An indication of the reasons behind this can be found in various submissions before the Finance Committee which stated that inclusion of the IPR defence isn’t preferable as it may allow companies to abuse their dominance and isn’t needed due to the presence of other defences in Section 4 of the Act. 

Hub and spoke cartels

In line with the CLRC’s recommendations, the 2020 and 2022 Bills introduced the concept of H&S cartels as part of amendments to Section 3 of the Act. The clause proposed that “an enterprise or association of enterprises or a person or association of persons though not engaged in identical or similar trade shall also be presumed to be part of the agreement under this sub-section if it actively participates in the furtherance of such agreement”.

In its earlier form, the clause only required “active” participation as a key element to establish an H&S cartel. However, the 2023 Bill updated it to also include “intention” as a key element, in line with the Finance Committee’s recommendations. The recommendation aims to prevent unintentional parties from being held liable for providing a platform for collusive conduct. It was observed that the provision should only apply to instances where enterprises have acted with the intention of furthering the cartel, ensuring that those who unknowingly provided a platform for collusive conduct are not unfairly scrutinised.

Settlement and Commitment

An S&C framework, that will enable the parties to file applications for the settlement of a case before the CCI, was proposed by the CLRC in 2019. The provision is aimed at facilitating the quick resolution of cases, freeing up institutional resources and avoiding long-drawn investigations in every scenario. The S&C framework has existed in each draft of the Bill since then but has arguably suffered from certain infirmities. The Finance Committee had recommended that cartels should be included in settlements, despite the argument that they are inherently anti-competitive. While the CLRC report did not recommend this, the Finance Committee subscribed to the notion that it should be included. The suggestion was, however, not incorporated in the final draft. 

Another key omission from the S&C framework pertains to allowing parties to withdraw the application. None of the iterations, including the 2023 Bill provide the parties with this power, despite the Finance Committee’s recommendations to the contrary. The Committee had observed that under the current provisions of the Bill, parties can only withdraw from the commitments or settlements process if the Commission rejects the application due to an inappropriate offer or if they fail to reach an agreement. In light of these two possible lacunae, it remains to be seen whether parties will eventually be disincentivised to follow the S&C route. 

Merger control

It has long been observed that the existing asset and turnover-based thresholds for merger notifications in the Act are not ideal to cover transactions in digital markets. To tackle this, the CLRC recommended an enabling provision that grants the government the power to introduce necessary thresholds for merger notification. The same was also incorporated in the 2020 draft.

However, there remained key concerns that the provision was very uncertain and gave the government disproportionate discretion on the subject. Resultantly, in the 2022 Bill, the provision was replaced with a new criterion, called the Deal Value Threshold (DVT) criteria wherein transactions with a value over Rs 2,000 crore have to be notified to the CCI, provided the parties have substantial business operations in India. To ensure that only relevant transactions with actual local nexus with Indian markets are covered, the Finance Committee recommended that the local nexus criteria should be ascertained only in the context of the target entity. The recommendation was thereafter accepted and incorporated in the 2023 draft. 

The 2023 Bill is expected to herald the Indian competition framework into a new era that can efficiently and meaningfully regulate new-age markets. To ensure that the implementation of the updated framework is done without regulatory arbitrage and negative impact on the functions of the markets, the role of different stakeholders must be kept in mind. 

In addition to the MCA, the CCI, parliamentary and ministerial committees, the role of civil society, the legal fraternity and industry must also be given due consideration in the conversations around the implementation of the updated law. 

—The writer is Programme Manager – Competition Law and Policy, The Dialogue

By Dev Dutta

The use of technological breakthroughs in outer space to explore, research, and use in an extra-terrestrial environment is not new. Because these innovations have become more of a private or commercial affair rather than a state-run endeavour, problems of Intellectual Property Rights controlling these advancements have just lately come to the fore.

The safeguarding of one’s innovation is critical to one’s success. As the world has come to realize the need for such safeguards, the demand for them has skyrocketed.

The private sector’s engagement in space necessitates significant investment because they provide a variety of services such as fabrication, broadcasting, and supplying material required to launch any type of space vehicle, among others. Then there’s the question of “Does the private sector provide adequate protection for pursuing space activities?” As a result, without strong protection for patents, trademarks, trade secrets, copyright, industrial design, and other IP rights, the private sector will have no incentive to invest.

Therefore, it is critical to recognize Intellectual Property Rights associated with space exploration so that the private sector can actively engage in exploring space.

Outer Space

Outer space (also known as space) is an area of the cosmos beyond the top layers of Earth’s atmosphere. The word is often used to distinguish it from airspace and territorial areas. The Fédération Aéronautique Internationale, on the other hand, has created the Kármán line, at an altitude of roughly 100 km, to define the border between the working definitions of aeronautics and astronautics. Unlike in the past, space research is no longer limited to government entities but has expanded to include commercial entities as well. However, non-governmental agencies’ participation does not mean they are immune from legal liability; Article VI of the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 states that States are responsible internationally for national activities in outer space carried out by governmental or non-governmental agencies and that the State must authorize non-governmental agency activities.

Intellectual Property Laws

Intellectual Property Rights in Space imply that the government is willing and able to protect works created outside of its traditional geographical limits, in space. If the work is economically exploited in Space, the owner of the creation has the right to seek legal action. Furthermore, one of the major problems with IP law’s protection of inventions in space is that its basis was established during the Cold War era when space was an object of interest for states rather than private enterprises inside the nation. On the other hand, intellectual property rights are intended to safeguard the interests of the creator(s). As a result, there is a natural conflict between the concepts of space law and IP laws.

There are at least two components to the policy for preserving IPRs. To begin with, intellectual property protection is intended to encourage human creativity for the public good by ensuring that the benefits derived from the exploitation of the creation will, if possible, inure to the creator himself, to both encourage creative activity and afford investors in research and development a fair return on their investments.

Is there a way to bring IPR and space ops together?

Undoubtedly, intellectual property is necessary for exploring space and contributing to extensive research and development. Several disputes, however, continue to exist. The implementation of any intellectual property rights may be incompatible with the idea of open and equal access to information, knowledge and resources produced from space operations, and may obstruct access to these resources.

Outer space law is now governed by five international treaties. “The Outer Space Treaty of 1967” is the only one that concerns governmental operations in space. The following are some of the treaty’s most important articles:

Article 1 of the treaty stipulates that outer space is open to all governments for usage and exploration. Outer space, in other words, cannot be claimed by a single country. It’s known as “Res-Communis,” which means “public domain” or “public property.”

Article 2 of the treaty: The sovereignty of outer space should not be subjected to any sort of state appropriation.

Article 8 of the treaty deals with the authority and control of a space object, and any people associated with it must remain in the state that registers it.

Whereas national laws regulate intellectual property, international organisations such as the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) have succeeded in unifying IP laws to some extent globally. Such harmonisation, however, is insufficient to extend such protection to space-related activities and innovations. The necessity of the hour is to establish a consistent legislative system controlling intellectual property rules in space so that emerging countries can benefit from their innovations rather than being dominated by developed ones. There is a wide range of new IP rights dimensions that can be opened up in outer space, such as the application of territory-based national laws in outer space for the enforcement of rights, entitlement, and ownership in the case of joint activities, compliance with international obligations, and so on. A standard enforcement mechanism, such as that of International Arbitration, must be developed in addition to a consistent legal framework to hear and adjudicate disputes arising from IPR in outer space.

What role does a trademark play in space?

The fundamental goal of a trademark is to preserve the company’s goodwill associated with its products and services. Trademarks must be different and unique to serve as a source identification in the marketplace. Words, symbols, colour combinations, and other symbols can all be used as trademarks. Trademarks for space-related products and services must also be adequately secured to prevent misunderstanding and dissemination, as well as to allow third parties to distinguish one innovation from another. Even though the Space Act is not enforceable outside of the United States, NASA must develop a worldwide trademark portfolio. It is registered in the European Union as well as seven additional countries, including Canada, Germany, Japan, and the United Kingdom. These registrations prohibit the use of the NASA symbol (blue “meatball”), NASA Logotype (“worm” logo), and NASA seal on non-NASA-sponsored items, publications, or webpages.

There is currently no provision for providing trademark protection to any innovations transported into space. Unlike a patent, it is concerned with the reputation and branding of the goods and services in question. Companies involved in manufacturing and commercial upstarts, like SpaceX, Orbital Sciences Corp., and XCOR, would seek to safeguard their invention and reputation in Space. Virgin Galactic is aiming to conduct commercial commerce in outer space, and as a result, companies seeking to exploit this trade will need to obtain trademark protection.

The role of patents in space

Before obtaining a patent for their work, each patent applicant must examine two major factors.

1. The jurisdiction(s) where the technology will be utilised before it is sent into orbit; and

2.The technology’s jurisdiction(s) and related “control” point(s).

Patents given by national governments are essentially territorial, making them difficult to grant in a location where there are currently no borders, such as space. This problem was solved by Article VIII of the Outer Space Treaty, which states that the State (Party to the Treaty) whose registry an object launched into outer space is carried on retains jurisdiction and control over that object, as well as any personnel on board, while in outer space or on a celestial body. The technology’s control point is also held by the state that registered the technology. For patent protection, the patentee must examine either the first or the second aspect, or a combination of both, depending on the space-constrained technology.

Role of Copy Rights in space.

Even though the term “originality” is not defined expressly in the copyright statute, it is nonetheless regarded as an important criterion for assessing whether or not a work qualifies for copyright. Original literary, dramatic, and creative works are protected by copyright. The raw data acquired by these satellites have no copyright value when it comes to space operations. However, copyright persists in the final processed or value-added data created after the raw geographical data has been disseminated. Copyrights can be used to protect satellite broadcast and reception. Since the 1960s, preventing unlawful interception and exploitation of copyrighted material broadcast via satellite has been a global problem. There is a serious deficiency in the same. Although Article 22 of the International Telecommunications Convention and Article 17 of the International Telecommunications Union’s Radio Regulations compel member nations to keep some telecommunications secret, its applicability to satellite signal interception is unclear. Direct broadcast satellite technology might potentially result in copyright concerns. As can be seen, no intellectual property rights can be claimed in Space because it is traditionally viewed as a common legacy of all people, and secondly, individual rights are far from being claimed under the OST, which requires the sharing of the advantages obtained from Space. A person/nation can only have exclusive rights to an object that is launched into space. In instances when there are two or more launching states, it is up to the parties to decide which one shall have jurisdiction and right over the item. Even though the innovation is registered and protected under the laws of the country in which it is made, the legislation that governs the activities of such an invention is still a huge vacuum.

Countries with IP law Compatible with Space Law

There are specific statutory provisions for the applicability of domestic IPR law to Space operations in the United States Law and the NASA Act. The US Space Bill, for example, extends patent law to outer space, but the NASA Act deems a space item to be nothing more than a “vehicle.” The latter has created a flexible intellectual property strategy that has proven to be highly effective in protecting proprietary interests while promoting industrial engagement in commercial space operations Even the European Space Agency has drafted a set of intellectual property standards, including contract regulations, provisions in optional programme implementing rules, and clauses in international agreements. Every year, the ESA submits around 20 patent applications relating to inventions made by its employees. It has also opted to use registered trademarks to protect the names of its programmes for those that are created and developed with the intention of future commercialization by a business set up for that purpose, such as the Arianne Program.

Although India is a member of all international space treaties, it is no different than most other nations when it comes to establishing its space legislation, namely, it lacks one. With India’s space operations constantly expanding, comprehensive and harmonised space legislation is urgently needed.

Space operations have experienced a massive paradigm change as a result of technological advancements. Implementation of IP rights and safeguarding the rights of the author/inventor/company, etc. in our Space legislation is becoming increasingly important as the number of space missions grows. Any business has an incentive to innovate and create superior technologies since it has exclusive rights to its innovations, which means no one else can use them. Intellectual property rights are the sole means to provide such an exclusive right. As a result, IPR laws must be brought in line with Space Laws for the sake of space travel as a whole.

—Dev Dutta is a 4th year B.A LL.B student of the University of Calcutta

Chief Justice of India N.V. Ramana on Saturday stressed on improved judicial infrastructure in the country, especially in view of the vesting of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) jurisdiction from IPAB to the High Courts.

Addressing the national seminar on adjudication of IPR disputes in India, the CJI said judicial infrastructure needs to be improved.

“Unfortunately, we are not even meeting the basic minimum standards in this area. It has been my endeavour since assuming the office of Chief Justice of India, to put in place an institutional mechanism to co-ordinate and oversee the improvement of judicial infrastructure.”

He further said that mere allocation of funds was not enough. The challenge was to put the available resources to optimum use.

“I have been pursuing the
government for setting up of statutory authorities, both at the centre
and at the states. I have recently emphasised about the need for continuous training and upgradation of skills as one of the major challenges before the Indian judiciary,” he added.

The CJI said the vesting of IPR jurisdiction back in the High Court comes at a time when the judiciary is already overburdened with the backlog.

“However, this would not deter us from rising to the occasion and putting in place systems which may be required to deal with the new regime. It is an appropriate moment to build sufficient capacities in our High Courts, so that intellectual property litigation can be conducted efficiently and smoothly.

“It is in this context that the seminar organised today is of significant value.

“These new and additional challenges can be effectively met by strengthening the High Courts. Not only do we need to fill the existing
vacancies on an urgent basis, but there is also a need to increase the
number of judges. With better service conditions, we may be able to
attract more and more talents into our fold,” he added.

The CJI stressed on provisions for stronger enforcement and action against infringement. He suggested undertaking awareness campaigns,
especially in rural areas. There have
been a few success stories like Darjeeling tea and Chanderi silk. These
success stories need to be studied and replicated in other GIs as well.

He said with the start-ups coming up in a big way across the country driven
by innovative youth, this field of law has become more relevant than
ever before.

Coming to the judicial setup to deal with issues related to IPR a
brief background of development in law should be looked into. It is a historically known fact that prior to the 1999 Trade Marks Act, all litigation relating to intellectual property was being handled by the District Courts and the five High Courts namely Delhi, Bombay, Calcutta, Madras and Gujarat.

However, in 1999, the Intellectual
Property Appellate Board (IPAB) was created as a specialised Tribunal
for dealing with IPR cases, added Justice Ramana.

The CJI said, “When I visited Japan in 2016 to attend a conference on IPR, I was repeatedly asked by the entrepreneurs as to how investor friendly the Indian judicial system is. In fact, whenever I travel abroad, from a cross section of hosts, I keep getting similar queries. My answer has always
remained the same; that the Indian judiciary is absolutely independent
and it always treats all the parties equally and equitably.

“With the advancement of technology, we are witnessing more complex issues in litigation, be it in IPR, IT and other fields. The complexities involved demand assistance from experts and specialists in the adjudication process,” he said.

Talking about Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman, CJI Ramana said she was one of the most powerful Ministers, by virtue of holding the purse strings of the country. Her area of research during her student days was Trade relations within the GATT framework. Her academic research, coupled with practical experience in the ministries
of Commerce and Finance, are a great help in formulating the policies, he added.

On setting up of the Intellectual Property Division in Delhi High Court, Justice Ramana appreciated the efforts made by Justice Pratibha Singh, calling her an authority on IPR. The fact that she left her lucrative practice, is a testament to her commitment to public service, he added.

The CJI also mentioned the efforts made by Justice Sanjeev Narula, member of IPD Committee, in framing of new rules.

He said, “The Intellectual Property Division of the Delhi High Court and its functioning would hopefully serve as a model, which could be replicated.

“While protecting the interests
of today, we must not lose sight of the bigger picture. This is where a
judicial mind comes into play. While adjudicating the claims of
intellectual property rights, you must balance the contemporary claims
with the sustainable interests of the future generations,” added the CJI.

He said Intellectual property was a field of law, which protected the creativity and innovation. Its importance was also felt during the ongoing pandemic.

Innovation, and that too quick innovation, has become the order of the day. With the onset of the pandemic, vaccines and medications had to be researched, trials had to be conducted and commercial scale
manufacturing had to take place within a span of few months.

When the future generations will look back; the past two years of
pandemic will tell the story of human resilience and power of
innovation.

He said, “IPR touches every aspect of our life. From the food we eat, to the
books and movies we enjoy, to the appliances and tools we use.

“IPR is not a new chapter in Indian jurisprudence. The earlier Patent
Act of 1970 was framed with an objective; to provide a reasonable
balance between adequate and effective protection of patents on the
one hand; and technological development, public interest and specific needs of the country on the other.

“With the advent of economic liberalisation, the country’s IPR regime
has undergone a rapid transformation. This transformation was driven
by the compulsions of integrating our economy with that of the world,” he added.

As per the CJI, during the Uruguay Round of trade negotiations under GATT, the developed world pushed for mandatory inclusion of IPR in every sphere.

He said, “Considering the fact that 99 percent of the global patents were held by the developed world, any agreement for their protection was perceived as favourable to them, at the cost of developing countries.

“The inclusion of intellectual property in the agenda of trade negotiations was a bone of contention between the developed and the developing countries. For some, TRIPS was a product of bargain, while others viewed it as coercion.

“Generally speaking, the popular narrative in the third world was
that IPR was a self-serving tool of the developed world to further their
revenues from emerging foreign markets,” noted CJI Ramana.

As India was embarking on liberalisation, it hoped that the
international trade negotiations would help developing countries to
integrate with the global economy on favourable terms, he noted.

The CJI said in the absence of a level-playing field, India and other developing countries, had to
negotiate over several rounds.

Aided by domestic pressure exerted by the opposition and the civil society, we had to bargain hard before
achieving certain concessions while signing TRIPS.

Today, India’s position as the Pharma hub of the globe is largely attributable to the existing IPR regime. Several pharmaceutical Multi National Companies have been contracting Research & Development to national laboratories in India for the past two decades.

The existing framework has enabled a massive growth of pharmaceutical exports by India, with local firms building capabilities in making generic products. The lower price of generic drugs has enabled access to lifesaving
medicines for those in the developing and under-developed countries.

Indian pharmas have been producing low-cost treatments for HIV, tuberculosis, and malaria, and are the major vaccine producers of the
world. Today, India has rightfully earned the title of ‘pharmacy of the
world’.

He said, “Whenever we talk about IPR regime in India, it always reminds us
of Novartis vs Union of India. The Supreme Court stopped the practice
of the pharma industry, to extend the patent period by simply tweaking
some constituent element. This decision has helped common man, by
ensuring that lifesaving drugs are available at an affordable cost.

“The second sector I would want to concentrate on, is the impact of
IPR on agriculture. As a son of a farmer, my views can be taken to be
biased. I understand the hard work and labour involved in farming.
Agriculture is the back-bone of our country. Our history in agriculture
encompasses our ethos, culture and living. In India, the art of developing new varieties and techniques, usually gets passed on from generation to generation. Unlike western countries, agriculture is seen as a community right.

“In modern times, private companies have entered this arena in developing new varieties and high yielding plants. Huge investments in bio-technology have resulted in slow degradation of community knowledge and is replaced by private ownership. These companies
expect a certain level of protection for the variants of plants they develop.

“In order to strike a balance between innovation and concerns as such rights of farmers and food security, in line with TRIPS, India enacted the ‘Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers Rights Act’ 2001.

“The third area which I would like to highlight is Geographical Indications. From Banarasi to Pochampally Sarees, from Darjeeling tea to Banaganapally mangoes, Tirupathi laddu to Dharwad Peda, Geographical Indications represent our tradition, heritage and
territory.

“India has around 400 registered geographical indications. However, we can observe that there is a great disparity between the States in India concerning GI registration. Though certain states are performing well others are yet to catch up. There is an
immediate need to take corrective steps to achieve the full potential of
geographical indications,” he added.

Full speech of Chief Justice of India N.V. Ramana’s speech:

The Delhi High Court has created an Intellectual Property Division (IPD) to deal with all matters related to intellectual property rights (IPR).

The Tribunals Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Ordinance, 2021 was promulgated by the President of India and was notified on April 04, 2021.

The Chief Justice of the High Court of Delhi, Justice D.N. Patel constituted a committee of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Sanjeev Narula, in order to have a streamlined and comprehensive review of the manner in which a large quantum of IPR cases ought to be dealt with.

The Committee submitted its report to the Chief Justice both in respect of IPR and non-IPR subject statutes.

The power to deal with all the pending matters before the said Boards/Tribunals as also fresh matters under these statutes, have now been vested in the High Courts.

The press release said that, Under the various Intellectual Property related statutes, the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) was dealing with appeals from the IP offices as also matters such as revocation of Trade Marks, Patents, etc.

“As per information received from the IPAB, approx. 3000 cases are now to be transferred to the High Court of Delhi. In addition, the Delhi High Court is already seized various categories of IPR matters namely suits relating to Infringement of Trade Marks, Copyrights, Patents, Writ Petitions, Revision petitions arising from IPR suits before the Commercial Courts, appeals from orders/judgments the Commercial Courts concerning IPR suits, etc”, the press release states.

“Based on the recommendations of the Committee, the Chief Justice has been pleased to direct the creation of the Intellectual Property Division (IPD) in the Court to deal with all matters related to Intellectual Property Rights. The IPD so created, besides dealing with original proceedings, would also deal with the Writ Petitions (Civil), CMM, RFA, FAO relating to Intellectual Property Rights disputes (except those which are required to be dealt with by the Division Bench)”, said the press release.

Also Read: Supreme Court to continue hearing appeal filed by woman seeking CBI enquiry into her daughter’s death

The press release added,

“IPD Benches shall be notified by the Chief Justice from time to time. Exclusive IPD Benches are also likely to be created for dealing with such matters. Office-Order is also going to be issued specifying nomenclature to be given to such Petitions and also about payment of court-fee for such matters”.

The press release stated that the Delhi High Court is also in the process of framing comprehensive Rules for the IPD. A committee has already been constituted for framing of the `Delhi High Court Patent Rules’ which shall govern the procedures for adjudication of patent disputes before the Delhi High Court. The first draft of these Rules has already been notified for stakeholders’ comments, which have been received.

“The creation of the Intellectual Property Division (IPD) in the High Court of Delhi is a significant step which is in line with global practices in this regard. Such IP Divisions or IP Courts, which exclusively deal with IPR matters, already exist in UK, Japan, Malaysia, Thailand, China etc., The creation of IPD with comprehensive Rules governing IPR matters is a momentous step taken towards efficient disposal of such matters”, the press release reads.