NEW SYLLABUS

543
Roll No. ..................................... : 1 : OPEN BOOK EXAMINATION

Time allowed : 3 hours Maximum marks : 100

Total number of questions : 4 Total number of printed pages : 7

NOTE : Answer ALL Questions.

1. A confectionery company VITA was launched in India in 1940 which owned many registered

trademarks in India and abroad. The Company is particularly famous for its “Gluco” biscuit.

With its unique color scheme and design of farmyard scene the wrapper was registered as

a trademark in December 1942. This wrapper is used in connection with the sale of their

biscuits known as “VITA Gluco Biscuits” printed on the wrapper. The wrapper is of blue

color and depicts a farmyard with a girl in the center carrying a pail of water and cows

and hens around her on the background of a farmyard house and trees. For decades, the

company had been selling its biscuits in this iconic packaging, building a reputation and goodwill

among customers as of which it became well known.

However, in March 1961, they discovered that another company MTC was using a wrapper

that they believed was deceptively similar to their registered trademark. VITA served a notice

to prohibit the use of their wrapper but MTC, continued to use the wrapper. As a result,

VITA filed a lawsuit seeking an injunction.

1/2025/IPRLP/NS/OBE P.T.O.
543
: 2 :

MTC, in their defense, claimed they were unaware of the registered trademarks and denied

that their wrapper was similar to the registered design. They argued that there were notable

differences between the two wrappers. For instance, their design depicted a girl carrying

a bundle of hay on her head and carrying a sickle and a bundle of food in one hand,

the cow, and hens that were different from those in the other party’s wrapper. There was

also said to be a difference in the design of the buildings on the two wrappers and the

words printed on the two wrappers were distinct and separate.

In the light of the above facts, answer the following questions :

(a) Discuss the concept of Passing off in the context of Trademark Law. What is the

difference between Infringement and Passing off ?

(b) A mark has a direct reference to the character of the Goods/Service. Examine the

statement in the light of its capability of distinguishing the Goods/Services from those

of others.

(c) Explain the concept of Trade Description under Trademark Law.

(d) Describe the ingredients of Ecological Diversity.

(e) Explain the management process of Intellectual Property.

(5 marks each)

1/2025/IPRLP/NS/OBE Contd. ........

2. The United Kingdom based Company BREXIT along with members of the Scotch Whisky
Association (SWA) filed a suit before the Delhi High Court for permanent injunction to prevent
the Defendant, Golden Bottling Ltd., an Indian based company from selling whisky under
the name “Red Scot” or any other similar designation incorporating the word “Scot”, that
creates misrepresentation with the genuine Scotch whisky.

The SWA had previously many times appealed to the defendant from using the word ‘Scot’
or ‘Scotch’ in their whisky productions and dealings, for two years, the defendant dropped
using the word Scot in their product, later on again it was found that the defendant was
still selling Red Scot Whisky in the market. Therefore, the plaintiff filed a suit before the
Delhi High Court. Subsequently, a summon was duly served accompanied by an injunction
to prohibit the defendant from further using the word Red Scot or Scot. However, despite
service of the summons, the defendant did not appear before the court. Consequently, the
Court continued the proceedings ex parte against the defendant. The Delhi High Court in
its final verdict provided a permanent injunction in favor of the plaintiff as they sought, and
also ordered compensation amounting to Rupees Five Lakh along with litigation cost.
In the light of the above case, answer the following questions :

(a) Explain the nature and purpose of the Geographical Indication Act.

(b) What is bio-piracy ? Examine the impact of bio-piracy on bio-diversity.

(c) How does the court’s interpretation of software as a ‘literary work’ under the Copyright
Act, 1957, influence the legal protection of digital intellectual property in India ?

(d) Explain the functions of Semi-Conductor Integrated Circuits Layout Design Registry.

(e) Discuss the criteria outlined in the GI Act for a Good that cannot be registered
as a geographical indication. Provide examples to illustrate your points.

(5 marks each)

1/2025/IPRLP/NS/OBE P.T.O.
543
: 4 :

3. The principle of novelty in patent law is a cornerstone in determining whether an invention

qualifies for patent protection. A fundamental requirement for patentability, novelty ensures

that the invention is genuinely new and has not been disclosed in any form before the date

of filing. Judicial precedents have shaped the legal understanding of novelty, as evident in

Ganjendra Nath Banerji v. Dhanpal Das Gupta, AIR 1945 in which the court ruled that

no fixed rule can define what constitutes an invention. Instead, the assessment depends on

whether the claimed invention represents an unexpected advancement beyond the ordinary

progression of a given field. If a person skilled in that trade could have arrived at the claimed

invention through routine developments without an inventive step, the invention lacks novelty.

However, novelty does not always reside in the final product; it may exist in the manufacturing

process, making procedural innovations patentable even if the resulting product is known.

Additionally, a novel combination of previously known elements may be sufficient to establish

novelty if the combination results in a synergistic effect rather than a mere aggregation of

known features. For a patent to be granted, an applicant must not only demonstrate an

improvement upon the prior art but also prove that the improvement contributes significantly

to the existing body of knowledge. The novelty of the invention must be explicitly stated

in the claims section of the patent application, as this defines the legal scope of protection

and distinguishes the invention from prior art. The emphasis on novelty ensures that patents

are granted only for genuine innovations, thereby promoting technological advancement and

economic progress.

1/2025/IPRLP/NS/OBE Contd. ........

Answer the following :

(a) What is meant by ‘Doctrine of Colorable Variation” ? Explain the doctrine with the
help of decided cases.

(b) Explain piracy of a registered design under the provisions of the Design Act, 2000.
State the penalties provided for piracy of a registered design.

(c) What is the process of pre-grant opposition and post-grant opposition of a patent
in India ?

(d) “A new variety shall not be registered under the Plant Varieties Protection and Farmers’
Rights Act, 2001 unless it satisfies certain criteria”. Explain the meaning of new variety
and the criteria required in this regard.

(e) “An applicant desirous of obtaining a patent is required to describe fully the invention
therein claimed in a complete specification.” Bring out the meaning and importance
of complete specification.

(5 marks each)

4. Competition Law and Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) have historically evolved as distinct
legal frameworks, each serving different yet interrelated objectives. While both legal systems
strive to promote innovation, economic growth, and consumer welfare, they achieve these
goals through different mechanisms. Intellectual property rights are designed to incentivize innovation
by granting inventors exclusive rights over their creations, thereby enabling them to commercially
exploit their inventions for a limited period. These rights encourage further advancements by
ensuring that valuable knowledge is not kept secret but instead made available to the public.
Conversely, competition law seeks to maintain a level playing field in the market by preventing
monopolistic practices, regulating mergers, and promoting fair trade. By preventing undue market
concentration and restrictive business practices, competition law ensures that no single entity
exerts excessive control over a particular industry.

1/2025/IPRLP/NS/OBE P.T.O.
543
: 6 :

The interplay between these two legal systems becomes particularly complex when the exclusive
rights conferred by IP laws come into conflict with competition regulations. While IP laws
allow for temporary monopolies on inventions, competititon law curtails the abuse of such
monopolistic privileges to ensure that market competition remains healthy. In recent years,
regulatory authorities and courts have intervened in cases where intellectual property owners
have exercised their exclusive rights in a manner that distorts competition. Certain actions,
which would ordinarily be lawful under intellectual property statutes, have been deemed anti-
competitive when they lead to unfair market dominance or restrict consumer access to essential
innovations. This regulatory intervention has sparked debates regarding the harmonization of
competition law with intellectual property regimes, as businesses leveraging their IP assets
increasingly face scrutiny under “second-tier” competition regulations. One of the most contentious
issues arises when an IP rights holder engages in practices that hinder consumer welfare
and market innovation. In such scenarios, competition law serves as a corrective mechanism,
ensuring that the owner of an intellectual property right does not misuese their dominant position
to the detriment of market fairness.
The primary tools of competition law include prohibiting anti-competitive agreements, preventing
the abuse of dominant market positions, regulating mergers and acquisitions, and encouraging
the efficient allocation of resources. These regulations help protect consumer interests by fostering
a market environment where a variety of choices, superior-quality products, and competitive
pricing exist. In contrast, intellectual property law maintains a delicate equilibrium between
granting exclusive rights to innovators and serving the greater public interest. It guarantees
that creators receive adequate protection and commercial benefits while preventing the indefinite
monopolization of knowledge. IP rights provide a temporary legal monopoly, enabling innovators
to reap economic benefits from their creations before such knowledge becomes part of the
public domain. The intersection of competition law and IPR underscores the necesssity for
a balanced approach that fosters innovation while preserving market competitiveness. Regulators
and policymakers must ensure that intellectual property protections do not become instruments
for market manipulation, thereby stifling competition and restricting consumer access to
technological advancements. Ultimately, the coexistence of these legal frameworks must be
structured to encourage technological progress, facilitate fair market practices, and protect
consumer interests, ensuring a dynamic and competitive global economy.
1/2025/IPRLP/NS/OBE Contd. ........
 543
: 7 :

Answer the following :

(a) How can competition law effectively regulate the abuse of intellectual property rights

without undermining the incentive structures that drive innovation ?

(b) Explain briefly the key clauses in Technology Transfer Agreement.

(c) Explain the key features of INCOPAT Global Patent database.

(d) What are the acts that do not constitute infringement of broadcast reproduction right

and performers’ right ?

(e) Explain how Personality theory justifies IPR.

(5 marks each)

————— o —————

1/2025/IPRLP/NS/OBE P.T.O.