Let us check how much you know about Competing Rationale of Legal Regimes for the Protection of Intellectual Property Rights by taking this amazing quiz on this topic do click here

Introduction

Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) are a cornerstone of the modern knowledge economy, intended to foster innovation, creativity, and economic development. These rights confer a legal monopoly on the use of creations of the human mind, such as inventions, literary and artistic works, symbols, names, and images. However, the rationale behind granting such monopolies is often contested. There exists a fundamental tension between protecting private interests through IPRs and ensuring the public’s access to knowledge and cultural goods.

This article explores the competing rationales of legal regimes in protecting IPRs, with a particular focus on Indian laws and their interplay with international treaties. It also examines leading judicial decisions and doctrinal debates to understand how different legal systems justify and reconcile these competing interests.

I. Theoretical Foundations of Intellectual Property Law

The rationale for the protection of IPRs has historically been grounded in four primary theories:

1. Utilitarian Theory (Economic Incentives)

Predominantly followed in the United States and influencing global IP norms, this theory posits that IPRs encourage innovation by offering economic rewards. By granting temporary monopolies, the state incentivizes creators and inventors to invest time and resources in creating knowledge goods.

“The patent system adds the fuel of interest to the fire of genius.” – Abraham Lincoln

However, critics argue that excessive protection can stifle innovation, especially when it leads to patent thickets or evergreening.

2. Natural Rights (Lockean Theory)

Rooted in John Locke’s philosophy, this theory holds that individuals have a natural right to the fruits of their intellectual labor. The effort one puts into creating something gives them a moral claim over it.

This theory is more prevalent in continental European systems and underlies moral rights in copyright law, as enshrined in the Berne Convention.

3. Personality Theory

Advanced by Hegel and Kant, this theory emphasizes the extension of an individual’s personality into their creations. This justifies not only economic rights but also inalienable moral rights, such as the right of attribution and integrity.

4. Social Planning Theory

This more recent theory views IP as a tool to promote a just and flourishing society. It emphasizes access, dissemination, and democratic participation, challenging the over-concentration of IP ownership in corporations.

II. Indian Legal Regime on Intellectual Property

India’s IP framework is a hybrid system that reflects international norms while attempting to balance development priorities and access concerns.

A. Constitutional Backdrop

Though the Indian Constitution does not explicitly mention IPRs, Article 300A provides that no person shall be deprived of their property save by the authority of law. Moreover, Article 27 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), which India supports, highlights the right to the protection of moral and material interests resulting from authorship.

B. Statutory Regimes

1. The Patents Act, 1970 (as amended in 2005)

• Grants exclusive rights for inventions for 20 years.
• TRIPS-compliant post-2005 amendment.
• Section 3(d) prevents evergreening: Novartis AG v. Union of India [(2013) 6 SCC 1] upheld this to promote public health and access.

2. The Copyright Act, 1957

• Protects original literary, artistic, musical, and dramatic works.
• Includes moral rights under Section 57, aligning with the Berne Convention.
• Key case: Amarnath Sehgal v. Union of India [(2005) 30 PTC 253 (Del)] – upheld the artist’s moral rights even after the sale of the artwork.

3. The Trade Marks Act, 1999

• Provides for registration and protection of trademarks.
• Recognizes well-known trademarks and protection against dilution.
• Cadila Healthcare Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. [(2001) 5 SCC 73] established strict rules for passing off and consumer confusion.

4. The Designs Act, 2000

• Protects novel industrial designs for 10 years (extendable by 5).
• Bharat Glass Tube Ltd. v. Gopal Glass Works Ltd. [(2008) 10 SCC 657] emphasized originality as key for design protection.

5. The Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999

• Recognizes and protects goods with specific geographical origin and qualities.
• Notable GI examples: Darjeeling Tea, Basmati Rice, Kanchipuram Silk.

6. The Semiconductor Integrated Circuits Layout-Design Act, 2000

• A relatively underused statute that protects layout designs of semiconductor circuits.

III. International Treaties and India’s Obligations

A. TRIPS Agreement (1994)

The WTO-administered Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights is the most comprehensive multilateral IP treaty.

Key features:

• Sets minimum standards for all IP categories.
• Compulsory licensing under Article 31 allows states to override patents for public health reasons.

India utilized this flexibility in:

• Natco Pharma Ltd. v. Bayer Corporation (2012): The first compulsory license was granted for Nexavar (anti-cancer drug) to ensure affordability.

B. Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (1886)

• Establishes moral rights and automatic copyright without formal registration.
• India is a signatory and aligns its law accordingly, especially under Section 57 of the Copyright Act.

C. Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (1883)

• Provides for national treatment and the right of priority.
• India is a member and incorporates its principles in the Patents and Trade Marks Acts.

D. Madrid Protocol (2007 for India)

• Facilitates international registration of trademarks.
• India joined in 2013, simplifying the trademark registration process globally.

E. WIPO Treaties

India is a member of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and adheres to several treaties under it, though not yet a party to WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) or WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT).

IV. Competing Rationales in Indian and Global Contexts

A. Public Health vs. Patent Monopoly

India has consistently prioritized public health over patent exclusivity. Section 3(d) of the Patents Act is a deliberate departure from TRIPS-maximalist interpretations.

In Novartis AG v. Union of India, the Supreme Court held that mere incremental innovation does not warrant patent protection, particularly if it fails to show enhanced therapeutic efficacy.

This case illustrated India’s developmental approach to IP – balancing innovation incentives with affordability.

B. Access to Knowledge vs. Copyright

While copyright protects authors, it can also impede access to education and culture. India’s 2012 Copyright Amendment introduced fair use exceptions for disabled individuals and educational institutions.

Case law: Delhi University Photocopy Case – The Chancellor, Masters & Scholars of the University of Oxford v. Rameshwari Photocopy Services (2016 Delhi HC) – upheld fair use in academic settings.

This decision received global attention as it balanced education access with copyright rights, leaning towards public interest.

C. Commercial Identity vs. Freedom of Expression in Trademarks

Trademark law must navigate the line between protecting brand identity and upholding free speech.

In Tata Sons Ltd. v. Greenpeace International [(2011) 178 DLT 705], the court allowed Greenpeace to parody the Tata logo in an online game, recognizing the importance of criticism and parody as free speech.

D. Traditional Knowledge and Biopiracy

India has been a vocal advocate of protecting traditional knowledge (TK) and biodiversity, often inadequately covered under conventional IP frameworks.

The Turmeric and Neem patent challenges in the U.S. highlighted the misuse of traditional Indian knowledge.

India responded with the Traditional Knowledge Digital Library (TKDL), which documents indigenous knowledge and is accessible to patent offices worldwide to prevent wrongful patents.

V. Challenges and Way Forward

1. TRIPS Plus Pressures

Free Trade Agreements (FTAs), especially with developed countries, often push for TRIPS-Plus standards (e.g., longer protection, data exclusivity), which could undermine India’s access safeguards.

2. Digital Economy and AI-Created Works

IP laws are ill-equipped to handle emerging tech challenges like AI-generated content, NFTs, and decentralized IP ownership. India needs to develop policies that accommodate new forms of creativity and distribution.

3. Patent Quality and Backlogs

Despite a robust legal framework, the Indian patent system suffers from administrative delays and lack of examiners. Efforts like Mission Karmayogi aim to enhance IP office efficiency.

4. Public Awareness and Enforcement

India’s IP awareness and enforcement remain weak, particularly among MSMEs and rural innovators. The National IPR Policy (2016) promotes IP education, startup facilitation, and enforcement coordination.

Conclusion

The competing rationales of IP protection reflect a broader philosophical and policy debate between private monopoly and public interest. India, with its unique developmental concerns, has carved out a path that aligns with global norms while safeguarding access, equity, and innovation.

Legal regimes—domestic and international—must evolve to ensure that IPRs serve their intended purpose: fostering creativity and innovation while advancing human development. A balanced, context-sensitive, and flexible approach is key to ensuring that intellectual property becomes a tool for inclusive progress

Select References and Citations

1. Novartis AG v. Union of India, (2013) 6 SCC 1.
2. Amarnath Sehgal v. Union of India, (2005) 30 PTC 253 (Del).
3. Cadila Healthcare Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., (2001) 5 SCC 73.
4. Chancellor, Masters & Scholars of the University of Oxford v. Rameshwari Photocopy Services, (2016) Delhi HC.
5. WTO TRIPS Agreement: https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/t_agm0_e.htm
6. The Patents Act, 1970: https://ipindia.gov.in/writereaddata/Portal/ev/sections/ps3.pdf
7. The Copyright Act, 1957: https://copyright.gov.in/Documents/CopyrightRules1957.pdf
8. Ministry of Commerce and Industry – National IPR Policy 2016: https://dpiit.gov.in/sites/default/files/National_IPR_Policy_English.pdf
9. WIPO Treaties: https://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/

Would you like this article formatted for academic publication, with footnotes or a bibliography in Bluebook or APA style?