There is a well-established statutory, administrative and judicial framework to safeguard intellectual property rights in India, whether they relate to patents, trademarks, copyright or industrial designs. Well-known international trademarks have been protected in India even when they were not registered in India.  The Indian Trademarks Law has been extended through court decisions to service marks in addition to trade marks for goods.  Computer software companies have successfully curtailed piracy through court orders.  Computer databases have been protected.  The courts, under the doctrine of breach of confidentiality, accorded an extensive protection of trade secrets.  Right to privacy, which is not protected even in some developed countries, has been recognized in India.

Protection of intellectual property rights in India continues to be strengthened further. The year 1999 witnessed the consideration and passage of major legislation with regard to protection of intellectual property rights in harmony with international practices and in compliance with India's obligations under TRIPS. These include:

1.      The Patents (Amendment) Act, 1999 passed by the Indian Parliament on March 10, 1999 to amend the Patents Act of 1970 that provides for establishment of a mail box system to file patents and accords exclusive marketing rights for 5 years.

2.      The Trade Marks Bill, 1999 which repeals and replaces the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 passed by the Indian Parliament in the Winter Session that concluded on December 23, 1999.

3.      The Copyright (Amendment) Act, 1999 passed by both houses of the Indian Parliament, and signed by the President of India on December 30, 1999.

4.      A sui generis legislation for the protection of geographical indications called the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration & Protection) Bill, 1999 approved by both houses of the Indian Parliament on December 23, 1999.

5.      The Industrial Designs Bill, 1999 which replaces the Designs Act, 1911 was passed in the Upper House of the Indian Parliament in the Winter Session which concluded on December 23, 1999 and is presently before the Lower House for its consideration.

6.      The Patents (Second Amendment) Bill, 1999 to further amend the Patents Act, 1970 and make it TRIPS compliant was introduced in the Upper House of Indian Parliament on December 20, 1999.

In addition to the above legislative changes, the Government of India has taken several measures to streamline and strengthen the intellectual property administration system in the country. Projects relating to the modernization of patent information services and trademarks registry have been implemented with help from WIPO/UNDP. The Government of India is implementing a project for modernization of patent offices at a cost of Rs.756 million incorporating several components such as human resource development, recruiting additional examiners, infrastructure support and strengthening by way of computerization and re-engineering work practices, and elimination of backlog of patent applications. An amendment to the Patent Rules was notified on June 2, 1999 to simplify the procedural aspects.

The Trade Marks Registry is also proposed to be further strengthened and modernized. A project for modernization was earlier implemented during 1993-96. Further strengthening of the Registry is being taken up at a cost of Rs.86 million. The main thrust now is to strengthen the infrastructure of the Trade Marks Registry and the early removal of backlog of pending applications, transfer of records to CD-ROM’s, re-engineering of work processes, appointment of additional examiners, etc.

As regards the aspect enforcement, Indian enforcement agencies are now working very effectively and there has been a notable decline in the levels of piracy in India.  In addition to intensifying raids against copyright infringers, the Government has taken a number of measures to strengthen the enforcement of copyright law. Special cells for copyright enforcement have been set up in 23 States and Union Territories. In addition, for collective administration of copyright, copyright societies have been set up for different classes of works.

Concerns expressed over IPR protection & India’s response

It has been alleged that there is absence of effective patent protection in the pharmaceutical sector. India does provide for patents in the pharmaceutical sector.  However, in terms of Section 5 of the Patents Act, the patents are presently restricted to the methods or process of manufacture and not extended to the substances/products themselves.  In terms of the TRIPS Agreement, India has time till January 1, 2005 to extend patent protection to this area. The ten year transition period available for providing product patents to pharmaceutical products is within WTO rules.

It has been further alleged that India has failed to meet its current obligations required under Articles 70.8 and 70.9 of the TRIPS Agreement by implementing appropriate, conforming mailbox and exclusive marketing rights procedures. However, the Government of India has taken the following steps to meet its obligations under Articles 70.8 and 70.9:

1.      On December 31, 1994, Government of India promulgated an Ordinance to provide a means to receive product patent applications in the fields of pharmaceutical and agricultural chemical products and also for grant of exclusive marketing rights. Pursuant to this measure the Indian Patent Office has been receiving product patent applications in those fields.

2.      India has established a mail box system through administrative instructions. Numerous applications have already been filed in this mail box system, and many of them have been filed by US companies;

3.      India has also made changes to its Patents Act to put in place a machinery for implementation of Articles 70.8 and 70.9 by providing for establishment of a mail box system to file patents and according exclusive marketing rights for 5 years. This provision was made in the Patents (Amendment) Act of 1999.

Concern has also been expressed over the compulsory licensing provision in the Patents (Amendment) Act, 1999. It may be noted that as per the provisions of Section 84 of Patents Act, 1970 and Clause 35 of Patents (Second Amendment) Bill, 1999, a compulsory license may be granted in case the patented invention has not met the reasonable requirement of the public at a reasonable price. This provision is intended to provide for necessary and adequate safeguard for the protection of public interest taking in to account the specific needs of a developing country like India.

This fact is supported by the US Health GAP Coalition. In their submission to the USTR, they have drawn attention to the announcement by President Clinton on December 1, 1999, that the US would henceforth take health concerns into account when formulating trade policies. They state that overly restrictive intellectual property regimes can - and have - lead to situations in which patent holders price commodities above levels at which  they can feasibly be purchased in the developing world. When this happens with pharmaceuticals, a public health crisis ensues. Health GAP Coalition, therefore, requests USTR to view IPR decisions made by foreign governments in the context of their health concerns, especially those countries that are simply trying to ensure that their citizens have adequate access to medicines.

Furthermore, the compulsory licensing system has been in place since the inception of the Patents Act, 1970 in India.  It is noteworthy that not a single case of misuse of this provision has been observed during the last 30 years. An application for compulsory license may be granted only after the applicant has approached the patentee prior to the application with an offer to grant license on reasonable terms and conditions (as per Clause 36 of Patents (Second Amendment) Bill, 1999). In determining whether or not to grant a compulsory license, the Controller of Patents is required to take in to account, the nature of the invention, the time that has elapsed since the sealing of the patent and the measures already taken by the patentee or any licensee to make full use of the invention (Section 85 of Patents Act, 1970). In settling terms of a compulsory license, the Controller of Patents is required to secure that the articles manufactured under the patent shall be available to the public at the lowest prices consistent with the patentees deriving a reasonable advantage from their patent rights (Section 97(1)(ii)). These provisions substantiate the extant of a non-discriminatory administration of compulsory licenses.

In addition, the Patents (Second Amendment) Bill, 1999 has provided for an appeals process, before an Appellate Board, on any decisions by the Controller of Patents including a grant of compulsory license (Clause 54) before approaching the Indian Courts. The Patents Law provides for compulsory license to avoid misuse of an Exclusive Marketing Right by the right holder. This provision meets a larger public interest, keeping in mind the specific Indian conditions and are in compliance with Article 31 of TRIPS.

The Indian Patent laws are neutral in their application to domestic or foreign inventions. Any disqualification, compulsory licensing, and exclusion from patentability, are provided for only in the larger interest to provide therein necessary and adequate safeguards for the protection of public interest, national security, bio-diversity, traditional knowledge, etc. These provisions are within the sphere allowed under Article 27, 30 and 31 of TRIPS.

It is to be noted that 1999 has been a year of great coherence of political will, resulting in the passage of major IPR laws and work toward the establishment of an effective administration mechanism.

Copyright protection in India

India has one of the most modern copyright protection laws in the world. Major development in the area of copyright during 1999 was the amendment to the Copyright Act of 1957 to make it fully compatible with the provisions of the TRIPS Agreement. Called the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 1999, this amendment was signed by the President of India on December 30, 1999 and came into force on January 15, 2000.

The earlier 1994 amendment to the Copyright Act of 1957 had provided protection to all original literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works, cinematography, films and sound recordings. It also brought sectors such as satellite broadcasting, computer software and digital technology under Indian copyright protection.

The Copyright Act is now in full conformity with the TRIPS obligations.

The other important development during 1999 was the issuance of the International Copyright Order, 1999 extending the provisions of the Copyright Act to nationals of all World Trade Organization (WTO) Member countries.

Concern has been expressed about the allegedly slow judicial system in India and the procedural issues involved in trial and conviction. The Indian judiciary is handling  cases as expeditiously as possible. The year that has gone by has again witnessed the versatility of the impartial and independent Indian judiciary when it comes to the issue of protection of intellectual property rights, amplified by the encouraging trends with Indian courts plugging in gaps in the statute with the common sense of the common law.

The Copyright Act, 1957 prescribes mandatory punishment for piracy of copyrighted matter commensurate with the gravity of the offense with an effect to deter infringement, in compliance with the TRIPS Agreement.  Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957 provides that an offense of infringement of copyright or other rights conferred by the Act shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to three years with fine which shall not be less than fifty thousand rupees but which may extend to two lakh rupees (Rs. 200,000).

Section 63A provides for enhanced penalty on second or subsequent convictions, i.e. imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to three years and with fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees (Rs. 100,000) and which may extend up to two lakh rupees (Rs. 200,000). Section 63B provides that any person who knowingly makes use on a computer an infringing copy of a computer program shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven days but which may extend to three years and with fine which shall not be less than fifty thousand rupees but which may extend to two lakh rupees (Rs. 200,000).

For India where the per capita income at current prices is Rs.14,682/- or US $349, the quantum of the fines, which works out to be 14 times the per capita income, is quite a burden on an individual and would act as a strong deterrent.

As regards the reported requirement that actual knowledge be proved in criminal cases, the expressions “knowingly infringes or abets infringement” in Section 63 and “knowingly makes use” in Section 63B are included to protect bona fide users. It may be noted that the expression “knowingly” was there even in the analogous Section 7 of the Indian Copyright Act, 1914. Bringing the principle of “ignoratia juris reminem excusat”  may not be appropriate in the case of copyright as there are quite a large number of works which are in the public domain that a person can use freely, and it is natural for many to presume that such works are outside the copyright regime. Copyright is a special right created by law to protect certain rights of authors while keeping a balance of the interest of the society.  It will be too much to expect an ordinary user to sit in judgment like a court of law as to every single aspect of the right which may or may not be applicable to a work before using the same.

So far as Article 41 and 61 of the TRIPS Agreement are concerned, India has a modern and efficient judicial system that fits in with the general obligations provided in Article 41. Article 61 of the TRIP Agreement provides that remedies available shall include imprisonment or monetary fines sufficient to provide a deterrent consistent with the level of penalties applied for a crime of corresponding gravity. The Indian Copyright Act, provides for both imprisonment and fine which in the Indian context would be a sufficient deterrent.

Civil proceedings against piracy have been quite effective - a result unique in the global enforcement against copyright piracy. For instance, in 1999, the Motion Pictures Association (MPA), filed 3 civil actions against 3 Indian cable networks and obtained injunctive relief covering 45 cities and 8 million cable homes. MPA has estimated that by these injunctions alone, cable piracy has been brought down by 50%.

Further, provisional measures, such as injunctions and ‘Anton Piller’ orders, are available through the Indian courts to stop infringement and to contain any damages. Both foreign and domestic IPR holders are treated equally under Indian law.

Indian enforcement agencies are working effectively and there is a decline in the levels of piracy in India. In addition to intensifying raids against copyright infringers, the Government has taken a number of measures to strengthen the enforcement of copyright law.  A summary of these measures is given below:

1.      During the year the government continued to stress the need for strict enforcement of the Copyright Act and Rules.  State governments and other Ministries were regularly requested to lay special attention to ensuring copyright protection in their functioning.  Instructions were issued to officers in the government requesting them to ensure copyright protection, particularly of software, in their work situation.

2.      The Government also brought out A Handbook of Copyright Law to create awareness about copyright amongst the stakeholders, enforcement agencies, professional users like the scientific and academic communities and members of the public.  Copies of the Handbook were circulated free of cost to the state and central government officials and police personnel and also provided to participants in various seminars and workshops on IPR matters held during the year.

3.      National Police Academy, Hyderabad and National Academy of Customs, Excise and Narcotics conducted several training programs on copyright for the police and customs officers.  Modules on copyright have been included in their regular training programs.

4.      The Department of Education, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India has initiated several measures in the past for strengthening the enforcement of copyrights that include constitution of a Copyright Enforcement Advisory Council (CEAC), creation of separate cells in state police headquarters, encouraging setting up of collective administration societies and organization of seminars and workshops to create greater awareness about copyright law among the enforcement personnel and the general public.

5.      The CEAC is reconstituted from time to time to review periodically the progress of enforcement of the Copyright Act and to advise the government on measures for improving the enforcement. Additional Secretary, Department of Education is the chairman of the CEAC.  The CEAC members include representatives of copyright industry organizations and chiefs of state police forces.  The CEAC meets at least twice every year. It discusses in detail issues of enforcement, piracy, etc.

6.      Special cells for copyright enforcement have so far been set up in 23 States and Union Territories, i.e. Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Chandigarh, Dadra & Nagar Haveli, Daman & Diu, Delhi, Goa, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Meghalaya, Orissa, Pondicherry, Punjab, Sikkim, Tamil Nadu, Tripura and West Bengal.  States have also been advised to designate a nodal officer for copyright enforcement to facilitate easy interaction by copyright industry organizations and copyright owners.

7.      For collective administration of copyright, copyright societies have been set up for different classes of works.  At present there are three registered copyright societies.  These are the Society for Copyright Regulations of Indian Producers of Films & Television (SCRIPT) for cinematography films, Indian Performing Rights Society Limited (IPRS) for musical works and Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL) for sound recordings.  These societies, particularly the PPL and the IPRS, have been quite active in anti-piracy work.  The PPL has even set up a special anti-piracy cell under a retired Director General of Police, and this cell has been working in tandem with the police.

8.      The Government also initiates a number of seminars/workshops on copyright issues. The participants in these seminars include enforcement personnel like the police as well as representatives of industry organizations.

9.      Several other measures to create general awareness about copyright and for encouraging study of intellectual property rights in the educational system, besides modernizing the Copyright Office, are on the anvil.

Consequent to the number of measures initiated by the government, there has been more activity in the enforcement of copyright laws in the country during the last year compared to previous years.  As per the data relating to copyright offenses available with the National Crime Records Bureau, the number of copyright cases registered has gone up from 479 in 1997 to 802 in 1998.  The number of persons arrested has increased from 794 in 1997 to 980 in 1998.  The value of seizures has gone up from Rs.2.88 crore (28.8 million) in 1997 to Rs.7.48 crore (74.8 million) in 1998.  These figures reflect the general improvement in the enforcement of the copyright law.