Introduction
There has been an establishment of Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) as the most basic of all requisites for growth and innovation in modern societies. The Indian government has launched the National Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Policy on 12 May 2016 that recognizes the significant role played by Intellectual Property Rights in encouraging creativity, innovation, and economic progress.
Indian National Issues on Intellectual Property Rights Policy IPR is what comes as the main pillar for all modern societies with respect to economic development and innovation. Acknowledging the critical role played by IPR in the promotion of creativity, innovation, and economic development, the government of India launched the National IPR Policy on May 12, 2016. It proposes a solid IPR framework, striking a balance between rights holders’ benefits and the need for the broader public interest. This article presents a thorough analysis of India’s National IPR Policy, its objectives, impacts, the case laws that have shaped the IPR landscape in the country, and any dissimilarity it might find in the policy’s implementation while concluding the article with a review of the efficacy of the policy.
Objectives of the National IPR Policy
National IPR Policy Tree:
As the foundation of the vision of “Creative India; Innovative India”, the policy envisions the development of an ecosystem to motivate and grow creativity and innovation. The goal is to create a fertile environment for economic growth and an overall improvement in the quality of life for all citizens. The policy lays down seven main objectives:
- IPR Awareness and Promotion: To aware society on the economic, social and cultural benefits derived from IPR among every segment of society.
- Generation of IPR: To promote the generation of IPRs through encouragement to research and development (R&D) and innovative activity.
- Legal and Legislative Framework: It should have strong and effective IPR laws balancing rights holders against the wider public interest.
- Admin and Management: The administration should modernize and strengthen the IPR service for efficiency and effectiveness.
- Commercialization of IPRs: Encourage the use of IPRs in industries and guarantee that the benefits of commercialization will reach the public.
- Enforcement and adjudication: For strengthening enforcement and adjudicative mechanisms for combating IP infringement.
- Development of human resources: Human resources, institutions, and capacity for teaching, training, research, and skills development in IPR should be strengthened and improved.
This is to ensure that a complete ecosystem is established, which takes care of creation, protection, and commercialization of IPR for the economic development of the country.
Impact of the National IPR Policy
The National IPR Policy is, since its coming into being, profoundly changing the IPR landscape of India. Such a policy is bound to bring numerous positive changes, such as raising awareness about IPRs, improving IPR administration, and setting stronger IPR enforcement mechanisms. Yet there are disadvantages and criticisms, such as that of contradiction between the IPR protection and public interest.
Awareness and Advocacy of IPRs
It has increased awareness and promoted above all IPRs, one of the best successes through the National IPR Policy. The government has organized many programs to sensitize people on IPR: workshops, seminars, awareness campaigns, and so on. Instead of confusing the common people, IPRs are hence better understood among businessmen, researchers, and the general public as they are encouraged towards innovation and creativity.
The Cell for IPR Promotion and Management (CIPAM), set up under the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT), has heavily invested in the work of creating awareness on IPR. CIPAM has organized a number of activities and awareness campaigns including the setting up of the “KAPILA”, “Kalam Program on IP Literacy and Awareness”, which is intended to make students and researchers more IPR aware.
Generation of IPRs
The National IPR Policy has also led to a significant increase in the generation of IPRs in India. The policy has encouraged research and development (R&D) and innovation by providing incentives and support to inventors and creators. As a result, there has been a marked increase in the number of patent, trademark, and design filings in India.
According to the Annual Report of the Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs, and Trademarks (CGPDTM), the number of patent applications filed in India increased from 45,444 in 2016-17 to 66,440 in 2020-21. Similarly, the number of trademark applications filed increased from 2,55,993 in 2016-17 to 3,44,264 in 2020-21. This growth in IPR filings is a testament to the success of the National IPR Policy in stimulating innovation and creativity.
Legal and Legislative Framework
The National IPR Policy has also led to significant improvements in India’s legal and legislative framework for IPRs. The policy has emphasized the need for strong and effective IPR laws that balance the interests of rights holders with the larger public interest. In line with this objective, the government has made several amendments to existing IPR laws and introduced new legislation to address emerging challenges.
Newly added provisions related to digital rights management were made in the Copyright Act, 1957 and included provisions to address the online piracy in the year 2012. This was the amendment of Trademarks Act, 1999, which streamlined the registration of trademarks in India and introduced provisions for protection of well-known trademarks.
As part of this policy, an entirely new piece of legislation was enacted, namely the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights (PPVFR) Act 2001, which provides for the creation of plant varieties and for the rights accorded to farmers regarding those varieties. The cumulative impact of the changes in these sectors has further enriched India’s IPR framework in conformity with standards international.
Administration and Management
The National IPR Policy has even centered around modernizing as well as strengthening the governance and management aspects of IPR in India. The tenet of such a policy has been effective and efficient service delivery, which has led to various initiatives being set up in this regard.
For instance, e-filing of patent and trademark applications has been introduced, enabling applicants to be more streamlined in the application process while reducing the time for an IPR grant. Setting up of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) for hearing appeals against any orders from IP offices is another intervention that boosts efficiency and transparency in IPR administration in the country.
Commercializing IPRs
The critical aspect of commercialization of IPRs has also found a place in the National IPR Policy. It has further drawn incentives for the implementation of IPRs in industries and has supported commercialization efforts on IPRs by various means.
For example, the establishment of TDB to provide monetary support for commercialization of indigenous technologies. The “Startup India” initiative has also been launched by the government for providing support to startup companies for the protection and use of IPRs. Such initiatives have facilitated commercialization and have thus contributed to the economy of India.
Adjudication and Enforcement
Strengthening the enforcement and adjudication mechanisms relating to combating IPR violations is certainly part of the National IPR Policy. Emphasis has been placed on ensuring effective enforcement of IPR laws in order to deter infringement and protect the rights of IPR holders.
It is in furtherance of this objective that the government has undertaken various activities to strengthen the enforcement of IPR laws. For example, the government has set up special IPR cells in police departments across some states within the country for purposes of investigation and prosecution of IPR infringements. It has also promulgated the Intellectual Property Rights (Imported Goods) Enforcement Rules, 2007, which provides for the seizure of counterfeit goods at the border.
Moreover, judiciary plays very effective role in the enforcement of IPR laws. Several landmark judgments have been delivered by the Indian courts, which further strengthen the IPR regime in India. For example, in the case of Novartis AG v. Union of India (2013), the Supreme Court of India upheld the rejection of a patent application for the cancer drug Glivec on the ground of non-meeting the standards of patentability under Indian law. This judgment reaffirmed the importance to public interest in the grant of patents and will precede future cases.
Human Capital Development
The National IPR Policy has now further initiated measures to develop human capital for IPRs. Strengthening and broadening human resources, institutions, and infrastructure for teaching, training, research, and skill-building in IPRs have been highlighted here.
To meet that commitment, government has taken various initiatives aimed at promoting IPR education and research. The National Institute of Intellectual Property Management (NIIPM) has been set in place by government to provide IPR training and education. Another measure would be the launch of the “IPR Chair” initiative, which makes financial grants available to universities and research institutions for establishing chairs in IPRs.
Case Laws
Some landmarks judgments formed the IPR space in India. The abovementioned cases include the issues of patentability, trademark infringement, and copyright protection. Some of the major case laws have been briefly described below:
Novartis AG v. Union of India (2013)
This case has been one of the most relevant judgments in IPR in India so far. The Supreme Court of India declared the rejection of the patent application for the cancer drug Glivec on grounds that the drug was not patentable under Indian law. The court held that the drug is not new; it is a modification of already existing drugs, and thus, it cannot qualify for patent protection. This ruling reaffirmed the importance to the public interest in the granting of patents and became a precedent in similar future cases.
Bajaj Auto Ltd. v. TVS Motor Company Ltd. (2009)
The said dispute was regarding the patent for the twin-spark plug engine and was termed infringement. The Supreme Court of India, in respect to this case, held the patent valid and moreover found a case against TVS Motor Company for infringing Bajaj Auto’s patent. The Court laid great emphasis on the rights of patent holders and set a precedent in enforcing patent rights in India.
Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v. Reckitt Benckiser India Ltd. (2014)
The case was mainly on the alleged infringement of a trademark, namely, the “Domex” brand. The Delhi High Court held that Reckitt Benckiser infringed Hindustan Unilever’s trademark and ordered it to pay damages. The court emphasized the importance of protecting the rights of trademark holders and set a precedent for the enforcement of trademark rights in the country.
R.G. Anand v. The Delux Films (1978)
This case is one of the most important judgments regarding copyright law in India. According to this judgment by the Supreme Court of India, the film “New Delhi” infringed upon the play “Hum Hindustani,” and it ordered damages against the defendants. The court did not hesitate to emphasize the necessity for protecting the rights of copyright holders and set a precedent for the enforcement of copyright law in India.
The Differential Implementation
The most striking and glaring difference has been observed under this policy while the National IPR Policy has almost reached all objectives. Of the major challenges, one has been the balancing act between the public interest and the IPR. Critics of the policy have claimed that it is more or less tending to reflect on the protection of IPRs while at the same time not registering adequate concern arising from public interests – especially with regards to essential medicines.
For example, the Novartis case, according to reports, raised the issue of protection of patent rights against the right to have access to available sources of affordable medicines. Although the Supreme Court’s judgment was highly appreciated for considering the public interest, it raised apprehensions regarding strict patent laws regarding innovation and investment in the pharmaceutical industry.
Another area, which is considered to be an important roadblock, is that of enforcement of IPR laws. Even after government measures to strengthen IPR enforcement mechanisms, it has emerged as one of the significant problems faced in India. There are many areas of concern which include a lack of awareness about IPRs among people about complicated legal framework and delays in the judicial process.
Conclusion
The Indian IPR Policy proves from time to time to have impacted greatly the IPR landscape in the country. Since the formulation of the policy, there have been improved awareness campaigns regarding IPRs, improved IPR administration, and enforcement mechanisms. Furthermore, it has contributed to facilitation of generation and commercialization of IPRs for the purpose of economic development in the country. There have been a number of criticisms and challenges concerning the balance between IPR development and public interest, such as those brought out in the case of Novartis. When there was a discussion regarding patent rights, it became a point of concern that would deny affordable access to medicines for the members of the public. The enforcement barriers of the IPR laws remain to be another critical area of challenge and require attempts for further reforms to address these areas generating challenges. Thus, generally, the National IPR Policy is a step forward; however, there is still much to achieve in creating more robust and balanced IPR ecosystems in India. The success of the policy will depend on the ability of the government in directing this new philosophy to face the challenges and find the best consideration for balancing the interests of rights holders against those of the larger public interest.
