Trips Compliance.
TRIPS Compliance
The TRIPS Agreement is an international treaty administered by the World Trade Organization (WTO) that sets minimum standards for the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights (IPRs).
India, as a member of the WTO since 1995, has had to amend its IPR laws to comply with TRIPS.
1. Objectives of TRIPS Compliance
Harmonize IPR laws internationally.
Ensure minimum standards for protection of:
Copyright and related rights
Trademarks
Patents
Industrial designs
Geographical indications
Trade secrets
Prevent unfair competition.
Facilitate access to medicines, technology, and knowledge while respecting IPRs.
2. Key Areas of TRIPS Compliance in India
India had to amend several laws, including:
Patents Act, 1970 → Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005
Introduced product patents for pharmaceuticals and chemicals.
Compulsory licensing provisions (Section 84) to ensure access to medicines.
Transition period: India was allowed to continue only process patents till 2005.
Trade Marks Act, 1999
Harmonized with TRIPS standards for registration and protection.
Introduced provisions for well-known trademarks.
Copyright Act, 1957 (Amended 1999 & 2012)
Included rights of performers, sound recordings, and digital rights.
Enforced term of copyright and technological protection measures.
Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration & Protection) Act, 1999
Complied with TRIPS Article 22-24, protecting products like Darjeeling tea, Basmati rice, etc.
3. Key Provisions under TRIPS
Article 27: Patents must be available for inventions in all fields (with exceptions for public order, morality, or health).
Article 28: Exclusive rights of the patent owner.
Article 31: Compulsory licensing provisions.
Article 39: Protection of undisclosed information (trade secrets).
Article 41-61: Enforcement measures for IP rights.
Case Laws Illustrating TRIPS Compliance in India
Here are 5+ landmark cases showing how Indian law interacts with TRIPS obligations:
1. Novartis AG v. Union of India (2013)
Facts: Novartis filed for a patent on Glivec (a cancer drug) in India.
Issue: Whether Glivec was patentable under Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act, which was introduced during TRIPS compliance.
Held: Supreme Court rejected the patent, holding that incremental innovations or new forms of known substances are not patentable.
Significance: Balanced TRIPS compliance with public health concerns; emphasized access to medicines.
2. Bayer Corporation v. Union of India & Natco Pharma (2012)
Facts: Natco applied for a compulsory license to produce Bayer’s cancer drug Nexavar.
Issue: Whether India could grant a license under Section 84 (TRIPS-compliant compulsory licensing).
Held: Controller General granted license due to affordability and non-availability; first compulsory license under TRIPS.
Significance: Shows India’s flexibility under TRIPS to promote public health.
3. Eastern Book Company & Ors. v. D.B. Modak & Anr. (2008)
Facts: Copyrighted court judgments were digitized and distributed without permission.
Issue: How TRIPS-compliant copyright enforcement applies to digital content.
Held: Unauthorized distribution infringed copyright; remedies under Indian Copyright Act are TRIPS-aligned.
Significance: Demonstrates TRIPS influence on digital and literary work protection.
4. Tata Sons Ltd. v. Manu Kosuri (2007)
Facts: Domain name registration conflict (“tatasonline.com”).
Issue: Enforcement of trademarks in cyberspace as part of TRIPS compliance.
Held: Domain names infringing registered trademarks are actionable; rights extend online.
Significance: Shows India enforcing TRIPS-aligned trademark protection internationally.
5. Darjeeling Tea Case (Geographical Indication)
Facts: Darjeeling tea producers sought exclusive GI registration to prevent misuse.
Issue: Protection of geographical indications under TRIPS Article 22-24.
Held: Darjeeling tea granted GI status.
Significance: Shows India fulfilling TRIPS obligations on geographical indications to protect traditional knowledge and local products.
6. Novartis & Compulsory Licensing – Natco
A slightly broader perspective from TRIPS:
India allowed Section 84 compulsory licensing to promote affordable access.
Courts have reinforced that this is TRIPS-compliant because TRIPS allows compulsory licensing in public health emergencies.
Key Takeaways from Case Laws
TRIPS compliance does not override public interest—Section 3(d) and compulsory licenses show this.
India has harmonized patent, copyright, trademark, and GI laws with TRIPS.
TRIPS-compliant laws allow flexibility for public health, education, and traditional knowledge.
Enforcement in digital and international contexts (domain names, online content) is now TRIPS-aligned.
Judicial interpretation in India often balances IPR protection vs. access to essential goods and knowledge.
RELATED Blog
comments