Intellectual property rights (IPR) are the exclusive rights the law gives over inventions, brands, creative works, product designs and goods linked to a place. India has no single IPR law: copyright, patents, trade marks, designs, geographical indications, plant varieties and semiconductor layout-designs each have their own Act, while trade secrets have no statute and are protected under common law, equity and contract. The earliest Indian IP legislation recorded by the official IP Office is a patent law, Act VI of 1856. This guide explains each right and how it is enforced, and sets out the landmark IPR cases in plain words.
Intellectual property rights in India at a glance
- Full form: IPR means Intellectual Property Rights.
- The IPR Acts: the Copyright Act, 1957; the Patents Act, 1970; the Trade Marks Act, 1999; the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999; the Designs Act, 2000; the Semiconductor Integrated Circuits Layout-Design Act, 2000; and the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001. There is no Act for trade secrets (Law Commission Report No. 289, March 2024).
- How long they last: a patent, twenty years from filing; a trade mark or GI, ten years, renewable; a design, ten years plus five; copyright in a book, song or painting published in the author’s lifetime, sixty years from the start of the year after the author’s death.
- First patent law in India: “The first legislation in India relating to patents was the Act VI of 1856” (ipindia), the earliest IP legislation recorded on the IP Office’s history pages.
- Landmark cases: Biswanath Prasad Radhey Shyam (1978), R.G. Anand (1978), Cadila Healthcare (2001), Eastern Book Company (2007), Bajaj Auto v. TVS (2009), Novartis (2013) and IPRS v. Sanjay Dalia (2015), all in the Supreme Court.
- Enforcement: a civil suit for an injunction and damages or an account of profits; offences under the Copyright, Trade Marks and GI Acts (Section 63 of the Copyright Act: six months to three years and ₹50,000 to ₹2 lakh), but none for infringing a patent or design; Customs can suspend clearance of infringing imports.
- Courts and time limits: IP disputes are “commercial disputes”; the IPAB was abolished from 4 April 2021 and appeals now go to the High Court; a suit for compensation must be filed within three years of the infringement (Article 88, Limitation Act).
Reviewed and updated by Century Law Firm, Delhi – October 2026. Statutory references are to the Acts as in force on that date. The Acts are quoted from India Code (the versions dated May and June 2026 where India Code prints a date) and the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 from its Gazette text; office history, filing and fee details are from ipindia.gov.in, and the judgments from the Supreme Court’s own copies.
What are intellectual property rights (IPR)?
IPR stands for intellectual property rights: rights over things the law treats as property although they cannot be touched – an invention, a brand, a book, a song, a film, a computer programme, the look of a product, or the reputation of goods from a particular region. The right is exclusive. A product patent, for instance, gives “the exclusive right to prevent third parties, who do not have his consent, from the act of making, using, offering for sale, selling or importing for those purposes that product in India” (Section 48(a) of the Patents Act, 1970).
Patents, designs, trade marks and geographical indications are administered by the Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks (ipindia.gov.in); the Controller General is also the Registrar of Trade Marks and the Registrar of Geographical Indications. Copyright is registered, if the owner chooses, by the Registrar of Copyrights at the Copyright Office in Dwarka, New Delhi. Plant varieties and layout-designs have Registrars under their own Acts.
What does “IP case” mean?
No statute defines it. In ordinary use an IP case is any dispute about an intellectual property right: a suit for infringement or passing off (a “commercial dispute” under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015), an opposition or rectification before the Registrar or the Controller, an appeal from their orders to the High Court, or a criminal complaint under the Copyright, Trade Marks or Geographical Indications Acts. If you were looking for an “IPC case”: the Indian Penal Code was replaced by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 from 1 July 2024.
Types of IPR in India and the Act for each
Indian law recognises the rights below. Copyright, patents, trade marks and designs are the best known, but geographical indications, plant varieties and layout-designs are statutory rights too.
| Right | The Act | What it protects | How long it lasts |
|---|---|---|---|
| Copyright | Copyright Act, 1957 (Act 14 of 1957), in force from 21 January 1958 | “original literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works”, “cinematograph films” and “sound recording” (Section 13(1)) | Works published in the author’s lifetime: sixty years from the beginning of the calendar year after the author’s death (Section 22); films, sound recordings, posthumous, anonymous or pseudonymous works and Government works: sixty years from the beginning of the calendar year after first publication (Sections 23, 24, 26 to 28) |
| Patent | Patents Act, 1970 (Act 39 of 1970) | “a new product or process involving an inventive step and capable of industrial application” (Section 2(1)(j)), except what Section 3 excludes | “twenty years from the date of filing of the application” (Section 53(1)), if renewal fees are paid |
| Trade mark | Trade Marks Act, 1999 (Act 47 of 1999), in force from 15 September 2003 | A mark capable of being represented graphically and of distinguishing one trader’s goods or services from another’s, including shape, packaging and colours (Section 2(1)(zb)) | Ten years, renewable for ten years at a time (Section 25) |
| Industrial design | Designs Act, 2000 (Act 16 of 2000), in force from 11 May 2001 | Features of “shape, configuration, pattern, ornament or composition of lines or colours” applied to an article that appeal to the eye (Section 2(d)) | Ten years from registration, extendable once by five (Section 11) |
| Geographical indication (GI) | Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 (Act 48 of 1999), in force from 15 September 2003 | Goods whose quality, reputation or other characteristic is “essentially attributable to its geographical origin” (Section 2(1)(e)) | Ten years, renewable (Section 18) |
| Plant variety | Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001 (Act 53 of 2001), in force from 11 November 2005 | New varieties meeting “novelty, distinctiveness, uniformity and stability” (Section 15(1)), extant and farmers’ varieties | Nine years (trees and vines) or six (other crops), renewable up to eighteen or fifteen (Section 24(6)) |
| Layout-design | Semiconductor Integrated Circuits Layout-Design Act, 2000 (Act 37 of 2000), in force from 1 May 2004 | Layout-designs of semiconductor integrated circuits | Ten years from filing or first commercial exploitation, whichever is earlier (Section 15) |
| Trade secret | No Act | Protected “under common law, equity and contract” (Law Commission Report No. 289, 2024) | No statutory term |
Prepared by Century Law Firm from the Acts named in the boxes (India Code), ipindia.gov.in and Law Commission of India Report No. 289 (March 2024).
Landmark IPR cases in India
These are seven landmark Supreme Court judgments on intellectual property, each checked against the Supreme Court’s own copy. The table gives the essentials; a plain-words explanation of each follows.
| Case | Court and date | Area | What it decided |
|---|---|---|---|
| Biswanath Prasad Radhey Shyam v. Hindustan Metal Industries | Supreme Court, 13 December 1978 | Patents | An improvement must be more than a “workshop improvement” and involve an inventive step; a granted patent carries no presumption of validity |
| R.G. Anand v. M/s. Delux Films | Supreme Court, 18 August 1978 | Copyright | No copyright in an idea, theme or plot, only in its expression; infringement needs substantial and material copying |
| Cadila Healthcare Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. | Supreme Court, 26 March 2001 | Trade marks (passing off) | Seven factors for deceptive similarity; a stricter test for medicines |
| Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak | Supreme Court, 12 December 2007 | Copyright (originality) | Originality needs a “minimal degree of creativity”, not labour alone |
| Bajaj Auto Ltd. v. TVS Motor Company Ltd. | Supreme Court, 16 September 2009 | Patents and procedure | IP suits must be decided finally and quickly, with day-to-day hearings |
| Novartis AG v. Union of India | Supreme Court, 1 April 2013 | Patents (Section 3(d)) | A new form of a known drug without enhanced therapeutic efficacy is not patentable |
| Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd. v. Sanjay Dalia | Supreme Court, 1 July 2015 | Where to sue (copyright, trade marks) | If the plaintiff resides or carries on business at a place where the cause of action also arose, it must sue there, not at a distant branch |
1. Biswanath Prasad Radhey Shyam v. Hindustan Metal Industries (1978): no presumption that a patent is valid
Decided on 13 December 1978 (Civil Appeal Nos. 1630-1631 of 1969, judgment delivered by Justice Sarkaria), these appeals concerned a patent for a means of holding metal utensils on a lathe for turning before polishing, granted under the Indian Patents and Designs Act, 1911. The Court held that the invention lacked novelty and an inventive step: it was a mere “workshop improvement” on methods long in public use, and an invention must not be the obvious or natural suggestion of what was already known, obviousness being judged strictly and objectively. To the argument that a granted patent is presumed valid, the Court replied: “Mr. Mehta’s argument that there is a presumption in favour of the validity of the patent, cannot be accepted.” Grant does not guarantee validity, a rule now in Section 13(4) of the Patents Act, 1970. The trial court’s judgment holding the patent invalid was restored.
Two points to note. The Court’s copy spells the name “Biswanath”, not “Bishwanath”. And some summaries say the Court placed the onus of proof on the person challenging the patent; the judgment does not say that – the words “onus” and “burden” do not appear in it – and its holding that there is no presumption of validity points the other way.
2. R.G. Anand v. M/s. Delux Films (1978): no copyright in an idea
Decided on 18 August 1978 by Justices Fazal Ali, Jaswant Singh and R.S. Pathak (Civil Appeal No. 2030 of 1968; 1978 AIR 1613, 1979 SCR (1) 218), this case draws the line between an idea and its expression. The author of the play “Hum Hindustani” said the film “New Delhi” copied it. Justice Fazal Ali’s judgment begins its propositions with: “There can be no copyright in an idea, subject matter, themes, plots or historical or legendary facts”. Only the form, manner, arrangement and expression of an idea are protected; where the same idea is developed differently, similarities are inevitable, and infringement needs substantial and material copying of the expression, the safest test being whether a viewer of both works gets an unmistakable impression that the later one is a copy. The film did not infringe, and the appeal was dismissed. The Court’s copy prints the respondent as “M/s. Delux Films”, not “Deluxe”.
3. Cadila Healthcare Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (2001): deceptive similarity and medicines
A three-judge bench decided this appeal on 26 March 2001 (Appeal (civil) 2372 of 2001; judgment by Justice Kirpal). It arose from a passing-off suit in the District Court at Vadodara over two anti-malarial medicines, “Falcigo” and “Falcitab”. For deciding whether an unregistered mark is deceptively similar, the Court listed: (a) the nature of the marks (word, label or composite); (b) the degree of resemblance, in sound and in idea; (c) the nature of the goods; (d) the similarity in their nature, character and performance; (e) the class of purchasers, their education and intelligence and the care they are likely to take; (f) the mode of purchase; and (g) any other surrounding circumstances, the weight of each depending on the facts. For medicines, where confusion can harm health or life, “A stricter approach should be adopted while applying the test to judge the possibility of confusion of one medicinal product for another”. The Court did not decide the dispute itself; it directed the trial court to decide the suit on these principles.
4. Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak (2007): a “minimal degree of creativity”
Decided on 12 December 2007 by Justices B.N. Agrawal and P.P. Naolekar (Appeal (civil) 6472 of 2004; judgment by Justice Naolekar), this case explains what “original” means for a derivative work. The publisher of the Supreme Court Cases (SCC) law reports objected to CD-ROM software that reproduced judgments as copy-edited by SCC. The Court held that skill, labour and capital alone (the “sweat of the brow”) do not make a work original: “some amount of creativity in the work to claim a copyright is required. It does require a minimal degree of creativity.” SCC’s routine copy-editing lacked that creativity, but its own paragraph numbering and its notes on which judges concurred or dissented had it. The respondents could sell the judgments’ text with their own headnotes, but not copy SCC’s headnotes, footnotes, editorial notes, paragraph numbering or those labels. The phrase “modicum of creativity”, sometimes attributed to the Court, appears in the judgment only in the respondents’ arguments.
5. Bajaj Auto Ltd. v. TVS Motor Company Ltd. (2009): IP suits must be decided fast
Decided on 16 September 2009 by Justices Markandey Katju and Asok Kumar Ganguly (Civil Appeal No. 6309 of 2009), this case arose from a patent suit between the two companies in the Madras High Court. The Court repeated its order of 7 September 2009 in Shree Vardhman Rice & Gen Mills v. Amar Singh Chawalwala: in trade mark, copyright and patent cases, courts should not let parties fight for years only over temporary injunctions, but should hear the suit itself day to day (proviso to Order XVII Rule 1(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure), so that “the final judgment should be given normally within four months from the date of the filing of the suit”. It directed all courts and tribunals to follow this, ordered the suit decided by 30 November 2009, and let TVS continue selling meanwhile, subject to keeping accounts.
6. Novartis AG v. Union of India (2013): Section 3(d) and an anti-cancer drug
On 1 April 2013 Justices Aftab Alam and Ranjana Prakash Desai decided Novartis’s appeals (Civil Appeal Nos. 2706-2716 of 2013), with appeals by Natco Pharma and the Cancer Patients Aid Association. Novartis sought a patent for the beta crystalline form of Imatinib Mesylate, an anti-cancer drug. Section 3(d) of the Patents Act excludes “the mere discovery of a new form of a known substance which does not result in the enhancement of the known efficacy of that substance”, and treats salts, polymorphs, isomers and other derivatives as the same substance “unless they differ significantly in properties with regard to efficacy”. The Court held that the product failed both the definition of invention (Section 2(1)(j) and (ja)) and Section 3(d): its better flow, stability and lower hygroscopicity had nothing to do with therapeutic efficacy, and any gain from increased bioavailability had to be shown by research data, which was absent. Novartis’s appeals were dismissed with costs. The Court added: “that is not to say that Section 3(d) bars patent protection for all incremental inventions of chemical and pharmaceutical substances”.
7. Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd. v. Sanjay Dalia (2015): where an IP suit can be filed
Decided on 1 July 2015 by Justices Jagdish Singh Khehar and Arun Mishra (Civil Appeal Nos. 10643-10644 of 2010; judgment by Justice Arun Mishra), this case concerns Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act and Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, which, notwithstanding the Code of Civil Procedure, let the owner sue where it “actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain”. The Court read them purposively: they help the right owner, but do not let it drag the defendant to a distant branch. If the plaintiff resides or carries on business “at a place where cause of action, wholly or in part, has also arisen, he has to file a suit at that place”, not where it merely has a branch office. The appeals were dismissed.
Cases often listed elsewhere that this page does not summarise
Lists of famous IPR cases often also include Satyam Infoway Ltd. v. Sifynet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. and Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha v. Prius Auto Industries Ltd. (Supreme Court), and Burlington Home Shopping Pvt. Ltd. v. Rajnish Chibber and D.M. Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. Baby Gift House (Delhi High Court). We could not check these in the courts’ own copies, so this page does not describe what they decided. A Delhi High Court order of 17 September 2025 in Karan Johar v. Ashok Kumar (CS(COMM) 974/2025) cites D.M. Entertainment as an authority on personality rights – a person’s right to permit or refuse commercial use of his or her likeness.
IPR case study: two worked examples from real judgments
An “IPR case study” sets out a real dispute as facts, question, decision and lesson. The two below use only the facts recorded in the judgments above.
Case study 1: Falcigo v. Falcitab (Cadila, 2001)
Facts. The makers of two anti-malarial medicines, “Falcigo” (Artesunate) and “Falcitab” (Mefloquine Hydrochloride), were parties to a passing-off suit in the District Court at Vadodara, where an interim injunction was refused. Question. How is deceptive similarity judged, and does it matter that the goods are medicines? Decision. Seven factors apply, from the resemblance of the marks in sound and idea to the class of buyers and the mode of purchase, and a stricter approach applies to medicines; the trial court was to decide the suit on that basis. Lesson. When naming a medicine, check names that sound alike or carry the same idea, not just identical ones, and consider who buys the product and how.
Case study 2: “Hum Hindustani” v. “New Delhi” (R.G. Anand, 1978)
Facts. The author of the play “Hum Hindustani” sued the makers of the film “New Delhi” for copying it. Question. When two works share a theme, when does the later one infringe? Decision. There is no copyright in an idea or theme, only in its expression; infringement needs substantial and material copying of the expression, judged by whether a viewer gets an unmistakable impression of copying. The film did not infringe. Lesson. Writers cannot own a story idea; they can protect their own script, scenes, dialogue and arrangement, and a claimant must point to copied expression.
Other topics that can be studied the same way: originality of databases and edited texts (Eastern Book Company, 2007); Section 3(d) and incremental drug patents (Novartis, 2013); novelty and the “workshop improvement” (Biswanath Prasad, 1978); forum-shopping in IP suits (IPRS v. Sanjay Dalia, 2015); speedy IP trials (Bajaj Auto v. TVS, 2009); GIs for crafts and crops (Darjeeling Tea, Kolhapuri Chappal); the case for a trade secrets law (Law Commission Report No. 289); and the abolition of the IPAB (Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021).
Copyright: the Copyright Act, 1957
Copyright subsists in “original literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works”, “cinematograph films” and “sound recording” (Section 13(1)). It is a bundle of exclusive rights (Section 14): for a literary, dramatic or musical work, to reproduce it “in any material form including the storing of it in any medium by electronic means”, issue copies to the public, perform or communicate it to the public, make a film or sound recording of it, translate it and adapt it; for a computer programme, the same rights plus selling or commercially renting copies; for a film or sound recording, the rights to copy it, sell or commercially rent copies and communicate it to the public. The author is the first owner (Section 17), but, unless agreed otherwise, an employer owns a work made under a contract of service, and the person who pays for a photograph, portrait or film made at his instance owns it.
Registration is optional: the owner “may make an application” to the Registrar of Copyrights (Section 45(1)), and “The Register of Copyrights shall be prima facie evidence of the particulars entered therein” (Section 48). Applications are filed online on Form XIV, and a Diary Number is generated; the official fee is ₹500 per literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work (₹2,000 for a literary or artistic work used, or capable of being used, on goods or services), ₹5,000 for a film and ₹2,000 for a sound recording (ipindia).
Copyright is infringed when anyone without a licence “does anything, the exclusive right to do which is by this Act conferred upon the owner of the copyright”, or deals commercially in or imports infringing copies (Section 51). Fair dealing with a work other than a computer programme for “private or personal use, including research”, “criticism or review” or “the reporting of current events and current affairs” is not infringement (Section 52(1)(a)). Such claims can collide with the “freedom of speech and expression” in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution; the firm’s essay on IP laws and free speech looks at that tension. The Copyright Board no longer exists: by 2021 Section 11 provided for an Appellate Board instead, and the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 omitted Sections 11 and 12 with effect from 4 April 2021, sending most of the Appellate Board’s copyright matters to the “Commercial Court” and rectification of the Register (Section 50) to the High Court; appeals from the Registrar of Copyrights now lie to the High Court within three months (Section 72).
Patents: the Patents Act, 1970
An “inventive step” is “a feature of an invention that involves technical advance as compared to the existing knowledge or having economic significance or both and that makes the invention not obvious to a person skilled in the art” (Section 2(1)(ja)). Section 3 lists what are not inventions, including “the mere discovery of a scientific principle”; new forms of known substances without enhanced efficacy (clause (d)); methods of agriculture; medical treatment processes; plants and animals other than micro-organisms; “a mathematical or business method or a computer programme per se or algorithms” (clause (k)); and “an invention which, in effect, is traditional knowledge” (clause (p)).
A patent lets its owner stop others making, using, offering for sale, selling or importing the product, or using the process, in India without consent (Section 48), for twenty years from filing (Section 53). The main steps to obtain one are:
- Application by the true and first inventor, his assignee or legal representative (Section 6) on Form 1 with a specification on Form 2; after a provisional specification, the complete specification must follow “within 12 months” (ipindia).
- Publication after the prescribed period (Section 11A); the applicant cannot sue for infringement until the patent is granted (Section 11A(7)).
- A request for examination: “No application for a patent shall be examined” without one (Section 11B(1)). The Patents (Amendment) Rules, 2024 (15 March 2024) changed the period in rule 24B from forty-eight to thirty-one months for applications filed on or after that date; older applications keep the earlier period.
- Pre-grant opposition by “any person” (Section 25(1)), on grounds such as prior publication, obviousness, non-disclosure of the source of biological material or anticipation by traditional knowledge.
- Grant (Section 43), then post-grant opposition by “any person interested” within one year of publication of the grant (Section 25(2)), and renewal fees to keep the patent in force.
Three years after grant, any person interested may seek a compulsory licence if the public’s reasonable requirements are not met, the invention is not available “at a reasonably affordable price” or it is “not worked in the territory of India” (Section 84(1)). Infringement of a patent is a civil wrong only. Since 1 August 2024, falsely claiming that an article is patented, or is the subject of a patent application, in India attracts a penalty of up to ₹10 lakh (plus ₹1,000 a day while the claim continues), imposed by an adjudicating officer (Section 120 as amended, and Section 124A as inserted, by the Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2023).
Trade marks: the Trade Marks Act, 1999
A “mark” includes “a device, brand, heading, label, ticket, name, signature, word, letter, numeral, shape of goods, packaging or combination of colours or any combination thereof” (Section 2(1)(m)). Marks “devoid of any distinctive character”, purely descriptive marks and marks customary in the trade are refused unless they have acquired distinctiveness through use or are well known (Section 9(1)); so are shapes that result from the nature of the goods, are needed for a technical result or give substantial value (Section 9(3)), and marks so close to earlier ones that there is “a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public” (Section 11(1)). The firm’s guide to trademark registration in India covers the process in detail; in outline:
- Search existing marks, choose the classes (one application can cover several, with a fee for each) and file Form TM-A in the Registry office for your principal place of business (Section 18). The Registry, set up in 1940, has offices at Delhi, Ahmedabad, Chennai, Mumbai and Kolkata.
- Examination, and a reply to any objection.
- Advertisement in the Trade Marks Journal (Section 20); “Any person may, within four months from the date of the advertisement” oppose (Section 21(1)); the applicant must file a counter-statement within two months of receiving the notice, or the application is treated as abandoned (Section 21(2)).
- If there is no opposition, or it fails, registration “within eighteen months of the filing of the application”, effective from the application date (Section 23(1)), for ten years, renewable; late renewal is possible with a surcharge within six months of expiry (Section 25).
Registration matters for enforcement: “No person shall be entitled to institute any proceeding to prevent, or to recover damages for, the infringement of an unregistered trade mark” (Section 27(1)), although passing off remains available (Section 27(2)). A registered mark is infringed by the use in the course of trade of an identical or deceptively similar mark for the registered goods or services (Section 29(1)), and also, where the mark has a reputation in India, by unfair use on dissimilar goods (Section 29(4)). India is a member of the Madrid Protocol: an Indian application or registration can be the basis of an international application (Section 36D), and an international registration designating India is protected as if registered in India (Section 36F).
Industrial designs: the Designs Act, 2000
A design is “only the features of shape, configuration, pattern, ornament or composition of lines or colours applied to any article” which “appeal to and are judged solely by the eye” (Section 2(d)); it excludes mechanical devices, modes of construction, trade marks and artistic works. A design that is not new or original, was disclosed to the public anywhere before filing, is not significantly distinguishable from known designs, or contains scandalous or obscene matter cannot be registered (Section 4). Registration lasts ten years, extendable once by five (Section 11); any person interested can petition the Controller for cancellation, with an appeal to the High Court (Section 19).
Copying a registered design (piracy) is a civil wrong, not a crime. The infringer must pay the proprietor up to ₹25,000 per contravention “recoverable as a contract debt”, subject to ₹50,000 in all for one design, or, if the proprietor sues, damages and an injunction (Section 22(2)). The suit cannot be filed “in any court below the court of District Judge”, and if the defendant pleads a ground for cancellation it goes to the High Court (Section 22(3) and (4)).
Geographical indications (GI tags): the GI Act, 1999
A geographical indication identifies agricultural, natural or manufactured goods as coming from a territory, region or locality “where a given quality, reputation or other characteristic of such goods is essentially attributable to its geographical origin” (Section 2(1)(e)). ipindia’s examples include Basmati rice, Kanchipuram silk saree, Nagpur orange, Kolhapuri chappal and Darjeeling Tea. A GI is registered for producers rather than a single business: the applicant must be an association of persons or producers, or an organisation or authority, representing the producers’ interest (Section 11(1)), and registration gives the authorised users “the exclusive right to the use of the geographical indication” (Section 21). It cannot be the subject of “assignment, transmission, licensing, pledge, mortgage or any such other agreement” (Section 24). Registration lasts ten years and is renewable (Section 18); only a registered GI can be sued on for infringement (Section 20), and appeals from the Registrar lie to the High Court within three months (Section 31).
India’s first registered GI is Darjeeling Tea (word and logo), at serial numbers 1 and 2 of the GI Registry’s list, in the block for April 2004 to March 2005. The list published on 2 May 2026 runs to serial number 822 and includes Basmati (238) and Kolhapuri Chappal (329). Whether a GI tag can stop a global brand is discussed in the firm’s post on Kolhapuris vs Prada.
Other IP rights: plant varieties, chip layouts, trade secrets and traditional knowledge
Plant varieties and farmers’ rights
Plants and seeds cannot be patented (Section 3(j), Patents Act); varieties are registered instead under the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001 – a new variety if it meets “the criteria of novelty, distinctiveness, uniformity and stability” (Section 15(1)), and also extant and farmers’ varieties (Section 14). A farmer may still “save, use, sow resow, exchange, share or sell his farm produce including seed of a variety protected under this Act”, but not “branded seed” (Section 39(1)(iv)). Appeals now go to the High Court.
Semiconductor layout-designs
The “topography of integrated circuits” is not patentable (Section 3(o), Patents Act); a chip’s layout-design is registered under the Semiconductor Integrated Circuits Layout-Design Act, 2000 for ten years from filing or first commercial exploitation, whichever is earlier (Section 15).
Trade secrets and confidential information
The Law Commission’s Report No. 289, “Trade Secrets and Economic Espionage” (March 2024), states: “There is no specific legislation pertaining to protection of trade secrets in India”, and “India, however, continues to protect trade secrets under common law, equity and contract”. It recommended “a sui generis legislation”, with exceptions for whistleblowers, compulsory licensing and government use, and public interest, and annexed a draft Protection of Trade Secrets Bill, 2024. Until there is such a law, a business’s recipes, formulas, client lists and know-how depend on its contracts and on the general law.
Traditional knowledge and biological resources
An invention that “in effect, is traditional knowledge” is not patentable (Section 3(p)), and a patent can be opposed if it does not disclose the source of biological material or is anticipated by the knowledge of a local or indigenous community (Section 25(1)(j) and (k)). Under Section 6 of the Biological Diversity Act, 2002, a person covered by Section 3(2) of that Act seeking any IP right for an invention based on a biological resource accessed from India, or associated traditional knowledge, “shall obtain prior approval of the National Biodiversity Authority before grant”, and persons covered by Section 7 must register with it; plant variety applications are excluded.
History of IP law in India: the first patent law (1856) and what followed
The earliest Indian IP legislation recorded on the official IP Office website is a patent law. ipindia’s “History of Indian Patent System” states: “The first legislation in India relating to patents was the Act VI of 1856.” It was meant “to encourage inventions of new and useful manufactures and to induce inventors to disclose secret of their inventions”. Enacted without the British Crown’s approval, it was repealed by Act IX of 1857, and Act XV of 1859 granted “exclusive privileges” afresh. One caveat: ipindia’s “History of Designs Law in India” lists “Act VI of 1859” as the “First statutory protection for designs in India”, so the two official pages differ on the 1859 Act’s number; on 1856 the patents page is clear.
In 1872 the law was consolidated to protect designs as the Patterns and Designs Protection Act (Act XIII of 1872). The Indian Patents and Designs Act, 1911 (Act II of 1911) “replaced all the previous Acts” and, for the first time, placed patent administration under a Controller of Patents. After the Justice N. Rajagopala Ayyangar Committee’s report (1959), Parliament passed the Patents Act, 1970, most of which came into force on 20 April 1972; the 1911 Act continued for designs until the Designs Act, 2000. For copyright, the Indian Copyright Act, 1914 “merely extended the UK Copyright Act, 1911 to British India” (India Code’s note); the Copyright Act, 1957 replaced it from 21 January 1958. The Trade Marks Registry was set up in 1940.
Prepared by Century Law Firm from ipindia.gov.in’s histories of the patent system and designs law, its Trade Marks Registry and GI pages and GI register, India Code, the WTO’s India page, PIB (13 May 2016) and the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021.
India and the international IP treaties
The WTO records that “India has been a WTO member since 1 January 1995”, and ipindia lists the TRIPS Agreement against that year; it describes the Designs Act, 2000 as meeting the “Need for TRIPS-compliant modern law”, and notes that GIs are covered by Articles 22 to 24 of TRIPS. The dates below are from WIPO’s WIPO Lex database and the WTO, which are intergovernmental rather than Indian sources.
| Treaty | In force for India | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Berne Convention (copyright) | 1 April 1928 | WIPO Lex |
| WIPO Convention | 1 May 1975 | WIPO Lex |
| WTO Agreement, including TRIPS | 1 January 1995 | WTO (ipindia: 1995) |
| Paris Convention (industrial property) | 7 December 1998 | WIPO Lex (ipindia: member since 1998) |
| Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) | 7 December 1998 | WIPO Lex |
| Madrid Protocol (trade marks) | 8 July 2013 | WIPO Lex |
In Indian law, a PCT application designating India is deemed an application under the Patents Act if a corresponding application is filed before the Controller (Section 7(1A)), and its term runs from the international filing date (Explanation to Section 53(1)); Sections 36A to 36G of the Trade Marks Act implement the Madrid Protocol.
The National IPR Policy, 2016
The Union Cabinet approved the National Intellectual Property Rights Policy on 12 May 2016 (PIB, 13 May 2016), with the slogan “Creative India; Innovative India” and seven objectives: IPR awareness, outreach and promotion; generation of IPRs; legal and legislative framework; administration and management; commercialisation of IPRs; enforcement and adjudication; and human capital development. DIPP (now DPIIT) is the nodal department. Rights and remedies still come from the Acts.
How IPR is enforced in India
An IP owner has four routes, often used together: a civil suit; a criminal case where the Act creates an offence; Customs action against imports; and proceedings before the IP office, such as an opposition or a rectification or cancellation petition.
Civil suits: injunction, damages or an account of profits
The copyright owner is entitled to “all such remedies by way of injunction, damages, accounts and otherwise as are or may be conferred by law” (Section 55(1), Copyright Act). In a trade mark or passing-off suit the court may grant an injunction “and at the option of the plaintiff, either damages or an account of profits, together with or without any order for the delivery-up of the infringing labels and marks for destruction or erasure” (Section 135(1), Trade Marks Act), including ex parte orders to preserve evidence and restrain the disposal of assets (Section 135(2)). Patent suits carry the same choice, and infringing goods may be seized, forfeited or destroyed (Section 108). Copyright needs no registration to sue; a trade mark owner sues for infringement on a registered mark and otherwise for passing off; a patentee can sue only after grant. The firm’s guide to injunctions in India explains how interim injunctions are obtained.
Criminal offences and penalties
Copyright infringement can be a crime, and so can falsifying a trade mark or GI, falsely applying one or selling goods that bear one; patent and design infringement cannot. The main offences (not changed by the Jan Vishwas Act, 2023 or, in India Code’s current texts, by the Jan Vishwas Act, 2026) are:
| Provision | What is punished | Punishment |
|---|---|---|
| Section 63, Copyright Act | Knowingly infringing copyright or another right under the Act, or abetting it | Six months to three years and fine of ₹50,000 to ₹2 lakh (less for adequate and special reasons where not for gain in trade or business) |
| Section 63A, Copyright Act | Second or later conviction under Section 63 | One to three years and fine of ₹1 lakh to ₹2 lakh |
| Section 63B, Copyright Act | Knowingly using an infringing copy of a computer programme | Seven days to three years and fine of ₹50,000 to ₹2 lakh |
| Sections 65A and 65B, Copyright Act | Circumventing technological protection; tampering with rights management information | Up to two years and fine |
| Sections 103 and 104, Trade Marks Act | Falsifying or falsely applying a trade mark; selling goods or services with a false trade mark | Six months to three years and fine of ₹50,000 to ₹2 lakh |
| Section 105, Trade Marks Act | Second or later conviction | One to three years and fine of ₹1 lakh to ₹2 lakh |
| Sections 39 and 40, GI Act | Applying a false GI; selling goods with one | Six months to three years and fine of ₹50,000 to ₹2 lakh |
A police officer not below the rank of sub-inspector may seize infringing copies without a warrant and must produce them before a Magistrate (Section 64, Copyright Act). Falsely representing a mark as registered is now only a monetary penalty, of half a per cent of turnover or ₹5 lakh, whichever is less (Section 107, Trade Marks Act, from 1 August 2024).
Customs: stopping infringing imports
Under the Intellectual Property Rights (Imported Goods) Enforcement Rules, 2007, a right holder may give written notice to the Commissioner of Customs at the port of import “requesting for suspension of clearance of goods suspected to be infringing intellectual property right” (rule 3(1)); the Deputy or Assistant Commissioner who has reason to believe the goods infringe “shall suspend the clearance of the goods”, and may also act on his own (rule 7(1)). Rights are recorded on CBIC’s Indian Customs IPR Recordation Portal (ipr.icegate.gov.in). The Rules on India Code are the original 2007 text, covering copyright, trade marks, patents, designs and GIs; India Code shows no later amendment, so a patent owner should confirm their current scope with Customs. Copyright owners can also apply under Section 53 of the Copyright Act (fee ₹1,200 per work per place of entry).
Which court hears an IPR case
Disputes arising out of “intellectual property rights relating to registered and unregistered trademarks, copyright, patent, design, domain names, geographical indications and semiconductor integrated circuits” are commercial disputes (Section 2(1)(c)(xvii), Commercial Courts Act, 2015). If their value is at least ₹3 lakh (the “Specified Value”, Section 2(1)(i)), they are heard by a district-level Commercial Court (Section 3) or, if filed on the original side of a High Court with ordinary original civil jurisdiction such as Delhi, by its Commercial Division (Sections 4 and 7); the Delhi High Court also has an Intellectual Property Rights Division under its 2022 Rules. A suit that does not contemplate urgent interim relief must first go through pre-institution mediation (Section 12A). The firm’s guide to the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 explains the procedure.
| Matter | Where it goes |
|---|---|
| Copyright infringement | District court, including where the plaintiff resides or carries on business (Section 62), subject to IPRS v. Sanjay Dalia |
| Registered trade mark infringement | Not lower than a District Court, including the plaintiff’s place (Section 134), subject to IPRS v. Sanjay Dalia |
| Passing off | Not lower than a District Court (Section 134(1)(c)); place under Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure |
| Patent infringement | Not lower than a district court; to the High Court if the defendant counter-claims for revocation (Section 104) |
| Design piracy | Not below the District Judge; to the High Court if a cancellation ground is pleaded (Section 22) |
| Appeals from the Controller or Registrars | High Court (Patents Section 117A, Trade Marks Section 91, GI Section 31, Copyright Section 72) |
Where an IP Act has no plaintiff’s-place rule, Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure applies: the suit is filed where the defendant resides, carries on business or works for gain, or where “the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises”. The firm’s find your court and district tool helps identify the district court for an address in Delhi.
The IPAB has been abolished: appeals now go to the High Court
The Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 (Act 33 of 2021, Gazette of 13 August 2021) “shall be deemed to have come into force on the 4th April, 2021”. It abolished the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) – the Appellate Board set up under the Trade Marks Act – and the Plant Varieties Protection Appellate Tribunal, and replaced “Appellate Board” with “High Court” in the appeal provisions of the Patents, Trade Marks, GI and Copyright Acts (and with “Commercial Court” in some Copyright Act provisions). Since 4 April 2021, appeals that went to the IPAB lie to the High Court; under the Patents, GI and Copyright Acts, within three months. India Code’s PDF of the Copyright Act still prints “Appellate Board” in places; the Gazette text of the 2021 Act governs.
Time limit for an IPR suit
Article 88 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 allows three years from “The date of the infringement” for a suit “For compensation for infringing copyright or any other exclusive privilege”. It is not limited to patents and designs, as is sometimes said, and time spent in pre-institution mediation is excluded (proviso to Section 12A(3), Commercial Courts Act). Article 88 deals with claims for compensation; where the infringement is still continuing, see the firm’s guide to Section 22 of the Limitation Act (continuing wrongs). The firm’s limitation calculator helps work out the last date. The areas in which Century Law Firm, Delhi, practises are listed on its practice areas page.
भारत में बौद्धिक संपदा अधिकार (Intellectual Property Rights in India) – हिंदी में
बौद्धिक संपदा अधिकार (Intellectual Property Rights – IPR) वे अनन्य (exclusive) अधिकार हैं जो कानून किसी आविष्कार, ब्रांड, किताब, गीत, फ़िल्म, उत्पाद के डिज़ाइन या किसी स्थान से जुड़े उत्पाद पर देता है। भारत में IPR का कोई एक कानून नहीं है: कॉपीराइट के लिए The Copyright Act, 1957, पेटेंट के लिए The Patents Act, 1970, ट्रेडमार्क के लिए The Trade Marks Act, 1999, डिज़ाइन के लिए The Designs Act, 2000, भौगोलिक संकेत (GI) के लिए The Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, पौधों की किस्मों के लिए The Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001 और चिप के लेआउट-डिज़ाइन के लिए The Semiconductor Integrated Circuits Layout-Design Act, 2000 हैं। व्यापार रहस्यों (trade secrets) के लिए कोई अलग कानून नहीं है; विधि आयोग की रिपोर्ट संख्या 289 (मार्च 2024) के अनुसार उनकी रक्षा कॉमन लॉ, साम्या (equity) और अनुबंध के आधार पर होती है।
अवधि और पंजीकरण: पेटेंट आवेदन की तारीख से बीस वर्ष तक रहता है (धारा 53); ट्रेडमार्क और GI का पंजीकरण दस वर्ष के लिए होता है और नवीकृत किया जा सकता है; पंजीकृत डिज़ाइन दस वर्ष तक रहता है, जिसे एक बार पाँच वर्ष बढ़ाया जा सकता है। लेखक के जीवनकाल में प्रकाशित पुस्तक, संगीत या कलाकृति पर कॉपीराइट लेखक की मृत्यु के अगले कैलेंडर वर्ष की शुरुआत से साठ वर्ष तक रहता है (धारा 22)। कॉपीराइट का पंजीकरण अनिवार्य नहीं है, पर कॉपीराइट रजिस्टर की प्रविष्टियाँ प्रथम दृष्टया साक्ष्य होती हैं (धारा 45 और 48)।
भारत का पहला पेटेंट कानून: ipindia के अनुसार भारत में पेटेंट से संबंधित पहला कानून Act VI of 1856 था। ब्रिटिश क्राउन की स्वीकृति के बिना बनने के कारण इसे Act IX of 1857 द्वारा निरस्त किया गया और 1859 में नया अधिनियम लाया गया। 1911 के Indian Patents and Designs Act ने पहले के सभी अधिनियमों का स्थान लिया, और पेटेंट के लिए उसकी जगह Patents Act, 1970 ने ली। GI रजिस्ट्री की सूची में पहला पंजीकृत GI दार्जिलिंग चाय (Darjeeling Tea) है (2004–05)।
प्रमुख IPR निर्णय: बिस्वनाथ प्रसाद राधे श्याम (1978) – दिए गए पेटेंट की वैधता की कोई उपधारणा नहीं होती; आर.जी. आनंद (1978) – विचार, विषय या कथानक पर नहीं, केवल उसकी अभिव्यक्ति पर कॉपीराइट होता है; कैडिला हेल्थकेयर (2001) – भ्रामक समानता के सात कारक और दवाओं के लिए अधिक कड़ा मानक; ईस्टर्न बुक कंपनी (2007) – केवल मेहनत नहीं, न्यूनतम रचनात्मकता चाहिए; बजाज ऑटो बनाम टीवीएस (2009) – IP मुकदमे दिन-प्रतिदिन सुनवाई से जल्दी निपटाए जाएँ; नोवार्टिस (2013) – धारा 3(d) के कारण कैंसर-रोधी दवा के नए रूप को पेटेंट नहीं मिला; IPRS बनाम संजय डालिया (2015) – जहाँ वादी रहता या कारोबार करता है और वहीं वाद-हेतुक भी उत्पन्न हुआ है, वहीं वाद दायर करना होगा, किसी दूर की शाखा में नहीं।
उपाय, अदालत और समय-सीमा: उल्लंघन पर सिविल वाद में निषेधाज्ञा (injunction) और क्षतिपूर्ति या लाभ का हिसाब मिल सकता है। कॉपीराइट का जानबूझकर उल्लंघन धारा 63 के तहत छह महीने से तीन वर्ष तक के कारावास और पचास हज़ार से दो लाख रुपये तक के जुर्माने से दंडनीय है; ट्रेडमार्क या GI को मिथ्या बनाना, मिथ्या रूप से लगाना या ऐसे माल को बेचना भी ट्रेडमार्क और GI अधिनियमों में अपराध है, पर पेटेंट और डिज़ाइन का उल्लंघन अपराध नहीं है। सीमा शुल्क (Customs) विभाग को नोटिस देकर उल्लंघनकारी आयात की निकासी रुकवाई जा सकती है। IP विवाद Commercial Courts Act, 2015 के तहत वाणिज्यिक विवाद हैं; 4 अप्रैल 2021 से IPAB समाप्त है और अपील हाई कोर्ट में होती है। मुआवज़े का वाद उल्लंघन की तारीख से तीन वर्ष के भीतर दायर करना होता है (Limitation Act, 1963 का अनुच्छेद 88)।
Frequently asked questions
IPR stands for Intellectual Property Rights: the exclusive rights the law gives over inventions (patents), brand names and logos (trade marks), books, music, films and software (copyright), the look of products (designs), goods linked to a place (geographical indications), new plant varieties and semiconductor chip layouts. In India each right comes from its own Act, and patents, designs, trade marks and GIs are administered by the Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks (ipindia.gov.in).
Copyright, patents, trade marks, industrial designs, geographical indications, plant varieties and semiconductor layout-designs, each under its own Act. Trade secrets are protected too, but without a statute: the Law Commission said in March 2024 that India protects them “under common law, equity and contract”. Traditional knowledge as such is not patentable (Section 3(p), Patents Act), and IP applications based on biological resources accessed from India need the approval of, or registration with, the National Biodiversity Authority (Section 6, Biological Diversity Act, 2002).
The Copyright Act, 1957 (Act 14 of 1957); the Patents Act, 1970 (Act 39 of 1970); the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (Act 47 of 1999); the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 (Act 48 of 1999); the Designs Act, 2000 (Act 16 of 2000); the Semiconductor Integrated Circuits Layout-Design Act, 2000 (Act 37 of 2000); and the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001 (Act 53 of 2001). The Commercial Courts Act, 2015 governs IP suits valued at ₹3 lakh or more, and the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 abolished the IPAB.
The earliest Indian IP legislation recorded on the official IP Office website (ipindia.gov.in) is the 1856 patents Act: ipindia’s history of the Indian patent system says, “The first legislation in India relating to patents was the Act VI of 1856.” ipindia describes it as the first patent law, not as the first IP law of any kind. Enacted without the British Crown’s approval, it was repealed by Act IX of 1857 and replaced by Act XV of 1859 (ipindia’s designs history gives the 1859 Act as “Act VI of 1859”). The Indian Patents and Designs Act, 1911 later replaced all the earlier Acts.
Biswanath Prasad Radhey Shyam v. Hindustan Metal Industries (1978) – no presumption that a patent is valid; R.G. Anand v. M/s. Delux Films (1978) – no copyright in an idea; Cadila Healthcare v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals (2001) – seven factors for deceptive similarity, with a stricter test for medicines; Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak (2007) – originality needs a “minimal degree of creativity”; Bajaj Auto v. TVS Motor (2009) – IP suits must be decided quickly; Novartis v. Union of India (2013) – Section 3(d); and IPRS v. Sanjay Dalia (2015) – limits on where to sue. All are Supreme Court judgments.
No statute defines it. An IP case is any dispute about an intellectual property right: a civil suit for infringement or passing off (a “commercial dispute” under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015), an opposition or rectification before the Registrar or the Controller, an appeal from their orders to the High Court, or a criminal complaint under the Copyright, Trade Marks or GI Acts. Patent and design infringement are civil wrongs only, because those Acts create no offence of infringement.
The National IPR Policy, approved by the Union Cabinet on 12 May 2016, sums up the aim in its slogan “Creative India; Innovative India”, with objectives ranging from IPR awareness and the generation and commercialisation of IPRs to enforcement and adjudication. In legal terms, IPR gives creators and businesses exclusive rights they can enforce: a product patent lets its owner stop others making, using, offering for sale, selling or importing the product in India (Section 48, Patents Act), and a registered trade mark gives the exclusive right to use it for the registered goods or services (Section 28, Trade Marks Act).
There is no fixed official time; it depends on objections, oppositions and the office’s workload. For a trade mark, an accepted application is advertised, anyone may oppose it within four months (Section 21(1)), and if there is no successful opposition the Registrar is to register the mark “within eighteen months of the filing of the application” (Section 23(1)). A patent application is examined only on a request made within the period in rule 24B of the Patents Rules, which the Patents (Amendment) Rules, 2024 cut from forty-eight to thirty-one months for applications filed on or after 15 March 2024 (older applications keep the earlier period), and it may face pre-grant opposition (Section 25(1)).
No. Copyright subsists in original literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works, films and sound recordings under Section 13 of the Copyright Act without registration, and Section 45 says the owner “may make an application” to the Registrar of Copyrights. Registration is still useful as proof: “The Register of Copyrights shall be prima facie evidence of the particulars entered therein” (Section 48). Applications are made online on Form XIV; the official fee is ₹500 for a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work, ₹5,000 for a film and ₹2,000 for a sound recording.
Not automatically. A “design” under Section 2(d) of the Designs Act, 2000 is an article’s visual appearance and, by definition, excludes any trade mark. A trade mark “may include shape of goods, their packaging and combination of colours” if it distinguishes one trader’s goods or services from another’s (Section 2(1)(zb), Trade Marks Act, 1999), so a shape that works as a badge of origin may be registrable as a mark – but not a shape that results from the nature of the goods, is necessary to obtain a technical result or gives substantial value to the goods (Section 9(3)). The answer depends on the facts.
Patent: twenty years from the date of filing (Section 53). Trade mark: ten years, renewable for ten years at a time (Section 25). Design: ten years plus one extension of five (Section 11). GI: ten years, renewable (Section 18). Copyright in a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work published in the author’s lifetime: sixty years from the beginning of the calendar year after the author’s death (Section 22); films, sound recordings, posthumous, anonymous and Government works: sixty years from the beginning of the calendar year after first publication. Plant varieties: six or nine years, renewable up to fifteen or eighteen. Layout-designs: ten years.
No. In R.G. Anand v. M/s. Delux Films (18 August 1978) the Supreme Court held: “There can be no copyright in an idea, subject matter, themes, plots or historical or legendary facts”. Only the form, manner, arrangement and expression of an idea are protected, and a later work infringes only if it copies that expression substantially and materially. An invention, as opposed to an idea, may be patented if it is a new product or process involving an inventive step and capable of industrial application.
A geographical indication (GI) identifies goods from a territory, region or locality “where a given quality, reputation or other characteristic of such goods is essentially attributable to its geographical origin” (Section 2(1)(e), GI Act, 1999). It is registered on the application of an association or organisation representing the producers, lasts ten years, is renewable and cannot be assigned or licensed (Sections 11, 18 and 24). Yes: Darjeeling Tea (word and logo) is the first entry in the GI Registry’s list of registered GIs, at serial numbers 1 and 2, for April 2004 to March 2005.
There is no trade secrets Act. The Law Commission’s Report No. 289 (March 2024) says that India “continues to protect trade secrets under common law, equity and contract”, so a business relies on confidentiality terms in its contracts and on the general law. The Commission recommended a separate law, with exceptions for whistleblowers, compulsory licensing and government use, and public interest, and attached a draft Protection of Trade Secrets Bill, 2024; that draft is a recommendation, not law.
Partly. Section 27(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 bars any proceeding “to prevent, or to recover damages for, the infringement of an unregistered trade mark”, but Section 27(2) keeps the action for passing off, so the owner of an unregistered mark can sue a rival who passes off goods or services as his. Cadila Healthcare v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals (2001), a passing-off case, gives the factors for judging deceptive similarity. Registration adds “the exclusive right to the use of the trade mark” (Section 28) and a suit for infringement.
Section 3(d) says that “the mere discovery of a new form of a known substance which does not result in the enhancement of the known efficacy of that substance” is not an invention. In Novartis AG v. Union of India (1 April 2013) the Supreme Court held that the beta crystalline form of Imatinib Mesylate, an anti-cancer drug, failed this test: better flow, stability and lower hygroscopicity are not therapeutic efficacy, and increased bioavailability must be shown by research data. It added that Section 3(d) does not bar patents for all incremental inventions of chemical and pharmaceutical substances.
In the district court for copyright (Section 62, Copyright Act), and in a court not lower than a district court for trade marks and patents (Section 134, Trade Marks Act; Section 104, Patents Act); a design piracy suit cannot be filed below the court of the District Judge. IP disputes are commercial disputes, so suits of at least ₹3 lakh go to a Commercial Court or, if filed on the original side of a High Court such as Delhi, to its Commercial Division. For copyright and registered trade marks the plaintiff may sue where it resides or carries on business, but if it does so at a place where the cause of action also arose, it must sue there rather than at a distant branch (IPRS v. Sanjay Dalia, 2015).
The Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) was abolished by the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021, which is deemed to have come into force on 4 April 2021. The Act replaced “Appellate Board” with “High Court” in the appeal provisions of the Patents Act (Section 117A), the Trade Marks Act (Section 91), the GI Act (Section 31) and the Copyright Act (Section 72). Since 4 April 2021, appeals that went to the IPAB lie to the High Court; under the Patents, GI and Copyright Acts, within three months.
For copyright, and for counterfeit trade marks and GIs, yes. Knowingly infringing copyright is punishable with imprisonment of six months to three years and a fine of ₹50,000 to ₹2 lakh (Section 63, Copyright Act), and a police officer not below the rank of sub-inspector may seize infringing copies without a warrant (Section 64). Falsifying or falsely applying a trade mark, or selling goods bearing one, carries the same range (Sections 103 and 104, Trade Marks Act), as do the GI offences (Sections 39 and 40). Patent and design infringement are civil wrongs only.
Article 88 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 gives three years from “The date of the infringement” for a suit “For compensation for infringing copyright or any other exclusive privilege”. It is not limited to patents and designs. Article 88 deals with claims for compensation; where the infringement is still continuing, see the firm’s guide to Section 22 of the Limitation Act (continuing wrongs). Time spent in pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is not counted. The firm’s limitation calculator helps work out the last date.
Yes. Under the Intellectual Property Rights (Imported Goods) Enforcement Rules, 2007, a right holder may give written notice to the Commissioner of Customs at the port of import asking for suspension of clearance of goods suspected to infringe (rule 3); if the Deputy or Assistant Commissioner of Customs has reason to believe that they infringe, he “shall suspend the clearance of the goods” (rule 7). Rights are recorded online on CBIC’s Indian Customs IPR Recordation Portal, and copyright owners can also apply under Section 53 of the Copyright Act.
IPR का फुल फॉर्म Intellectual Property Rights (बौद्धिक संपदा अधिकार) है। भारत में इसके मुख्य प्रकार हैं: कॉपीराइट (The Copyright Act, 1957), पेटेंट (The Patents Act, 1970), ट्रेडमार्क (The Trade Marks Act, 1999), औद्योगिक डिज़ाइन (The Designs Act, 2000), भौगोलिक संकेत यानी GI (The Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999), पौधों की किस्में (The Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001) और सेमीकंडक्टर चिप के लेआउट-डिज़ाइन (The Semiconductor Integrated Circuits Layout-Design Act, 2000)। व्यापार रहस्यों (trade secrets) के लिए कोई अलग कानून नहीं है; उनकी रक्षा अनुबंध, साम्या और कॉमन लॉ के आधार पर होती है।
Conclusion
India protects intellectual property through separate Acts, not one IPR law. Copyright arises without registration; the other statutory rights depend on registration; trade secrets rest on contract, equity and common law. The landmark judgments supply the working rules: no copyright in ideas, a minimal degree of creativity for originality, strict tests of inventive step with no presumption that a patent is valid, a stricter look at confusing medicine names, enhanced efficacy for new forms of known drugs, limits on where a plaintiff may sue, and IP suits decided quickly.
In practice: file the suit in the court the Act names (the district court for copyright; a court not lower than a district court for trade marks and patents), claim compensation within three years of the infringement, use criminal remedies only where the Copyright, Trade Marks or GI Acts create an offence, record rights with Customs, and remember that appeals which once went to the IPAB now go to the High Court.
Sources used for this post: the Copyright Act, 1957, the Patents Act, 1970, the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the Designs Act, 2000, the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001, the Semiconductor Integrated Circuits Layout-Design Act, 2000, the Biological Diversity Act, 2002, the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, the Limitation Act, 1963, the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the Constitution of India, on India Code; the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 (Gazette, 13 August 2021); the IPR (Imported Goods) Enforcement Rules, 2007; the Patents (Amendment) Rules, 2024; ipindia.gov.in’s history, Trade Marks Registry, GI, filing and fee pages and its list of registered GIs (2 May 2026); PIB’s release of 13 May 2016; Law Commission of India Report No. 289 (March 2024); the Delhi High Court IPR Division Rules, 2022; WIPO Lex and the WTO for treaty dates; the Supreme Court’s own copies of the seven judgments discussed (13 December 1978, 18 August 1978, 26 March 2001, 12 December 2007, 16 September 2009, 1 April 2013 and 1 July 2015); and the Delhi High Court’s order in Karan Johar v. Ashok Kumar (17 September 2025).
