Skip to main content

Aqa Raza

O.P. Jindal Global University, Jindal Global Law School, Department Member

Followers

285

Following

28

Co-authors

5

Public Views

B.A., LL.B. (Hons.); LL.M. (Gold Medalist) from Aligarh Muslim University; UGC–NET | Reading for Ph.D. in Law at National Law Institute University, Bhopal
Aqa Raza works as Lecturer at Jindal Global Law School, O.P. Jindal Global University, Haryana, India. He has worked on the Project 'Enabling Resident Welfare Associations for Improving Quality of Life' and was part of the team which drafted the 'Madhya Pradesh Resident Welfare Association Policy, 2020'. His research and teaching include Constitutional Law and Intellectual Property Rights.
Supervisors: Professor (Dr.) V. Vijayakumar

less

InterestsView All (7)

Uploads

Papers by Aqa Raza

Contribution of Journal of Intellectual Property Rights in IPR Research: A View through the Articles Published in Volumes 28 (2023) and 29 (2024)

Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 2025

This Paper reviews the articles published in the Journal of Intellectual Property Rights (hereina... more This Paper reviews the articles published in the Journal of Intellectual Property Rights (hereinafter, JIPR) from Issue (6) of Volume 28 (2023) to Issue (6) of Volume 29 (2024). This Paper is in continuation to the papers published in the series ‘JIPR in IPR Research’, which reviewed the articles published in JIPR from Volume 1 (1) (1996) to Volume 28 (5) (2023). Paper proceeds with the same argument and method as developed and adopted in the previous papers published under the series.

Two Decades of the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration andProtection) Act, 1999: A Review of 547 Registered Geographical Indications

Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 2024

The Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 came into force aft... more The Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 came into force after four years from the date of its publication on the Gazette of India. Out of the 1181 total applications submitted, only 46.31 (forty-six point three one) percent, making a total of 547 geographical indications, have been registered and granted registration certificates under the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, as of January 2024. Adopting quantitative method, this Paper reviews the total registered Geographical Indications in the last two decades. For convenience, this paper has been divided into five parts. Part I gives an outline of the paper. Part II seeks to review the total registered geographical indications of foreign countries under the Act in six broad heads and five sub-heads. Part III reviews the state-wise total registered geographical indications under five different heads and in two sub-parts including the tags shared by the Indian states with other state(s) and the union territories. Part IV reviews the union territory-wise registered geographical indications in two sub-parts and in nine broad heads. Part V concludes.

IP Case Law Development

The Supreme Court of India (the Supreme Court) not only declares law while answering the question... more The Supreme Court of India (the Supreme Court) not only declares law while answering the question(s) before it but also declares, and makes and unmakes law. The question(s) of law or fact, or mixed question of law and fact, answered by the Supreme Court becomes binding by virtue of Article 141 of the Constitution of India. By answering such questions, the Court also irons out the creases of law by interpreting-constructing the statutory texts. This article covers the reportable intellectual property (IP) decisions of the Supreme Court delivered in the year 2023. The reportable decisions of the Supreme Court have been taken from Judgement Information System (JUDIS) and Supreme Court Cases.

Patent Law and Compulsory Licensing: Indian Perspective

Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 2024

This Paper seeks to critically analyze and evaluate the concept of compulsory licensing under the... more This Paper seeks to critically analyze and evaluate the concept of compulsory licensing under the Indian Patents and Designs Act, 1911, and the Patents Act, 1970. The Paper further: (i) traces its evolution from the French Patent Law of 1791 to the amendment of the TRIPS Agreement in 2017 that introduced Article 31bis; (ii) analyzes the detailed procedure and consideration for the grant of compulsory license in India; and (iii) in the light of Natco v Bayer decision, discusses the rejection of the compulsory license applications on the grounds of procedural non-compliance. In the end, paper develops an argument that the provisions relating to compulsory license under the Indian patent regulatory framework have remained a dead letter during COVID-19 pandemic at the cost of public health and welfare.

Madhya Pradesh Resident Welfare Association Policy 2020 Draft

RWA Policy for the State of Madhya Pradesh

Trademark Law Declared by the Supreme Court of India in Twentieth-Century

Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 2023

The Parliament of India makes, amends, and unmakes law. The Supreme Court of India (hereinafter, ... more The Parliament of India makes, amends, and unmakes law. The Supreme Court of India (hereinafter, the Supreme Court), under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, declares the law and makes and unmakes the law while deciding cases through the process of judicial review and interpretation-construction. The constitutional powers of these two branches are related but separate. The law made by the Parliament stands constitutionally valid unless declared uconstitutional, eviscerated or read down by the Supreme Court. As the analyses reveals,1 the constitutionality of none of the seven intellectual property (hereinafter, IP) enactments has been challenged before the Supreme Court in any of the cases brought before it. Had the constitutionality of these statutes been challenged even then the statutes are presumed to be constitutionally valid and the person who challenges the validity of the statute and any provision thereof has a heavy burden to discharge. The Supreme Court ordinarily interprets-constructs the provisions of the statute and applies the same to decide the question(s) of law and/or question of facts in a lis between the parties before it. The answer of the Supreme Court becomes binding not only in personam but also in rem for the future cases. Among all the IP cases decided by the Supreme Court, trademark law may be called as the King of IP decisions with maximum number of reported decisions followed by copyright, patent and design laws. The first trademark case was decided by the Supreme Court in the year 1953, after 1196 days (3.27 years) of its establishment. In 20th century, the Supreme Court has decided a total of 19 cases on trademark law. On an average, the Supreme Court has decided .38 (point three eight) trademark case in a year; or one trademark case in 978.94 (point nine four) days or in 2.68 (point six eight) years. A review of reported decisions of 20th century reveals that the Court has: (i) declared Trademark Law in 15 decisions; (ii) not only interpreted the provisions of the statutes but has also constructed them; (iii) not declared anything on the constitutionality of the trademark statutes as no such question of constitutionality was involved; (iv) delivered all the decisions unanimously as no dissenting or concurring judgment is reported; (v) decided maximum number of cases by Full Bench (11) and remaining 8 decisions by Division Bench. It is also observed that two Chief Justices of India and one Acting Chief Justice were on the Bench in three decisions, but the judgment was authored only by the Acting Chief Justice. Paper proceeds with the same argument and method as developed and adopted in the first three papers covering patent law, copyright law and design law published under the theme ‘IP Laws Declared by the Supreme Court’. This Paper seeks to cull out the principles of trademark law as declared by the Supreme Court in 20th century decisions.

Trademark Law Declared by the Supreme Court of India in Twenty-First Century (2010-2023) — II

Journal of Intellectual Property Rights , 2023

The Parliament of India amends and makes and unmakes the law. The Supreme Court of India (hereina... more The Parliament of India amends and makes and unmakes the law. The Supreme Court of India (hereinafter, the Supreme Court), does not merely decide a lis in personam but also declares the law on a question that it decides to answer. The law so declared by the Supreme Court becomes binding in rem by virtue of Article 141 of the Constitution of India (hereinafter, the Constitution). The Supreme Court, by virtue of Article 141 of the Constitution, declares the law and makes and unmakes the law while deciding cases through the process of judicial review and interpretation-construction. In the second and third decades of twenty-first century, the Supreme Court has, on an average, decided 1.86 (point eight six) cases in a year, or one trademark case in 196.07 (point zero seven) days, or one case in .53 (point five three) year. A review of the reported decisions on the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (hereinafter, the Trade Marks Act) reveals that the Supreme Court has: (i) delivered a total of 27 decisions including a few decisions in which the Trade Marks Act finds only a reference; (ii) declared trademark law and iron out the creases of law by interpreting the text of the statutes; (iii) not declared anything on the constitutionality of the trademark statutes as no such question of constitutionality was brought before it; (iv) delivered all the decisions unanimously as no dissenting or concurring judgment is reported; (v) decided maximum number of cases by Division Bench (21 cases) constituting 77.77 (point seven seven) percent, followed by Full Bench (5 cases) constituting 18.51 (point five one) percent, and 1 by Single Bench constituting 3.7 (point seven) percent; and (vi) decided only one trademark case by a Single Bench which is reported from the third decade of this century. A total of 39 judges were on the bench deciding the 27 trademark cases. It has been observed that no sitting Chief Justice of India was on the bench in any of the trademark cases. Paper proceeds with the same argument and method as developed and adopted in the papers covering patent law, copyright law, design law and trademark law in twentieth and twenty-first centuries published under the theme ‘IP Laws Declared by the Supreme Court). This Paper seeks to cull out the principles of trademark law declared by the Supreme Court in the second and third decades of the twenty-first century.

Contribution of Journal of Intellectual Property Rights (JIPR) in IPR Research: A View through the Articles Published in the Third Decade of Twenty-First Century (2020-2023) — VI

Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 2023

This Paper seeks to review the articles published in the Journal of Intellectual Property Rights ... more This Paper seeks to review the articles published in the Journal of Intellectual Property Rights (hereinafter, JIPR) in the third decade of the twenty-first century from Volume 25 (1) (2020) to Volume 28 (5) (2023). In this decade, five new series on different themes of intellectual property rights (hereinafter, IPRs) were started by JIPR which include ‘IP & Taxation Policy’, ‘Theoretical Underpinnings of IP Laws’, ‘Standard Essential Patents’, ‘IP Laws Declared by the Supreme Court’, and ‘JIPR in IPR Research’. In this decade, a total of 139 articles were published covering different areas of IPRs. The articles published in this decade constitute 14.52 (point five two) percent of the total articles published in JIPR till Volume 28 (5) (2023). In terms of percentage of the articles published in each decade, this decade with 14.52 (point five two) percent comes fourth after the decades 2010–2014 with 26.22 percent, 2005–2009 with 22.98 percent, and 2015–2019 with 15.04 percent. This is the sixth paper on the theme ‘JIPR in IPR Research’ and proceeds with the same argument and method as developed and adopted in the First Paper and the sequel papers published under the theme.

Trademark Law Declared by the Supreme Court of India in Twenty-First Century (2000-2009) – I

Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 2023

The Parliament of India makes, amends, and unmakes law. The Supreme Court of India (hereinafter, ... more The Parliament of India makes, amends, and unmakes law. The Supreme Court of India (hereinafter, the Supreme Court), under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, declares the law and makes and unmakes the law. These constitutional powers of two branches are related but separate. The Supreme Court in the first decade of 21st century has delivered 23 decisions on the trademark law. On an average, the Supreme Court has decided 2.3 (point three) trademark cases in a year; or one trademark case in 158.82 (point eight two) days or in .43 (point four three) years. A review of reported 21st century decisions reveals that the Court has: (i) declared trademark law in 17 decisions; (ii) not only interpreted the provisions of the statutes but has also constructed them; (iii) not declared anything on the constitutionality of the trademark statutes as no such question of constitutionality was brought before it; (iv) delivered all the decisions unanimously as no dissenting or concurring judgment is reported; and (v) decided maximum number of cases by Division Bench (21) and remaining 2 cases by Full Bench. It is also observed that no sitting or acting Chief Justices of India was on the Bench in any of the cases. Paper proceeds with the same argument and method as developed in the first four papers on patent law, copyright law, design law and trademark law in twentieth-century published under the theme ‘IP Laws Declared by the Supreme Court’. This Paper seeks to cull out the principles of trademark law as declared by the Supreme Court in the first decade of the twenty-first century.

Contribution of Journal of Intellectual Property Rights (JIPR) in IPR Research: A View through the Articles Published in the Second Decade of Twenty-First Century (2015-2019) — V

Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 2023

This Paper seeks to review the articles published in the Journal of Intellectual Property Rights ... more This Paper seeks to review the articles published in the Journal of Intellectual Property Rights (JIPR)in the second half of the second decade of the twenty-first century from Volume 20 (1) (2015) to Volume 24 (6) (2019). This is the fifth paper on the theme 'JIPR in IPR Research’ and proceeds with the same method and arguments as adopted and developed in the previous four papers published on the theme. In this decade, a total of 144 articles were published including one Special Issue on the theme ‘New Technologies, Climate Change and IPR’. These 144 articles were published in 30 issues of 5 volumes. JIPR in this decade published 6 regular issues in Volumes 20 (2015) and 22 (2017). Whereas, the Issues 4 and 5 of Volume 21 (2016); Issues 2 and 3, and 4 and 5 of Volume 23 (2018); and Issues (1) and (2), (3) and (4), and (5) and (6) of Volume 24 (2019) were published jointly. Out of total articles published in JIPR till Volume 24, the number of articles published in this decade (144) constitutes 17.60 (point six zero) percent, and the contribution of this decade (2015–2019) is 19.27 (point two seven) percent.

Contribution of Journal of Intellectual Property Rights (JIPR) in IPR Research: A View through the Articles Published in the Second Decade of Twenty-First Century (2010–2014) — IV

This Paper seeks to review the articles published in the Journal of Intellectual Property Rights ... more This Paper seeks to review the articles published in the Journal of Intellectual Property Rights (JIPR) in the first half of the second decade of the twenty-first century from Volume 15 (1) (2010) to Volume 19 (6) (2014). This is the fourth paper on the theme ‘JIPR in IPR Research’ and proceeds with the same argument and method as developed and used in the previous three papers published on the theme ‘JIPR in IPR Research’. In this decade, two Special Issues on the themes ‘IPR and Agriculture’ and ‘Leveraging IP for Business Advantage’ were published with their separate guest editors. Compared to the previous decades, the articles published between 2010–2014 are maximum. Out of the total articles published between 1996–2014, the number of articles (251) published in this decade between 2010–2014 constitute 37.24 (point two four) compared to 32.64 (point six four) percent in 2005–2009, 19.58 (point five eight) percent in 2000–2004 and 10.53 (point five three) in 1996–1999.

Trademark Law Declared by the Supreme Court of India in Twentieth-Century

The Parliament of India makes, amends, and unmakes law. The Supreme Court of India (hereinafter, ... more The Parliament of India makes, amends, and unmakes law. The Supreme Court of India (hereinafter, the Supreme Court), under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, declares the law and makes and unmakes the law while deciding cases through the process of judicial review and interpretation-construction. The constitutional powers of these two branches are related but separate. The law made by the Parliament stands constitutionally valid unless declared uconstitutional, eviscerated or read down by the Supreme Court. As the analyses reveals,1 the constitutionality of none of the seven intellectual property (hereinafter, IP) enactments has been challenged before the Supreme Court in any of the cases brought before it. Had the constitutionality of these statutes been challenged even then the statutes are presumed to be constitutionally valid and the person who challenges the validity of the statute and any provision thereof has a heavy burden to discharge. The Supreme Court ordinarily interprets-constructs the provisions of the statute and applies the same to decide the question(s) of law and/or question of facts in a lis between the parties before it. The answer of the Supreme Court becomes binding not only in personam but also in rem for the future cases. Among all the IP cases decided by the Supreme Court, trademark law may be called as the King of IP decisions with maximum number of reported decisions followed by copyright, patent and design laws. The first trademark case was decided by the Supreme Court in the year 1953, after 1196 days (3.27 years) of its establishment. In 20th century, the Supreme Court has decided a total of 19 cases on trademark law. On an average, the Supreme Court has decided .38 (point three eight) trademark case in a year; or one trademark case in 978.94 (point nine four) days or in 2.68 (point six eight) years. A review of reported decisions of 20th century reveals that the Court has: (i) declared Trademark Law in 15 decisions; (ii) not only interpreted the provisions of the statutes but has also constructed them; (iii) not declared anything on the constitutionality of the trademark statutes as no such question of constitutionality was involved; (iv) delivered all the decisions unanimously as no dissenting or concurring judgment is reported; (v) decided maximum number of cases by Full Bench (11) and remaining 8 decisions by Division Bench. It is also observed that two Chief Justices of India and one Acting Chief Justice were on the Bench in three decisions, but the judgment was authored only by the Acting Chief Justice. Paper proceeds with the same argument and method as developed and adopted in the first three papers covering patent law, copyright law and design law published under the theme ‘IP Laws Declared by the Supreme Court’. This Paper seeks to cull out the principles of trademark law as declared by the Supreme Court in 20th century decisions.

Design Law Declared by the Supreme Court of India

Journal of Intellectual Property Rights , 2023

By virtue of Article 141 of the Constitution of India (hereinafter, the Constitution), the law de... more By virtue of Article 141 of the Constitution of India (hereinafter, the Constitution), the law declared by the Supreme Court of India (hereinafter, the Supreme Court) is the law of the land. The Supreme Court furtherance to its law-declaring power under Article 141 of the Constitution has declared design law only in three decisions. This Paper seeks to cull out the principles of design law declared by the Supreme Court in the last 72 years. There are only three reported decisions of the Supreme Court on the design law of which two are Division Bench decisions and one is Full Bench decision. Number of decisions per year is not even one. On an average, the Supreme Court has decided 4 cases in a year, or one design case in 8,836.66 days or in 24.21 years. Since the number of reported decisions is very less so only few questions of design law have been answered by the Supreme Court. A review of decisions of the Supreme Court on the design law reveals that: (i) unlike the patent and copyright decisions, the Supreme Court has declared the design law in all the three reported decisions; (ii) no case is reported in which the constitutionality of The Designs Act, 2000 was challenged; (iii) no Constitution Bench or Single Bench decision is reported; (iv) no Chief Justice of India was on the bench in any decision; (v) the Court has unanimously declared the design law; and (vi) no dissenting or concurring judgment is reported.

Contribution of Journal of Intellectual Property Rights (JIPR) in IPR Research: A View through the Articles Published in the First Decade of Twenty-First Century (2005–2009) — III

by Aqa Raza and Kanika Malik

Journal of Intellectual Property Rights , 2023

This Paper seeks to review the articles published in the Journal of Intellectual Property Rights ... more This Paper seeks to review the articles published in the Journal of Intellectual Property Rights (JIPR) in the second half of the first decade of the twenty-first century from Volume 10 (1) (2005) to Volume 14 (6) (2009). During this period, a total of seven post-independent enacted IP legislations were in force in the country. This Paper seeks to review the articles published in JIPR year-wise during the decade. Paper attempts to identify: (i) total number of issues published; (ii) total number of articles published; (iii) total number of contributions made by Indian and foreign scholars; (iv) total number of sole and joint publications; (v) publishing style of JIPR; and (vi) areas of IP covered in each volume. A review of articles published during this period reveals that on an average, a total of 44 articles have been published in each volume. In the total articles published between 1996-2009, the articles published during the second half of the first decade of 21st century constitute 52 percent (220 articles) compared to 31.20 percent published between 2000-2004 (132 articles) and 16.78 percent between 1996-1999 (71 papers). JIPR through an open-access platform has provided an opportunity to IP scholars to publish their writings addressing the gaps in the areas of IP. In the end, Paper develops an argument that JIPR has significantly contributed in the development of IP by disseminating IP information and knowledge, and also in creating IP knowledge and awareness.

Copyright Law Declared by the Supreme Court of India

by Aqa Raza and Mohammad Athar Talib

The law declared by the Supreme Court of India (Supreme Court) is the law of the land by virtue o... more The law declared by the Supreme Court of India (Supreme Court) is the law of the land by virtue of Article 141 of the Constitution of India. When the Supreme Court decides a lis, it not only decides for the parties to the case but also declares the law on a question that it decides to answer. There are only twenty-four reported decisions delivered by the Supreme Court in the last 72 years on the copyright law. Number of decisions per year is not even one. On an average, the Supreme Court has decided .33 case in a year; or one copyright case in 1104.58 days; or in 3.02 years. These decisions of the Supreme Court on the copyright law are just double of the number of decisions on the patent law. A review of decisions on copyright law from 28 January 1950 to 28 August 2022, reveals that: (i) only in 20 decisions, the Supreme Court has declared copyright law which include 4 decisions from 20th century and 16 decisions from 21st century; (ii) the validity of The Copyright Act, 1957, was not challenged in any decision; (iii) only one case from the decision of the High Court involving the constitutionality of Rule 29 (4) of The Copyright Rules, 2013 where the High Court re-drafted the Rule, reached to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court held the re-drafting by the High Court as unwarranted and shown deference to the legislative wisdom; (iv) No Constitution Bench or Single Bench decision is reported; (v) no Chief Justice of India was on the bench in any copyright decision; (vi) only 4 judges authored their separate but concurring judgments (3 from 20th century and 1 from 21st century) and no dissenting judgment was delivered; (vii) the Court has unanimously answered the questions of copyright law; and (viii) only some of the questions of copyright law have been answered unambiguously and unequivocally by the Supreme Court but some of the questions have been left open by the Court. This Paper seeks to cull out the principles of copyright law as declared by the Supreme Court in the last 72 years.

Contribution of Journal of Intellectual Property Rights (JIPR) in IPR Research: A View through the Articles Published in the First Decade of Twenty-First Century (2000-2004) — II

This Paper seeks to review the articles published in the Journal of Intellectual Property Rights ... more This Paper seeks to review the articles published in the Journal of Intellectual Property Rights (JIPR) in the first half of the first decade of the twenty-first century from Volume 5 (1) (2000) to Volume 9 (6) (2004). During this period, a total of seven post-independent IP legislations were enacted in the country. This Paper reviews the articles published in JIPR year-wise. Paper attempts to identify: (i) total number of issues published; (ii) total number of articles published; (iii) total number of contributions made by the Indian and foreign scholars; (iv) total number of sole and joint publications; (v) publishing style of JIPR; and (vi) area of IP covered in each volume. Dissemination of information is a necessary condition for creation of new knowledge. JIPR through an open-access platform has provided an opportunity to the IP scholars to publish their writings addressing the gaps in the areas of IP. In the end, Paper develops an argument that JIPR has significantly contributed in the development of IP by disseminating IP information and knowledge and also in creating IP knowledge and awareness.

Contribution of Journal of Intellectual Property Rights (JIPR) in IPR Research: A View through the Articles Published in the Last Decade of Twentieth-Century (1996-1999) — I

Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 2023

This paper seeks to review the articles published in the Journal of Intellectual Property Rights ... more This paper seeks to review the articles published in the Journal of Intellectual Property Rights (JIPR) in the last decade of the twentieth century from Volume 1(1) (1996) to Volume 4(6) (1999). There are seven intellectual property (IP) statutes in force in India. When JIPR published its first Volume in the year 1996, only two IP statutes, legislated and enacted in post-independent India, were in force, namely: (i) The Copyright Act, 1957; and (ii) The Patents Act, 1970 — enacted after 10 years and 23 years respectively after the independence of the country. Nevertheless, the Imperial Act on designs was also in force by the virtue of Article 372 of the Constitution of India, until the Indian Parliament enacted a separate statute on designs. Two statutes were enacted in 1999 and the other three statutes were enacted in the first decade of the 21st century but some of them took a time of almost a decade to come into force. For convenience, the papers published in JIPR have been reviewed year-wise. Paper attempts to identify the: (i) total number of issues published; (ii) total number of articles published; (iii) total number of contributions made by the Indian and foreign scholars; (iv) total number of sole and joint publications; (v) publishing style of JIPR; and (vi) area of IP covered in the publications. JIPR since its inception has aimed to fill void in the IP literature in general and the Indian IP literature in particular. Paper develops an argument that JIPR has significantly contributed in the dissemination of IP information and knowledge, and also in creating IP knowledge and awareness by publishing quality research articles on an open access platform.

Patent Law Declared by the Supreme Court of India

The Supreme Court of India (hereinafter, the Supreme Court) does not merely decide a lis in perso... more The Supreme Court of India (hereinafter, the Supreme Court) does not merely decide a lis in personam but also declares the law on a question that it decides to answer. The law so declared by the Supreme Court becomes binding in rem by virtue of Article 141 of the Constitution of India. Since the establishment of the Supreme Court, only three cases were decided in the 20th century on The Patents Act, 1970 including one under The Patents and Designs Act, 1911, and in 21stcentury only eleven cases have been decided under The Patents Act. Number of decisions per year is not even one. On an average, the Court has decided .19 cases in a year; or one patent case in 1893.57 days, or in 5.18 years. Hence, only few questions of patent law have been answered. Many patent law questions still remain unanswered. This raises a two-fold problem. One, answers are not only too little but some of them are too ambiguous, too opaque and too vague. Two, absence of answer on certain basic points of patent law further heightens the problem of legal uncertainty and opacity. A review of decisions on the patent law reveals that: (i) the Court has declared patent law only in ten decisions; (ii) in no decision the validity of The Patents Act, 1970, was challenged; (iii) the Court has unanimously answered the questions of patent law; and (iv) only some of the questions of patent law have been answered by the Supreme Court unambiguously and unequivocally but some of the questions of patent law have been left open by the Court. This Paper identifies the intended and interpreted-constructed meaning of ‘Law Declared’ and seeks to cull out the principles of patent law as declared by the Supreme Court in the last 72 years.

Theoretical Underpinnings of Copyright and Design Laws Post-Krishika Lulla and Godrej Sara Lee: Decisions of the Supreme Court of India

Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 2022

This Paper seeks to build upon the method and findings of ‘Theoretical Underpinnings of Copyright... more This Paper seeks to build upon the method and findings of ‘Theoretical Underpinnings of Copyright and Design Laws: Decisions of the Supreme Court of India’ with a view to examine the theoretical underpinnings of copyright law post-Krishika Lulla and design law post-Godrej Sara Lee as discovered or constructed in the decisions of the Supreme Court of India (Supreme Court). An analysis of the reported decisions on copyright law reveals that: (i) validity of The Copyright Actor of any provisions of the Act was not in question in any of the decisions; (ii) constitutional validity of Rule 29 (4) of The Copyright Rules, 2013 was in question in one of the decisions in which the Supreme Court showing deference to the legislative wisdom reversed the decision of the High Court on the ground that the High Court has overreached its remit and has re-drafted the rule; (iii) both Labour and Utilitarian Theories, and not any other theory, have been simultaneously invoked by the Supreme Court; and (iv) on an average, the Court has decided 1.66 copyright cases in a year; or one copyright case in 251 days, or in .68 (point six eight) years. It appears that the Supreme Court was invoking both Labour and Utilitarian Theories mechanically without going into the clear differences between the two. It has been previously argued that the Court should have applied judicially manageable standards to rigorously scrutinize the theoretical underpinnings of copyright law from all possible angles. This Paper reiterates this argument for nothing seems to have changed in the judicial approach when it comes to theoretical underpinnings of copyright law. An analysis of decisions on design law reveals that: (i) only one decision has been reported on design law and the Court has not gone into the question of theoretical underpinnings; (ii) in four decisions there is only a reference to The Designs Act but these decisions have not decided any question of design law; and (iii) on an average, the Court has decided .08 (point zero eight) design cases in a year; or one design case in 4,595 days, or in 12.58 years.

COVID-19 Pandemic: Congenital Fluidity of Proposal for Waiver of IP Rights and the Road Ahead

by Aqa Raza and Ghayur Alam

WIPO-WTO Colloquium Papers, 2020

This paper argues that the proposal for waiver from the obligation to implement or apply certain ... more This paper argues that the proposal for waiver from the obligation to implement or apply certain provisions of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) is neither a complete solution nor the only solution to deal with the crisis of COVID-19 pandemic mainly because the waiver proposal has congenital fluidity. It is further argued that the solution lies in the effective enforcement of existing provisions of the TRIPS Agreement. It is also argued that the world needs more and not less patents on pharmaceutical products during the pandemic to help scale up production, improve global supply chain and promote competition to ensure equitable access to such products by all. The paper seeks to highlight congenital fluidity of the waiver proposal and demonstrates how existing provisions of the TRIPS Agreement can be effectively used during pandemics. However, the TRIPS Agreement would have been more efficacious had it expressly provided for pandemics. In hindsight of the COVID-19 pandemic, future pandemics cannot be ruled out. Time has come which demands that provisions on pandemics should be incorporated in the TRIPS Agreement. However, explicit mentioning of pandemics in the TRIPS Agreement alone cannot be sufficient to deal with pandemics. Therefore, it is further suggested that instead of piecemeal and ad hoc arrangements, the World Health Organization (WHO), the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and the World Trade Organization (WTO) should collaborate to develop an effective international legal framework to deal with both present and future pandemics.

Contribution of Journal of Intellectual Property Rights in IPR Research: A View through the Articles Published in Volumes 28 (2023) and 29 (2024)

Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 2025

This Paper reviews the articles published in the Journal of Intellectual Property Rights (hereina... more This Paper reviews the articles published in the Journal of Intellectual Property Rights (hereinafter, JIPR) from Issue (6) of Volume 28 (2023) to Issue (6) of Volume 29 (2024). This Paper is in continuation to the papers published in the series ‘JIPR in IPR Research’, which reviewed the articles published in JIPR from Volume 1 (1) (1996) to Volume 28 (5) (2023). Paper proceeds with the same argument and method as developed and adopted in the previous papers published under the series.

Two Decades of the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration andProtection) Act, 1999: A Review of 547 Registered Geographical Indications

Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 2024

The Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 came into force aft... more The Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 came into force after four years from the date of its publication on the Gazette of India. Out of the 1181 total applications submitted, only 46.31 (forty-six point three one) percent, making a total of 547 geographical indications, have been registered and granted registration certificates under the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, as of January 2024. Adopting quantitative method, this Paper reviews the total registered Geographical Indications in the last two decades. For convenience, this paper has been divided into five parts. Part I gives an outline of the paper. Part II seeks to review the total registered geographical indications of foreign countries under the Act in six broad heads and five sub-heads. Part III reviews the state-wise total registered geographical indications under five different heads and in two sub-parts including the tags shared by the Indian states with other state(s) and the union territories. Part IV reviews the union territory-wise registered geographical indications in two sub-parts and in nine broad heads. Part V concludes.

IP Case Law Development

The Supreme Court of India (the Supreme Court) not only declares law while answering the question... more The Supreme Court of India (the Supreme Court) not only declares law while answering the question(s) before it but also declares, and makes and unmakes law. The question(s) of law or fact, or mixed question of law and fact, answered by the Supreme Court becomes binding by virtue of Article 141 of the Constitution of India. By answering such questions, the Court also irons out the creases of law by interpreting-constructing the statutory texts. This article covers the reportable intellectual property (IP) decisions of the Supreme Court delivered in the year 2023. The reportable decisions of the Supreme Court have been taken from Judgement Information System (JUDIS) and Supreme Court Cases.

Patent Law and Compulsory Licensing: Indian Perspective

Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 2024

This Paper seeks to critically analyze and evaluate the concept of compulsory licensing under the... more This Paper seeks to critically analyze and evaluate the concept of compulsory licensing under the Indian Patents and Designs Act, 1911, and the Patents Act, 1970. The Paper further: (i) traces its evolution from the French Patent Law of 1791 to the amendment of the TRIPS Agreement in 2017 that introduced Article 31bis; (ii) analyzes the detailed procedure and consideration for the grant of compulsory license in India; and (iii) in the light of Natco v Bayer decision, discusses the rejection of the compulsory license applications on the grounds of procedural non-compliance. In the end, paper develops an argument that the provisions relating to compulsory license under the Indian patent regulatory framework have remained a dead letter during COVID-19 pandemic at the cost of public health and welfare.

Madhya Pradesh Resident Welfare Association Policy 2020 Draft

RWA Policy for the State of Madhya Pradesh

Trademark Law Declared by the Supreme Court of India in Twentieth-Century

Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 2023

The Parliament of India makes, amends, and unmakes law. The Supreme Court of India (hereinafter, ... more The Parliament of India makes, amends, and unmakes law. The Supreme Court of India (hereinafter, the Supreme Court), under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, declares the law and makes and unmakes the law while deciding cases through the process of judicial review and interpretation-construction. The constitutional powers of these two branches are related but separate. The law made by the Parliament stands constitutionally valid unless declared uconstitutional, eviscerated or read down by the Supreme Court. As the analyses reveals,1 the constitutionality of none of the seven intellectual property (hereinafter, IP) enactments has been challenged before the Supreme Court in any of the cases brought before it. Had the constitutionality of these statutes been challenged even then the statutes are presumed to be constitutionally valid and the person who challenges the validity of the statute and any provision thereof has a heavy burden to discharge. The Supreme Court ordinarily interprets-constructs the provisions of the statute and applies the same to decide the question(s) of law and/or question of facts in a lis between the parties before it. The answer of the Supreme Court becomes binding not only in personam but also in rem for the future cases. Among all the IP cases decided by the Supreme Court, trademark law may be called as the King of IP decisions with maximum number of reported decisions followed by copyright, patent and design laws. The first trademark case was decided by the Supreme Court in the year 1953, after 1196 days (3.27 years) of its establishment. In 20th century, the Supreme Court has decided a total of 19 cases on trademark law. On an average, the Supreme Court has decided .38 (point three eight) trademark case in a year; or one trademark case in 978.94 (point nine four) days or in 2.68 (point six eight) years. A review of reported decisions of 20th century reveals that the Court has: (i) declared Trademark Law in 15 decisions; (ii) not only interpreted the provisions of the statutes but has also constructed them; (iii) not declared anything on the constitutionality of the trademark statutes as no such question of constitutionality was involved; (iv) delivered all the decisions unanimously as no dissenting or concurring judgment is reported; (v) decided maximum number of cases by Full Bench (11) and remaining 8 decisions by Division Bench. It is also observed that two Chief Justices of India and one Acting Chief Justice were on the Bench in three decisions, but the judgment was authored only by the Acting Chief Justice. Paper proceeds with the same argument and method as developed and adopted in the first three papers covering patent law, copyright law and design law published under the theme ‘IP Laws Declared by the Supreme Court’. This Paper seeks to cull out the principles of trademark law as declared by the Supreme Court in 20th century decisions.

Trademark Law Declared by the Supreme Court of India in Twenty-First Century (2010-2023) — II

Journal of Intellectual Property Rights , 2023

The Parliament of India amends and makes and unmakes the law. The Supreme Court of India (hereina... more The Parliament of India amends and makes and unmakes the law. The Supreme Court of India (hereinafter, the Supreme Court), does not merely decide a lis in personam but also declares the law on a question that it decides to answer. The law so declared by the Supreme Court becomes binding in rem by virtue of Article 141 of the Constitution of India (hereinafter, the Constitution). The Supreme Court, by virtue of Article 141 of the Constitution, declares the law and makes and unmakes the law while deciding cases through the process of judicial review and interpretation-construction. In the second and third decades of twenty-first century, the Supreme Court has, on an average, decided 1.86 (point eight six) cases in a year, or one trademark case in 196.07 (point zero seven) days, or one case in .53 (point five three) year. A review of the reported decisions on the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (hereinafter, the Trade Marks Act) reveals that the Supreme Court has: (i) delivered a total of 27 decisions including a few decisions in which the Trade Marks Act finds only a reference; (ii) declared trademark law and iron out the creases of law by interpreting the text of the statutes; (iii) not declared anything on the constitutionality of the trademark statutes as no such question of constitutionality was brought before it; (iv) delivered all the decisions unanimously as no dissenting or concurring judgment is reported; (v) decided maximum number of cases by Division Bench (21 cases) constituting 77.77 (point seven seven) percent, followed by Full Bench (5 cases) constituting 18.51 (point five one) percent, and 1 by Single Bench constituting 3.7 (point seven) percent; and (vi) decided only one trademark case by a Single Bench which is reported from the third decade of this century. A total of 39 judges were on the bench deciding the 27 trademark cases. It has been observed that no sitting Chief Justice of India was on the bench in any of the trademark cases. Paper proceeds with the same argument and method as developed and adopted in the papers covering patent law, copyright law, design law and trademark law in twentieth and twenty-first centuries published under the theme ‘IP Laws Declared by the Supreme Court). This Paper seeks to cull out the principles of trademark law declared by the Supreme Court in the second and third decades of the twenty-first century.

Contribution of Journal of Intellectual Property Rights (JIPR) in IPR Research: A View through the Articles Published in the Third Decade of Twenty-First Century (2020-2023) — VI

Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 2023

This Paper seeks to review the articles published in the Journal of Intellectual Property Rights ... more This Paper seeks to review the articles published in the Journal of Intellectual Property Rights (hereinafter, JIPR) in the third decade of the twenty-first century from Volume 25 (1) (2020) to Volume 28 (5) (2023). In this decade, five new series on different themes of intellectual property rights (hereinafter, IPRs) were started by JIPR which include ‘IP & Taxation Policy’, ‘Theoretical Underpinnings of IP Laws’, ‘Standard Essential Patents’, ‘IP Laws Declared by the Supreme Court’, and ‘JIPR in IPR Research’. In this decade, a total of 139 articles were published covering different areas of IPRs. The articles published in this decade constitute 14.52 (point five two) percent of the total articles published in JIPR till Volume 28 (5) (2023). In terms of percentage of the articles published in each decade, this decade with 14.52 (point five two) percent comes fourth after the decades 2010–2014 with 26.22 percent, 2005–2009 with 22.98 percent, and 2015–2019 with 15.04 percent. This is the sixth paper on the theme ‘JIPR in IPR Research’ and proceeds with the same argument and method as developed and adopted in the First Paper and the sequel papers published under the theme.

Trademark Law Declared by the Supreme Court of India in Twenty-First Century (2000-2009) – I

Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 2023

The Parliament of India makes, amends, and unmakes law. The Supreme Court of India (hereinafter, ... more The Parliament of India makes, amends, and unmakes law. The Supreme Court of India (hereinafter, the Supreme Court), under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, declares the law and makes and unmakes the law. These constitutional powers of two branches are related but separate. The Supreme Court in the first decade of 21st century has delivered 23 decisions on the trademark law. On an average, the Supreme Court has decided 2.3 (point three) trademark cases in a year; or one trademark case in 158.82 (point eight two) days or in .43 (point four three) years. A review of reported 21st century decisions reveals that the Court has: (i) declared trademark law in 17 decisions; (ii) not only interpreted the provisions of the statutes but has also constructed them; (iii) not declared anything on the constitutionality of the trademark statutes as no such question of constitutionality was brought before it; (iv) delivered all the decisions unanimously as no dissenting or concurring judgment is reported; and (v) decided maximum number of cases by Division Bench (21) and remaining 2 cases by Full Bench. It is also observed that no sitting or acting Chief Justices of India was on the Bench in any of the cases. Paper proceeds with the same argument and method as developed in the first four papers on patent law, copyright law, design law and trademark law in twentieth-century published under the theme ‘IP Laws Declared by the Supreme Court’. This Paper seeks to cull out the principles of trademark law as declared by the Supreme Court in the first decade of the twenty-first century.

Contribution of Journal of Intellectual Property Rights (JIPR) in IPR Research: A View through the Articles Published in the Second Decade of Twenty-First Century (2015-2019) — V

Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 2023

This Paper seeks to review the articles published in the Journal of Intellectual Property Rights ... more This Paper seeks to review the articles published in the Journal of Intellectual Property Rights (JIPR)in the second half of the second decade of the twenty-first century from Volume 20 (1) (2015) to Volume 24 (6) (2019). This is the fifth paper on the theme 'JIPR in IPR Research’ and proceeds with the same method and arguments as adopted and developed in the previous four papers published on the theme. In this decade, a total of 144 articles were published including one Special Issue on the theme ‘New Technologies, Climate Change and IPR’. These 144 articles were published in 30 issues of 5 volumes. JIPR in this decade published 6 regular issues in Volumes 20 (2015) and 22 (2017). Whereas, the Issues 4 and 5 of Volume 21 (2016); Issues 2 and 3, and 4 and 5 of Volume 23 (2018); and Issues (1) and (2), (3) and (4), and (5) and (6) of Volume 24 (2019) were published jointly. Out of total articles published in JIPR till Volume 24, the number of articles published in this decade (144) constitutes 17.60 (point six zero) percent, and the contribution of this decade (2015–2019) is 19.27 (point two seven) percent.

Contribution of Journal of Intellectual Property Rights (JIPR) in IPR Research: A View through the Articles Published in the Second Decade of Twenty-First Century (2010–2014) — IV

This Paper seeks to review the articles published in the Journal of Intellectual Property Rights ... more This Paper seeks to review the articles published in the Journal of Intellectual Property Rights (JIPR) in the first half of the second decade of the twenty-first century from Volume 15 (1) (2010) to Volume 19 (6) (2014). This is the fourth paper on the theme ‘JIPR in IPR Research’ and proceeds with the same argument and method as developed and used in the previous three papers published on the theme ‘JIPR in IPR Research’. In this decade, two Special Issues on the themes ‘IPR and Agriculture’ and ‘Leveraging IP for Business Advantage’ were published with their separate guest editors. Compared to the previous decades, the articles published between 2010–2014 are maximum. Out of the total articles published between 1996–2014, the number of articles (251) published in this decade between 2010–2014 constitute 37.24 (point two four) compared to 32.64 (point six four) percent in 2005–2009, 19.58 (point five eight) percent in 2000–2004 and 10.53 (point five three) in 1996–1999.

Trademark Law Declared by the Supreme Court of India in Twentieth-Century

The Parliament of India makes, amends, and unmakes law. The Supreme Court of India (hereinafter, ... more The Parliament of India makes, amends, and unmakes law. The Supreme Court of India (hereinafter, the Supreme Court), under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, declares the law and makes and unmakes the law while deciding cases through the process of judicial review and interpretation-construction. The constitutional powers of these two branches are related but separate. The law made by the Parliament stands constitutionally valid unless declared uconstitutional, eviscerated or read down by the Supreme Court. As the analyses reveals,1 the constitutionality of none of the seven intellectual property (hereinafter, IP) enactments has been challenged before the Supreme Court in any of the cases brought before it. Had the constitutionality of these statutes been challenged even then the statutes are presumed to be constitutionally valid and the person who challenges the validity of the statute and any provision thereof has a heavy burden to discharge. The Supreme Court ordinarily interprets-constructs the provisions of the statute and applies the same to decide the question(s) of law and/or question of facts in a lis between the parties before it. The answer of the Supreme Court becomes binding not only in personam but also in rem for the future cases. Among all the IP cases decided by the Supreme Court, trademark law may be called as the King of IP decisions with maximum number of reported decisions followed by copyright, patent and design laws. The first trademark case was decided by the Supreme Court in the year 1953, after 1196 days (3.27 years) of its establishment. In 20th century, the Supreme Court has decided a total of 19 cases on trademark law. On an average, the Supreme Court has decided .38 (point three eight) trademark case in a year; or one trademark case in 978.94 (point nine four) days or in 2.68 (point six eight) years. A review of reported decisions of 20th century reveals that the Court has: (i) declared Trademark Law in 15 decisions; (ii) not only interpreted the provisions of the statutes but has also constructed them; (iii) not declared anything on the constitutionality of the trademark statutes as no such question of constitutionality was involved; (iv) delivered all the decisions unanimously as no dissenting or concurring judgment is reported; (v) decided maximum number of cases by Full Bench (11) and remaining 8 decisions by Division Bench. It is also observed that two Chief Justices of India and one Acting Chief Justice were on the Bench in three decisions, but the judgment was authored only by the Acting Chief Justice. Paper proceeds with the same argument and method as developed and adopted in the first three papers covering patent law, copyright law and design law published under the theme ‘IP Laws Declared by the Supreme Court’. This Paper seeks to cull out the principles of trademark law as declared by the Supreme Court in 20th century decisions.

Design Law Declared by the Supreme Court of India

Journal of Intellectual Property Rights , 2023

By virtue of Article 141 of the Constitution of India (hereinafter, the Constitution), the law de... more By virtue of Article 141 of the Constitution of India (hereinafter, the Constitution), the law declared by the Supreme Court of India (hereinafter, the Supreme Court) is the law of the land. The Supreme Court furtherance to its law-declaring power under Article 141 of the Constitution has declared design law only in three decisions. This Paper seeks to cull out the principles of design law declared by the Supreme Court in the last 72 years. There are only three reported decisions of the Supreme Court on the design law of which two are Division Bench decisions and one is Full Bench decision. Number of decisions per year is not even one. On an average, the Supreme Court has decided 4 cases in a year, or one design case in 8,836.66 days or in 24.21 years. Since the number of reported decisions is very less so only few questions of design law have been answered by the Supreme Court. A review of decisions of the Supreme Court on the design law reveals that: (i) unlike the patent and copyright decisions, the Supreme Court has declared the design law in all the three reported decisions; (ii) no case is reported in which the constitutionality of The Designs Act, 2000 was challenged; (iii) no Constitution Bench or Single Bench decision is reported; (iv) no Chief Justice of India was on the bench in any decision; (v) the Court has unanimously declared the design law; and (vi) no dissenting or concurring judgment is reported.

Contribution of Journal of Intellectual Property Rights (JIPR) in IPR Research: A View through the Articles Published in the First Decade of Twenty-First Century (2005–2009) — III

by Aqa Raza and Kanika Malik

Journal of Intellectual Property Rights , 2023

This Paper seeks to review the articles published in the Journal of Intellectual Property Rights ... more This Paper seeks to review the articles published in the Journal of Intellectual Property Rights (JIPR) in the second half of the first decade of the twenty-first century from Volume 10 (1) (2005) to Volume 14 (6) (2009). During this period, a total of seven post-independent enacted IP legislations were in force in the country. This Paper seeks to review the articles published in JIPR year-wise during the decade. Paper attempts to identify: (i) total number of issues published; (ii) total number of articles published; (iii) total number of contributions made by Indian and foreign scholars; (iv) total number of sole and joint publications; (v) publishing style of JIPR; and (vi) areas of IP covered in each volume. A review of articles published during this period reveals that on an average, a total of 44 articles have been published in each volume. In the total articles published between 1996-2009, the articles published during the second half of the first decade of 21st century constitute 52 percent (220 articles) compared to 31.20 percent published between 2000-2004 (132 articles) and 16.78 percent between 1996-1999 (71 papers). JIPR through an open-access platform has provided an opportunity to IP scholars to publish their writings addressing the gaps in the areas of IP. In the end, Paper develops an argument that JIPR has significantly contributed in the development of IP by disseminating IP information and knowledge, and also in creating IP knowledge and awareness.

Copyright Law Declared by the Supreme Court of India

by Aqa Raza and Mohammad Athar Talib

The law declared by the Supreme Court of India (Supreme Court) is the law of the land by virtue o... more The law declared by the Supreme Court of India (Supreme Court) is the law of the land by virtue of Article 141 of the Constitution of India. When the Supreme Court decides a lis, it not only decides for the parties to the case but also declares the law on a question that it decides to answer. There are only twenty-four reported decisions delivered by the Supreme Court in the last 72 years on the copyright law. Number of decisions per year is not even one. On an average, the Supreme Court has decided .33 case in a year; or one copyright case in 1104.58 days; or in 3.02 years. These decisions of the Supreme Court on the copyright law are just double of the number of decisions on the patent law. A review of decisions on copyright law from 28 January 1950 to 28 August 2022, reveals that: (i) only in 20 decisions, the Supreme Court has declared copyright law which include 4 decisions from 20th century and 16 decisions from 21st century; (ii) the validity of The Copyright Act, 1957, was not challenged in any decision; (iii) only one case from the decision of the High Court involving the constitutionality of Rule 29 (4) of The Copyright Rules, 2013 where the High Court re-drafted the Rule, reached to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court held the re-drafting by the High Court as unwarranted and shown deference to the legislative wisdom; (iv) No Constitution Bench or Single Bench decision is reported; (v) no Chief Justice of India was on the bench in any copyright decision; (vi) only 4 judges authored their separate but concurring judgments (3 from 20th century and 1 from 21st century) and no dissenting judgment was delivered; (vii) the Court has unanimously answered the questions of copyright law; and (viii) only some of the questions of copyright law have been answered unambiguously and unequivocally by the Supreme Court but some of the questions have been left open by the Court. This Paper seeks to cull out the principles of copyright law as declared by the Supreme Court in the last 72 years.

Contribution of Journal of Intellectual Property Rights (JIPR) in IPR Research: A View through the Articles Published in the First Decade of Twenty-First Century (2000-2004) — II

This Paper seeks to review the articles published in the Journal of Intellectual Property Rights ... more This Paper seeks to review the articles published in the Journal of Intellectual Property Rights (JIPR) in the first half of the first decade of the twenty-first century from Volume 5 (1) (2000) to Volume 9 (6) (2004). During this period, a total of seven post-independent IP legislations were enacted in the country. This Paper reviews the articles published in JIPR year-wise. Paper attempts to identify: (i) total number of issues published; (ii) total number of articles published; (iii) total number of contributions made by the Indian and foreign scholars; (iv) total number of sole and joint publications; (v) publishing style of JIPR; and (vi) area of IP covered in each volume. Dissemination of information is a necessary condition for creation of new knowledge. JIPR through an open-access platform has provided an opportunity to the IP scholars to publish their writings addressing the gaps in the areas of IP. In the end, Paper develops an argument that JIPR has significantly contributed in the development of IP by disseminating IP information and knowledge and also in creating IP knowledge and awareness.

Contribution of Journal of Intellectual Property Rights (JIPR) in IPR Research: A View through the Articles Published in the Last Decade of Twentieth-Century (1996-1999) — I

Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 2023

This paper seeks to review the articles published in the Journal of Intellectual Property Rights ... more This paper seeks to review the articles published in the Journal of Intellectual Property Rights (JIPR) in the last decade of the twentieth century from Volume 1(1) (1996) to Volume 4(6) (1999). There are seven intellectual property (IP) statutes in force in India. When JIPR published its first Volume in the year 1996, only two IP statutes, legislated and enacted in post-independent India, were in force, namely: (i) The Copyright Act, 1957; and (ii) The Patents Act, 1970 — enacted after 10 years and 23 years respectively after the independence of the country. Nevertheless, the Imperial Act on designs was also in force by the virtue of Article 372 of the Constitution of India, until the Indian Parliament enacted a separate statute on designs. Two statutes were enacted in 1999 and the other three statutes were enacted in the first decade of the 21st century but some of them took a time of almost a decade to come into force. For convenience, the papers published in JIPR have been reviewed year-wise. Paper attempts to identify the: (i) total number of issues published; (ii) total number of articles published; (iii) total number of contributions made by the Indian and foreign scholars; (iv) total number of sole and joint publications; (v) publishing style of JIPR; and (vi) area of IP covered in the publications. JIPR since its inception has aimed to fill void in the IP literature in general and the Indian IP literature in particular. Paper develops an argument that JIPR has significantly contributed in the dissemination of IP information and knowledge, and also in creating IP knowledge and awareness by publishing quality research articles on an open access platform.

Patent Law Declared by the Supreme Court of India

The Supreme Court of India (hereinafter, the Supreme Court) does not merely decide a lis in perso... more The Supreme Court of India (hereinafter, the Supreme Court) does not merely decide a lis in personam but also declares the law on a question that it decides to answer. The law so declared by the Supreme Court becomes binding in rem by virtue of Article 141 of the Constitution of India. Since the establishment of the Supreme Court, only three cases were decided in the 20th century on The Patents Act, 1970 including one under The Patents and Designs Act, 1911, and in 21stcentury only eleven cases have been decided under The Patents Act. Number of decisions per year is not even one. On an average, the Court has decided .19 cases in a year; or one patent case in 1893.57 days, or in 5.18 years. Hence, only few questions of patent law have been answered. Many patent law questions still remain unanswered. This raises a two-fold problem. One, answers are not only too little but some of them are too ambiguous, too opaque and too vague. Two, absence of answer on certain basic points of patent law further heightens the problem of legal uncertainty and opacity. A review of decisions on the patent law reveals that: (i) the Court has declared patent law only in ten decisions; (ii) in no decision the validity of The Patents Act, 1970, was challenged; (iii) the Court has unanimously answered the questions of patent law; and (iv) only some of the questions of patent law have been answered by the Supreme Court unambiguously and unequivocally but some of the questions of patent law have been left open by the Court. This Paper identifies the intended and interpreted-constructed meaning of ‘Law Declared’ and seeks to cull out the principles of patent law as declared by the Supreme Court in the last 72 years.

Theoretical Underpinnings of Copyright and Design Laws Post-Krishika Lulla and Godrej Sara Lee: Decisions of the Supreme Court of India

Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 2022

This Paper seeks to build upon the method and findings of ‘Theoretical Underpinnings of Copyright... more This Paper seeks to build upon the method and findings of ‘Theoretical Underpinnings of Copyright and Design Laws: Decisions of the Supreme Court of India’ with a view to examine the theoretical underpinnings of copyright law post-Krishika Lulla and design law post-Godrej Sara Lee as discovered or constructed in the decisions of the Supreme Court of India (Supreme Court). An analysis of the reported decisions on copyright law reveals that: (i) validity of The Copyright Actor of any provisions of the Act was not in question in any of the decisions; (ii) constitutional validity of Rule 29 (4) of The Copyright Rules, 2013 was in question in one of the decisions in which the Supreme Court showing deference to the legislative wisdom reversed the decision of the High Court on the ground that the High Court has overreached its remit and has re-drafted the rule; (iii) both Labour and Utilitarian Theories, and not any other theory, have been simultaneously invoked by the Supreme Court; and (iv) on an average, the Court has decided 1.66 copyright cases in a year; or one copyright case in 251 days, or in .68 (point six eight) years. It appears that the Supreme Court was invoking both Labour and Utilitarian Theories mechanically without going into the clear differences between the two. It has been previously argued that the Court should have applied judicially manageable standards to rigorously scrutinize the theoretical underpinnings of copyright law from all possible angles. This Paper reiterates this argument for nothing seems to have changed in the judicial approach when it comes to theoretical underpinnings of copyright law. An analysis of decisions on design law reveals that: (i) only one decision has been reported on design law and the Court has not gone into the question of theoretical underpinnings; (ii) in four decisions there is only a reference to The Designs Act but these decisions have not decided any question of design law; and (iii) on an average, the Court has decided .08 (point zero eight) design cases in a year; or one design case in 4,595 days, or in 12.58 years.

COVID-19 Pandemic: Congenital Fluidity of Proposal for Waiver of IP Rights and the Road Ahead

by Aqa Raza and Ghayur Alam

WIPO-WTO Colloquium Papers, 2020

This paper argues that the proposal for waiver from the obligation to implement or apply certain ... more This paper argues that the proposal for waiver from the obligation to implement or apply certain provisions of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) is neither a complete solution nor the only solution to deal with the crisis of COVID-19 pandemic mainly because the waiver proposal has congenital fluidity. It is further argued that the solution lies in the effective enforcement of existing provisions of the TRIPS Agreement. It is also argued that the world needs more and not less patents on pharmaceutical products during the pandemic to help scale up production, improve global supply chain and promote competition to ensure equitable access to such products by all. The paper seeks to highlight congenital fluidity of the waiver proposal and demonstrates how existing provisions of the TRIPS Agreement can be effectively used during pandemics. However, the TRIPS Agreement would have been more efficacious had it expressly provided for pandemics. In hindsight of the COVID-19 pandemic, future pandemics cannot be ruled out. Time has come which demands that provisions on pandemics should be incorporated in the TRIPS Agreement. However, explicit mentioning of pandemics in the TRIPS Agreement alone cannot be sufficient to deal with pandemics. Therefore, it is further suggested that instead of piecemeal and ad hoc arrangements, the World Health Organization (WHO), the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and the World Trade Organization (WTO) should collaborate to develop an effective international legal framework to deal with both present and future pandemics.

Laws Relating to Cyber Crimes: Theories and Legal Aspects

by Aqa Raza and Mukesh Dwivedi

This paper mainly deals with the laws relating to the cyber crimes in India. The objectives of th... more This paper mainly deals with the laws relating to the cyber crimes in India. The objectives of this research paper are four-fold: firstly, to analyze the concept of jurisdiction and the various theories to determine jurisdiction in cases where such offences are committed relating to cyber crimes; secondly, to analyze the jurisdiction theories applicable under Cybercrime Convention; thirdly, to analyze the jurisdiction theories applicable under the Information Technology Act, 2000; and fourthly, to analyze whether there can be one jurisdiction theory that may globally be applicable to all cyber crimes. For the sake of convenience, this research paper has been divided into various parts. The paper focuses on the various theories of jurisdiction and the jurisdiction principles applicable under the Cybercrime Convention, 2001 on cybercrime. The jurisdiction principle applicable under the Information Technology Act, 2000 have also been discussed in the paper.