CLASS ASSESSMENT
CASE STUDIES-INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
RIGHTS
The following case studies have been assigned to seven groups, with each
group consisting of ten students (Group 1: Roll No. 1–10, Group 2: Roll No.
11–20, and so on). All students are requested to submit their respective case
studies on or before 30/10/2025.
Format
Case Study:
Background:
Key Legal Issues:
Decision / Solution:
Learning Outcome / Conclusion:
Group 1: GATT & WTO (Trade and IPR)
Case Title: India – Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and Agricultural Chemical Products
(WTO Dispute DS50)
Background: The U.S. complained that India did not provide “mailbox” and “exclusive
marketing rights” for pharmaceutical products as required by TRIPS Agreement under WTO.
Key Issues:
Compliance with TRIPS under WTO framework
Impact of delayed patent protection on international trade
Learning Outcome:
Students understand how WTO’s dispute resolution mechanism ensures countries follow IPR
obligations and how TRIPS integrates with national patent laws.
Group 2: Trademarks – Infringement & Passing Off
Case Title: Cadila Health Care Ltd. vs. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (2001)
Background: Two pharma companies used similar names “Falcigo” and “Falcitab” for malaria
drugs, leading to confusion among consumers.
Key Issues:
Concept of deceptive similarity
Distinction between infringement and passing off
Learning Outcome:
Understanding how courts determine trademark confusion and protect public health & brand
identity.
Group 3: Patents – Patentability & Innovation
Case Title: Novartis AG vs. Union of India (2013)
Background: Novartis applied for a patent for an improved cancer drug “Glivec.” The Indian
Patent Office rejected it as a new form of a known substance (Section 3(d)).
Key Issues:
Patentable vs non-patentable invention
Evergreening of patents
Learning Outcome:
Students analyze how India balances innovation with affordable access to medicines
under Patent Act 1970 and TRIPS.
Group 4: Industrial Designs
Case Title: Bharat Glass Tube Ltd. vs. Gopal Glass Works Ltd. (2008)
Background: Dispute over the design of patterned glass sheets registered under the Designs Act,
2000.
Key Issues:
Novelty and originality in design registration
Rights and remedies in case of infringement
Learning Outcome:
Understanding the scope of protection under the Designs Act and how design imitation is
legally handled.
Group 5: Geographical Indications (GI)
Case Title: Tea Board of India vs. ITC Ltd. (2011)
Background: Tea Board of India owned the GI “Darjeeling.” ITC used “Darjeeling Lounge” for
its hotel business.
Key Issues:
Whether GI can extend beyond product class
Rights of GI holders and protection against misuse
Learning Outcome:
Students learn how GIs safeguard local heritage and reputation of region-specific products.
Group 6: Copyright – Protection and Fair Use
Case Title: R.G. Anand vs. Deluxe Films (1978)
Background: Playwright R.G. Anand claimed the film “New Delhi” copied his play “Hum
Hindustani.”
Key Issues:
Copyright infringement vs. idea-expression dichotomy
Fair use and originality
Learning Outcome:
Understanding that copyright protects expression, not ideas, and how courts test substantial
similarity.
Group 7: Technology Transfer & IP Commercialization
Case Title: Coca-Cola’s Secret Formula Case
Background: Coca-Cola chose trade secret protection over patenting for its beverage formula,
ensuring perpetual exclusivity.
Key Issues:
Strategic choice between patent and trade secret
Importance of technology transfer and confidentiality
Learning Outcome:
Students analyze IP management strategies and how businesses protect and commercialize their
innovations globally.
