Trips Compliance And India
TRIPS Compliance and India
1. Introduction
The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), administered by the World Trade Organization (WTO), sets minimum standards of IP protection that all member countries must follow.
India became a WTO member in 1995 and was required to bring its IP laws into full TRIPS compliance by 1 January 2005. India adopted a balanced approach, ensuring:
Compliance with TRIPS minimum standards
Protection of public interest, access to medicines, and socio-economic needs
TRIPS allows flexibilities, and Indian courts have actively interpreted domestic IP laws in line with these flexibilities.
2. Legislative Measures for TRIPS Compliance in India
India amended its IP laws to comply with TRIPS:
Patents (Amendment) Acts, 1999, 2002, 2005
Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012
Trademarks Act, 1999
Geographical Indications Act, 1999
Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001
Indian courts play a critical role in interpreting these laws consistently with TRIPS, without surrendering public interest.
3. Landmark Case Laws on TRIPS Compliance and India
Case 1: Novartis AG v. Union of India (Supreme Court, 2013)
Facts
Novartis sought a patent for the beta-crystalline form of imatinib mesylate (Glivec). The patent was rejected under Section 3(d) of the Patents Act.
Issue
Whether Section 3(d) violates India’s obligations under TRIPS.
Held
Supreme Court upheld Section 3(d).
Held that TRIPS does not mandate patenting of every incremental pharmaceutical invention.
Member states may define patentability standards.
Significance
Landmark affirmation that Section 3(d) is TRIPS-compliant.
Recognized India’s right to prevent evergreening while complying with TRIPS.
Case 2: Bayer Corporation v. Natco Pharma Ltd. (Nexavar Case, 2012)
Facts
Natco sought a compulsory license for Bayer’s patented cancer drug Nexavar.
Issue
Whether compulsory licensing violates TRIPS obligations.
Held
Compulsory license granted under Section 84.
Court held that TRIPS expressly permits compulsory licensing for public interest and affordability.
Significance
Established that India’s compulsory licensing regime is TRIPS-compliant.
Strengthened access to life-saving medicines.
Case 3: Roche v. Cipla Ltd. (Delhi High Court, 2015)
Facts
Roche alleged patent infringement by Cipla for the cancer drug Tarceva.
Issue
Whether Indian patent enforcement standards undermine TRIPS.
Held
Court balanced patent rights with public interest and affordability.
Emphasized that TRIPS allows countries to tailor enforcement to local needs.
Significance
Demonstrated flexible enforcement of patent rights under TRIPS.
Recognized public health as a legitimate consideration.
Case 4: Entertainment Network (India) Ltd. v. Super Cassette Industries Ltd. (Supreme Court, 2008)
Facts
Dispute over compulsory licensing in copyright for FM radio broadcasting.
Issue
Whether compulsory copyright licensing violates TRIPS.
Held
Supreme Court upheld statutory licensing.
Held that TRIPS allows limitations and exceptions to copyright.
Significance
Shows that copyright flexibilities under TRIPS are lawfully implemented in India.
Case 5: Philip Morris v. Union of India (2018 – Trademark & Packaging Dispute)
Facts
Foreign tobacco companies challenged Indian laws on plain packaging and trademark restrictions.
Issue
Whether restricting trademark use violates TRIPS.
Held
Court held that TRIPS does not create an absolute right to use a trademark.
Public health regulations may limit trademark exploitation.
Significance
Reinforces that TRIPS allows public health-based restrictions on IP rights.
Case 6: Monsanto Technology LLC v. Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd. (Supreme Court, 2019)
Facts
Dispute over patentability of Bt cotton technology.
Issue
Whether India’s approach to biotech patents violates TRIPS.
Held
Court recognized India’s sui generis plant variety protection system.
TRIPS allows countries to exclude plants and animals from patentability.
Significance
Confirms India’s TRIPS-compliant approach to agricultural biotechnology.
Case 7: Koninklijke Philips v. Rajesh Bansal (Delhi High Court, 2018)
Facts
Philips sought enforcement of Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) for DVD technology.
Issue
Whether Indian SEP enforcement aligns with TRIPS.
Held
Court balanced patent enforcement with FRAND obligations.
TRIPS allows competition-oriented patent enforcement.
Significance
Demonstrates TRIPS-consistent SEP enforcement in India.
4. Key TRIPS Flexibilities Used by India
| TRIPS Flexibility | Indian Implementation |
|---|---|
| Patentability standards | Section 3(d) |
| Compulsory licensing | Sections 84, 92, 100 |
| Exceptions & limitations | Fair use, statutory licensing |
| Public health priority | Access to medicines |
| Sui generis protection | Plant varieties law |
5. India’s TRIPS Compliance Strategy
Minimum compliance, not TRIPS-plus
Strong public health orientation
Judicial protection against evergreening
Balanced enforcement (patent rights vs access)
Use of compulsory licensing when necessary
6. Conclusion
India is fully TRIPS-compliant, but not TRIPS-plus. Courts have consistently held that:
TRIPS allows flexibility and sovereign discretion
Public interest and access to medicines are legitimate grounds
Strong IP protection must not override socio-economic realities
Through cases like Novartis, Bayer, Monsanto, and Roche, India has established a model TRIPS-compliant yet public-interest-oriented IP regime respected globally.
RELATED Blog
comments