10 Solved Problems (IRAC Method) — Intellectual Property Rights II

These ten problems are worked in the IRAC method — Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion — the way a KSLU answer sheet expects; the full Question Bank has 40+ more.

Problem 1 — ‘M’ conducts a research study on the health conditions of… (Unit 1)

Problem: ‘M’ conducts a research study on the health conditions of rural children. During a legislative debate on a programme for improving rural children’s health, the study is reproduced. Is this an infringement of M’s copyright?

I — Issue. Whether reproducing M’s research study in the course of a legislative debate amounts to infringement of M’s copyright.

R — Rule. 1. Doing any act in the owner’s s.14 bundle without licence is infringement (s.51), but s.52 lists acts that are declared not to be infringement. 2. Section 52 expressly permits the reproduction of a work for the use of the Legislature (and for judicial proceedings and reports of them). A use falling within s.52 is lawful even though it uses a copyrighted work.

A — Analysis. 1. The study was reproduced not for commercial exploitation but in the course of a legislative debate on a public-health programme — precisely the legislative-use purpose that s.52 protects. 2. The tempting decoy is that any reproduction of M’s protected work looks like infringement; but s.52 removes legislative reproduction from the scope of infringement altogether, so the ordinary s.51 rule does not bite.

C — Conclusion. The reproduction is not an infringement. It falls within the s.52 exception for reproduction for the use of the Legislature, and M has no cause of action.

Problem 2 — A public library, finding a book too costly, gets six copies… (Unit 1)

Problem: A public library, finding a book too costly, gets six copies of it xeroxed for its readers. Is this an infringement of copyright?

I — Issue. Whether a public library making six xeroxed copies of a costly book, to save readers the cost of buying it, is protected by the fair-dealing exceptions or is an infringement.

R — Rule. 1. Section 52(1)(a) protects only fair dealing — a fair, limited use for private study or research — and fairness turns on the purpose, the amount taken and the effect on the market. 2. The library exception in s.52 allows a public library to make a copy of a book only where no copy is available for sale in India. Making multiple full copies to substitute for purchase is not fair dealing.

A — Analysis. 1. Making six complete copies is systematic, substitutional copying that directly replaces six purchases — it defeats the market for the book and goes far beyond a fair, private extract. 2. The planted decoy is the book’s high price and the fact that a library is doing the copying; but price is not a s.52 ground, and the book is not shown to be unavailable for sale in India, so neither the fair-dealing nor the library exception applies.

C — Conclusion. The library’s act is an infringement. Had it made a single copy of a book genuinely unavailable for sale in India for bona fide research, s.52 might have saved it; six substitutional copies do not.

Problem 3 — ‘A’ writes a single word and claims copyright in it, pleading… (Unit 1)

Problem: ‘A’ writes a single word and claims copyright in it, pleading that the word is written in an artistic manner unique to himself. Can he claim copyright?

I — Issue. Whether a single word can attract copyright merely because it is written in a distinctive artistic style.

R — Rule. 1. Copyright subsists only in an original literary or artistic work (s.13) that shows the author’s own skill and judgment (Eastern Book Company v D.B. Modak, 2008). 2. A single word or a title is too trivial to be a “work” and carries no copyright — Krishika Lulla v Shyam Vithalrao Devkatta (2016).

A — Analysis. 1. A single word conveys no original literary expression; it is part of the common stock of language and cannot be monopolised, or no one else could ever use the word. 2. The decoy is the plea that the word is drawn “in an artistic manner”. This requires separating two things: the word itself (not protected) from any artistic rendering of it. If A has genuinely produced a distinctive drawing or calligraphic design, that drawing may be an artistic work — but the word as such remains free.

C — Conclusion. A cannot claim copyright in the single word. At most he may claim copyright in a particular artistic drawing of it, but anyone remains free to use the word.

Problem 4 — A paper-setter picks an extract from a popular novel and… (Unit 1)

Problem: A paper-setter picks an extract from a popular novel and frames examination questions on it. The novelist threatens to sue. Is the paper-setter liable for infringement?

I — Issue. Whether a paper-setter who reproduces an extract from a copyrighted novel to frame examination questions infringes the novelist’s copyright.

R — Rule. 1. Reproduction of a work without licence is normally infringement (s.51), but s.52 lists exceptions. 2. Section 52(1)(i) provides that reproduction of a literary work as part of the questions to be answered in an examination, or in answers to such questions, is not an infringement.

A — Analysis. 1. The paper-setter reproduced the extract solely to set examination questions on it — squarely within the words of s.52(1)(i). 2. The decoy is that the novel is a protected literary work, so any reproduction seems actionable. But this is not a commercial republication of the novel; it is exam use, which the sub-clause expressly removes from infringement. The novelist’s threat therefore has no legal basis. 3. The protection is not open-ended, but it comfortably covers this use: s.52(1)(i) shields reproduction both as part of the questions and in the answers to them, and the paper-setter neither sold the novel nor republished any substantial part of it for the public. Had he instead printed and marketed copies of the novel’s chapters commercially, the exception would not apply and infringement would follow.

C — Conclusion. The paper-setter is not liable; the reproduction is protected by s.52(1)(i), and the novelist’s suit would fail.

Problem 5 — ‘A’, pleading research or personal use, borrows and… (Unit 1)

Problem: ‘A’, pleading research or personal use, borrows and reproduces a substantial part of another’s work — a two-and-a-half-minute clip from a three-hour film, or fifty pages from a book. Does his act amount to infringement?

I — Issue. Whether reproducing a substantial part of a protected work is infringement where the taker pleads research or personal use.

R — Rule. 1. Under s.51, doing any act in the s.14 bundle without licence is infringement, and taking a substantial part — judged by quality, not merely quantity (R.G. Anand v Delux Films, 1978) — is enough. 2. The s.52(1)(a) research/private-use exception protects only fair, limited dealing; it does not license the reproduction of a substantial or vital part, or copying that substitutes for the original.

A — Analysis. 1. A short clip that is a vital portion of a film, or fifty pages lifted from a book, is a substantial part in quality even if small in quantity; the reproduction therefore falls within s.51. 2. The planted decoy is the label “research” or “personal use”. Fairness is judged by the amount taken and the market effect, and copying a substantial, qualitatively important part is not fair dealing however it is labelled — the research plea does not convert a substantial taking into fair use.

C — Conclusion. A’s act amounts to infringement. Reproducing a substantial part is caught by s.51, and the research or personal-use plea does not bring it within the fair-dealing exception.

Problem: A foreign citizen carries out biodiversity-related activities (collecting biological resources) in the Western Ghats without the approval of the National Biodiversity Authority. Decide.

I — Issue. Whether a foreign citizen may lawfully collect biological resources in the Western Ghats without the prior approval of the National Biodiversity Authority.

R — Rule. 1. Section 3 provides that a non-citizen must obtain the prior approval of the NBA before obtaining any biological resource occurring in India, or associated knowledge, for research, commercial use or bio-survey. 2. Contravention of s.3 is an offence attracting penalties under the Act (s.55).

A — Analysis. 1. The foreign citizen falls squarely within s.3(2) and accessed Indian bio-resources in the Western Ghats without the mandatory prior approval of the NBA. 2. The planted decoy is that the activity is mere “research” and therefore harmless. But s.3 covers research, commercial use and bio-survey alike — a research purpose is no exemption. Nor may a foreigner route himself through the SBB; the SBB handles only Indian commercial users (s.7).

C — Conclusion. The foreigner’s act is illegal. He needed the NBA’s prior approval under s.3 and, having proceeded without it, is liable to the penalties prescribed by the Act. — ## UNIT 3 — Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Law

Problem 7 — A person obtains a compulsory licence over a registered plant… (Unit 3)

Problem: A person obtains a compulsory licence over a registered plant variety, but the breeder fails to supply the necessary seed or reproductive material to the licensee. What is the licensee’s remedy?

I — Issue. What remedy a compulsory licensee has where the breeder, after the licence is granted, fails to provide the seed or reproductive material needed to work it.

R — Rule. 1. Section 47 allows any person, after three years from the grant of a registration certificate, to obtain a compulsory licence where the reasonable seed requirements of the public are unmet or the seed is not available at a reasonable price. 2. A compulsory licence carries a duty on the breeder to make available the reproductive material so that the licensee can actually produce and supply seed; the Authority enforces the licence terms.

A — Analysis. 1. The very object of the compulsory licence — to get seed to farmers — is defeated if the breeder withholds the reproductive material, so his refusal cannot be allowed to stand. 2. The decoy is the assumption that a compulsory licence is self-executing and the licensee is left helpless. It is not: the Authority that granted the licence can be moved to direct supply of the material and to enforce the licence, imposing consequences on the breeder for non-compliance.

C — Conclusion. The licensee’s remedy is to approach the Authority to enforce the compulsory licence and compel the breeder to supply the reproductive material; the Authority may direct supply and take action against the defaulting breeder.

Problem 8 — The Authority (or Registrar) cancels a registered breeder’s… (Unit 3)

Problem: The Authority (or Registrar) cancels a registered breeder’s certificate, or refuses/revokes a right, without giving any reason or a hearing. Can the breeder challenge the order?

I — Issue. Whether an order of the Authority cancelling, refusing or revoking a breeder’s right without notice, hearing or reasons can be challenged.

R — Rule. 1. The Authority exercises quasi-judicial power; the principles of natural justice — audi alteram partem (hear the other side) and the giving of a reasoned order — apply to it. 2. Its power to cancel is real but not unfettered; an appeal lies against its orders to the appellate forum.

A — Analysis. 1. Cancelling or revoking a valuable registered right without any notice, hearing or reasons violates natural justice and renders the order void. 2. The decoy is that the Authority undoubtedly has a power to cancel, which makes the order look valid. But possessing a power is not the same as exercising it lawfully; even a genuine power must be used fairly, with a hearing and reasons. 3. The proper course is for the affected breeder to challenge the order through the appeal route provided under the Act; the appellate forum can set aside an order made in breach of natural justice and, where appropriate, remit the matter to the Authority to be decided afresh after a proper hearing and with reasons recorded.

C — Conclusion. The breeder can challenge the order and will succeed: it is liable to be set aside for breach of natural justice, and he may appeal against it. > ### ⚠️ DON’T CONFUSE > Looks like: P3.1, where the breeder fails to supply seed under a compulsory licence. > How it differs: P3.1 turns on enforcing a compulsory licence (s.47 duty to supply material); this problem turns on natural justice — an Authority order made without hearing or reasons is void. > Tell them apart by: “breeder won’t supply seed” is enforcement (P3.1); “cancelled/revoked without reasons or hearing” is natural justice (this block).

Problem 9 — An architect creates the design of a multi-storeyed building (Unit 4)

Problem: An architect creates the design of a multi-storeyed building. The contractor who constructs the building claims copyright in the design. Can he claim it?

I — Issue. Whether the contractor who constructs a building can claim copyright in the architectural design, as against the architect who created it.

R — Rule. 1. An architectural design or plan is an artistic work (a work of architecture) whose author is the person who created it — the architect — and the author is the first owner. 2. Merely executing or building from a design is labour, not the creation of the artistic work.

A — Analysis. 1. The architect conceived and drew the design, exercising the skill and judgment that make it an artistic work; the contractor only built from that design. 2. The decoy is that the contractor did substantial work on the building and so seems to have a stake. But construction is execution, not authorship; putting up bricks to a plan does not make one the author of the plan. 3. The architect’s plan is an artistic work (a work of architecture) whose author is the architect, and even after the building is handed over the architect retains his moral rights in the design. The contractor’s contribution, however skilled in execution, is construction to a given plan and confers no authorship of the artistic work.

C — Conclusion. The architect owns the copyright in the design; the contractor cannot claim it, having merely executed the architect’s work.

Problem 10 — In a textile designing firm, one person creates a design and… (Unit 4)

Problem: In a textile designing firm, one person creates a design and another fills it with colour. Both claim copyright in the design individually. Will they succeed?

I — Issue. Whether the person who merely fills a created design with colour can claim copyright in the design individually, alongside its creator.

R — Rule. 1. Authorship of an artistic work belongs to the person whose skill and judgment created the work — its shape, configuration or pattern. 2. A merely mechanical or executory contribution does not amount to separate authorship.

A — Analysis. 1. The first person created the design — the pattern that is the protected subject-matter — so he is its author and owner. 2. The decoy is that the second person also worked on the article. But filling in colour to a design already created is execution, not the origination of the design; it adds no new original artistic work of its own. At most there might be joint authorship if both genuinely contributed original design skill — which mere colouring does not. 3. There could be genuine joint authorship only if both persons had contributed original design skill to a single work; merely applying colour to a finished design is not such a contribution. So the colourist cannot claim the design as his own, and cannot claim it jointly on the strength of the colouring alone.

C — Conclusion. The creator of the design owns the copyright; the person who merely coloured it has no separate individual claim. Their individual claims to the whole design cannot both succeed. > ### ⚠️ DON’T CONFUSE > Looks like: P4.3, where two persons independently produce a similar design. > How it differs: here the two worked on one design (creation vs colouring), so the question is whether colouring is separate authorship (it is not); in P4.3 there are two independent creations, and the question is who authored which. > Tell them apart by: “one creates, the other colours the same design” is this block; “each independently produced a like design” is P4.3.

📄 Full Intellectual Property Rights II notes + Question Bank (₹199) — the complete study notes plus 40+ more solved problems and 16-mark essay blueprints. Get the bundle · All Intellectual Property Rights II topics · Past Questions