Safeguarding Heritage: Intellectual Property Rights and Traditional Knowledge Protection under Indian Law
- Sharad Nagpal
- Feb 2
- 7 min read
Introduction
Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) and Traditional Knowledge (TK) are two critical areas of law that intersect in unique and complex ways, particularly in a culturally rich and diverse country like India. Traditional knowledge refers to indigenous and local communities' knowledge, innovations, and practices, developed over centuries and passed down through generations. This knowledge often encompasses medicinal plants, agricultural practices, folklore, and cultural expressions. On the other hand, intellectual property rights are legal rights granted to creators and inventors to protect their creations and inventions, ensuring they reap the benefits of their work.
In India, the protection of traditional knowledge has become a significant issue, especially in the context of biopiracy, where foreign entities exploit indigenous knowledge without proper acknowledgment or compensation. This blog delves into the legal framework governing Intellectual Property Rights and Traditional Knowledge in India, examining relevant statutes, case laws, and the challenges faced in protecting traditional knowledge. The analysis is presented from an advocate’s perspective, highlighting the practical implications and legal nuances of these laws.
Legal Framework for Intellectual Property Rights in India
India has a robust legal framework for the protection of Intellectual Property Rights, governed by various statutes and international agreements. The primary laws include:
The Patents Act, 1970: Governs the grant and protection of patents.
The Copyright Act, 1957: Protects literary, artistic, and musical works.
The Trademarks Act, 1999: Regulates the registration and protection of trademarks.
The Designs Act, 2000: Protects the design of articles.
The Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999: Protects goods originating from a specific geographical location.
The Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001: Provides for the protection of plant varieties and farmers' rights.
The Biological Diversity Act, 2002: Regulates access to biological resources and associated traditional knowledge.
The Patents Act, 1970
The Patents Act, of 1970, is the primary legislation governing patents in India. It provides for the grant of patents for inventions that are new, involve an inventive step, and are capable of industrial application. However, the Act also includes provisions to prevent the patenting of traditional knowledge.
Section 3(p) of the Patents Act explicitly excludes "an invention which, in effect, is traditional knowledge or which is an aggregation or duplication of known properties of traditionally known component or components" from being patented. This provision is crucial in preventing the misappropriation of traditional knowledge by patent seekers.
Case Law: In Neem Patent Revocation Case (1995), the European Patent Office (EPO) revoked a patent granted to W.R. Grace and the U.S. Department of Agriculture for a method of controlling fungi using neem oil. The patent was challenged by Indian activists and organizations, who argued that the use of neem for fungicidal purposes was part of traditional knowledge in India. The EPO ruled in favor of the challengers, citing the lack of novelty and inventive step, as the knowledge was already in the public domain in India.
The Copyright Act, 1957
The Copyright Act, of 1957, protects original literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works, as well as cinematograph films and sound recordings. While the Act primarily deals with individual authorship, it also provides for the protection of folklore and traditional cultural expressions.
Section 31A of the Copyright Act allows for the compulsory licensing of unpublished Indian works, including works of folklore, if the owner of the copyright cannot be identified or located. This provision ensures that traditional cultural expressions are not exploited without proper acknowledgment or compensation.
Case Law: In R.G. Anand v. Delux Films (1978), the Supreme Court of India held that copyright protection extends to the expression of ideas, not the ideas themselves. This principle is relevant in the context of traditional knowledge, where the expression of cultural practices and folklore can be protected under copyright law, even if the underlying knowledge is not.
The Trademarks Act, 1999
The Trademarks Act, of 1999, provides for the registration and protection of trademarks, which are signs capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one enterprise from those of others. Trademarks can include words, logos, symbols, and even sounds or colors.
Section 9(1)(a) of the Trademarks Act prohibits the registration of trademarks that are likely to deceive or cause confusion. This provision can be invoked to prevent the registration of trademarks that misappropriate traditional knowledge or cultural symbols.
Case Law: In Basmati Rice Case (1997), the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) granted a patent to RiceTec Inc. for "Basmati rice lines and grains." The patent was challenged by the Indian government and NGOs, who argued that Basmati rice is a product of traditional knowledge and geographical indication specific to India. Although the patent was not fully revoked, RiceTec was forced to withdraw several claims, and the case highlighted the need for stronger protection of traditional knowledge under trademark law.
The Designs Act, 2000
The Designs Act, of 2000, protects the visual design of objects that are not purely utilitarian. A design refers to the features of shape, configuration, pattern, or ornamentation applied to an article by any industrial process.
Section 4 of the Designs Act prohibits the registration of designs that are not new or original. This provision can be used to prevent the registration of designs that are based on traditional knowledge or cultural expressions.
Case Law: In Ampro Food Products v. Ashoka Biscuit Works (1973), the court held that the design of a product must be new and original to qualify for protection under the Designs Act. This principle is relevant in the context of traditional knowledge, where the design of cultural artifacts or traditional crafts must be original to qualify for protection.
The Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999
The Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, provides for the registration and protection of geographical indications (GIs) in India. A GI is a sign used on products that have a specific geographical origin and possess qualities or a reputation due to that origin.
Section 2(e) of the GI Act defines a geographical indication as an indication that identifies goods as originating from a specific geographical location, where a given quality, reputation, or other characteristic of the goods is essentially attributable to its geographical origin.
Case Law: In Darjeeling Tea Case (2005), the Tea Board of India successfully obtained GI protection for Darjeeling tea, ensuring that only tea grown in the Darjeeling region of West Bengal could be marketed as "Darjeeling tea." This case is a landmark in the protection of traditional knowledge associated with geographical indications.
The Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001
The Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001, provides for the protection of plant varieties and the rights of farmers. The Act recognizes the contributions of farmers in conserving, improving, and making available plant genetic resources.
Section 39 of the Act grants farmers the right to save, use, sow, resow, exchange, share, or sell their farm produce, including seeds of protected varieties, except for branded seeds. This provision ensures that farmers' traditional knowledge and practices are respected and protected.
Case Law: In Monsanto v. Nuziveedu Seeds (2019), the Supreme Court of India dealt with the issue of patent rights versus farmers' rights. The court held that the rights of farmers under the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001, must be balanced against the rights of patent holders. The case highlighted the importance of protecting traditional knowledge and practices in agriculture.
The Biological Diversity Act, 2002
The Biological Diversity Act, 2002, aims to conserve biological diversity, promote sustainable use of its components, and ensure fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the use of biological resources and associated traditional knowledge.
Section 6 of the Act requires prior approval from the National Biodiversity Authority (NBA) for any person seeking intellectual property rights on inventions based on biological resources or associated traditional knowledge obtained from India. This provision is crucial in preventing the misappropriation of traditional knowledge.
Case Law: In Divya Pharmacy v. Union of India (2018), the Uttarakhand High Court held that the provisions of the Biological Diversity Act, 2002, apply to all entities, including Indian companies, and not just foreign entities. The case emphasized the importance of obtaining prior approval from the NBA for the use of biological resources and associated traditional knowledge.
Challenges in Protecting Traditional Knowledge
Despite the comprehensive legal framework, several challenges persist in the protection of traditional knowledge in India:
Lack of Awareness: Many indigenous and local communities are unaware of their rights under IPR laws and the legal mechanisms available to protect their traditional knowledge.
Documentation and Evidence: Proving the existence and use of traditional knowledge can be challenging, especially when the knowledge has been passed down orally through generations.
Biopiracy: Foreign entities often exploit traditional knowledge without proper acknowledgment or compensation, leading to biopiracy.
Enforcement: The enforcement of IPR laws, particularly in rural and remote areas, remains a significant challenge.
Balancing Rights: Balancing the rights of traditional knowledge holders with the rights of innovators and patent holders is a complex issue that requires careful consideration.
Conclusion
The protection of Intellectual Property Rights and Traditional Knowledge in India is a multifaceted issue that requires a balanced approach. While the legal framework provides robust mechanisms for the protection of traditional knowledge, challenges such as lack of awareness, documentation, and enforcement persist. From an advocate’s perspective, it is crucial to raise awareness among indigenous and local communities about their rights and the legal remedies available to them. Additionally, there is a need for greater collaboration between stakeholders, including government agencies, NGOs, and legal practitioners, to ensure the effective protection of traditional knowledge.
The case laws discussed in this blog highlight the importance of judicial intervention in safeguarding traditional knowledge and preventing its misappropriation. As India continues to navigate the complexities of IPR and traditional knowledge laws, it is essential to strike a balance between protecting the rights of traditional knowledge holders and promoting innovation and creativity.
In conclusion, the protection of traditional knowledge is not just a legal issue but also a matter of cultural preservation and social justice. As advocates, it is our responsibility to ensure that the rights of indigenous and local communities are upheld and that their traditional knowledge is respected and protected for future generations.
留言