INDIA Law and Practice Contributed by: Mohit Goel, Sidhant Goel, Aditya Goel and Mehr Bajaj, Sim and San, Attorneys at Law
8.2 Cumulative and Overlapping Protection Indian law permits cumulative protection under mul- tiple IP regimes, provided each right protects a dis- tinct aspect of the subject matter. Statutory and judi- cial limits prevent overlapping rights from extending monopolies, particularly through Section 15 of the Copyright Act, which ends copyright protection for industrially applied designs unless they are registered under the Designs Act. Product shapes, packaging and logos may attract both design/trade mark and copyright/trade mark pro- tection where they satisfy the requirements of each regime. Courts resolve conflicts by identifying the dominant character of the feature, applying statutory carve-outs, assessing acquired distinctiveness, and preventing rights holders from using one IP regime to Patents and trade secrets are complementary rather than mutually exclusive. Patent protection requires public disclosure in exchange for a limited monopoly, whereas trade secret protection maintains exclusivity through secrecy for as long as the information remains confidential and commercially valuable. Indian busi- nesses typically apply patents to inventions that can be reverse engineered from the product and where a 20-year exclusivity period justifies disclosure, while relying on trade secrets for manufacturing process- es, formulations and know-how that cannot easily be deduced from the product. The choice is irreversible in one direction: once a patent application is filed, the information enters the public domain at publication, and trade secret protec- tion is correspondingly lost. In litigation, courts recog- nise parallel claims for patent infringement and trade secret misappropriation where the facts support both, with quantum structured to avoid double recovery. 8.4 Trade Marks, Trade Dress and Industrial Designs Trade marks and industrial designs frequently protect overlapping subject matter – product shapes, packag- ing and visual presentation may initially attract design protection for novelty and subsequently acquire trade mark significance as source identifiers. circumvent the limitations of another. 8.3 Patents and Trade Secrets
innovation with remuneration, transparency and responsible dataset governance, rather than unre- stricted data mining. 7.4 Enforcement Against AI-Enabled Infringement India lacks a standalone AI statute. Enforcement against AI-generated infringement extends existing IP law, intermediary liability rules and digital govern- ance norms through judicial extension rather than AI- specific legislation. Courts apply John Doe, dynamic and dynamic+ injunctions to restrain both identified and unidentified AI-driven infringers. In Anil Kapoor v Simply Life India (2023) and Sad- hguru Jaggi Vasudev v Rogue Websites (2025), the Delhi High Court granted interim protection against AI-generated impersonation, and directed platforms toward preventative rather than merely reactive com- pliance. Generative AI disrupts traditional causation analysis; courts increasingly focus on output similarity and deceptive effect rather than algorithmic traceabil- ity. Intermediary safe harbour under Section 79 of the IT Act is narrowing for platforms generating or ampli- fying infringing content and rather creating proactive compliance obligations. 8. Intersections and Overlaps 8.1 Choice of Protection and Strategic Considerations Indian businesses often adopt a layered IP strategy, combining patents, trade secrets, trade marks and copyright to protect different aspects of the same asset. The key strategic choice is between patent and trade secret protection. Patents are preferred where inventions are patent- able, susceptible to reverse engineering, or require strong, licensable exclusivity, in exchange for public disclosure and a 20-year monopoly. Trade secrets are favoured where confidentiality can be maintained, the subject matter is not patentable, or indefinite protec- tion is commercially valuable. The choice is driven pri- marily by disclosure versus secrecy, the risk of reverse engineering, the duration of protection, the ease of enforcement, and broader commercial objectives.
126 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook