KSLU Solved Question Papers
Intellectual Property Rights II
Previous Year Question Paper with Solution
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) · Sem 10
2013 Dec Examination
munotes.in
Mumbai
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) Sem 10 Intellectual Property Rights II 2013 Dec Question Paper with Solutions
First published on munotes.in on 21 October 2026.
Published by munotes.in, Mumbai.
Model answers written and edited by the munotes.in editorial desk.
Passages from this volume may be quoted, in print, online or by an AI system, with credit: name munotes.in and link to this volume's page. The volume may not be reproduced as a whole. Full terms at munotes.in/content-license.
munotes.in is an independent study resource for students of Karnataka State Law University. It is not affiliated with Karnataka State Law University, and is not endorsed by it.
The University does not publish an official answer key for this paper. The answers in this volume are model answers, written to show how a full-mark answer is built. They are a study aid, not an authority on what an examiner marked.
The question paper reproduced here is the paper as set by Karnataka State Law University at the 2013 Dec examination.
Contents
The questions below are the paper as Karnataka State Law University set it at the 2013 Dec examination, in the order it was set.
MarksPage
MarksPage
The Paper as Set
The questions in this volume are the questions asked at the 2013 Dec examination, reproduced as Karnataka State Law University set them, in the order it set them. Long reading passages are shortened to their first and last lines and our summary; the original paper prints them in full. Only the answers are ours. See the original question paper.
Duration 3 hours · Total marks 100 · 20 questions answered
How to use this volume
Solve the paper first, under exam conditions and against the clock. Then read the answers here and mark your own. Reading a solution before attempting the question feels productive and teaches very little, because recognising an answer is not the same as being able to write one.
Q1
Unit I
(a)How to determine the infringement of copyright in literary, dramatic, sound recording and broadcasting reproduction right ? State the limitations of exclusive right.[15]
Answer
For full marks, cover: Part A, how infringement is determined: the general questions (subsistence and ownership, a restricted act, copying, a substantial part, no licence or defence; section 51), then class by class: literary works (section 14(a); R.G. Anand, V. Govindan), dramatic works (performance, film, adaptation; R.G. Anand's caution for play and film), sound recordings (section 14(e): only copying the recording itself; cover versions under section 31C; Star India by analogy, Tips Industries), and the broadcast reproduction right (section 37(1) to (3)); Part B, the limitations of the exclusive right: idea and expression, term (sections 22 to 29, 37(2)), exceptions (sections 52, 39; ICC Development), licences imposed by law (sections 31 to 32A), exhaustion (Explanation to section 14), territory (section 13(2)), coexisting rights (section 13(4)); a table; conclusion.
Part A: how infringement is determined
The general questions. A court asks the same five questions in every case.
- Does copyright, or the related right, subsist, and does the plaintiff own it?
- Did the defendant do an act reserved to the owner by section 14, 37 or 38A?
- Did he copy the plaintiff's work, rather than create independently? Access plus close similarity, or tell-tale shared errors, prove copying.
- Was the part taken substantial, judged by quality more than quantity?
- Was the act unlicensed and outside every exception (section 51)?
The answer to question 2 differs for each class of work.
1. Literary works
The owner alone may reproduce the work, issue copies, and perform or communicate it (section 14(a)). He alone may also make a film or sound recording of it, and translate or adapt it. Infringement is found where the defendant's text reproduces the expression of the plaintiff's, not merely its ideas or facts.
V. Govindan v. E.M. Gopalakrishna Kone, AIR 1955 Mad 391. A later English-Tamil dictionary was found to copy an earlier one page after page, with the same sequence, meanings and arrangement.
Held. A compiler may consult earlier works and use common material, but may not simply reproduce another's work. Where the earlier work's errors reappear in the later one, copying is proved.
2. Dramatic works
The owner alone may perform the play in public, make a film of it, and adapt it (section 14(a)(iii), (iv), (vi)). Infringement is determined by comparing the plot, scenes, characters, sequence and dialogue as a whole.
R.G. Anand v. Delux Films, AIR 1978 SC 1613. A playwright said the film "New Delhi" copied his play "Hum Hindustani".
Held. There is no copyright in an idea or theme, only in its form and expression. The test is whether a viewer of both gets an unmistakable impression that one copies the other. Proving that a film copies a play is harder, because a film has a wider canvas. Here the treatment was materially different, so there was no infringement.
3. Sound recordings
The owner of a sound recording alone may (section 14(e)):
- make any other sound recording embodying it, including storing it electronically;
- sell or give on commercial rental, or offer, any copy; and
- communicate it to the public.
The decisive point is that infringement requires copying of the recording itself: dubbing, ripping, uploading or streaming it. A fresh recording of the same song by other singers does not copy the sound recording. It may still need a licence from the owners of the underlying lyrics and music, or the statutory licence for cover versions (section 31C). The Bombay High Court reasoned the same way for films, holding that a film is infringed only by a physical copy of it (Star India Pvt. Ltd. v. Leo Burnett (India) Pvt. Ltd., 2003).
Tips Industries Ltd. v. Wynk Music Ltd., AIRONLINE 2019 BOM 1452. A streaming service kept offering a label's recordings for streaming and download after licence talks failed.
Held. Downloads infringed the right to sell copies, and on-demand streaming the right to communicate the recordings to the public. The statutory broadcasting licence in section 31D did not cover internet services.
4. The broadcast reproduction right
Every broadcasting organisation has a broadcast reproduction right in its broadcasts for twenty-five years from the year after the broadcast (section 37(1), (2)). It is infringed by anyone who, without licence, does any of these acts with the broadcast or a substantial part of it (section 37(3)):
- re-broadcasts it;
- causes it to be heard or seen by the public on payment of charges;
- makes a sound or visual recording of it;
- reproduces an unlicensed recording, or a licensed one for an unlicensed purpose; or
- sells, rents or offers such recordings.
So a cable operator who captures a channel's signal and retransmits it infringes this right. So does a restaurant that charges entry to watch a broadcast.
Remedies once infringement is found
The owner may sue for an injunction, damages or an account of profits (section 55), and knowing infringement is an offence (section 63). The same civil and criminal remedies apply to the broadcast reproduction right and performers' rights (section 39A).
Part B: the limitations of the exclusive right
1. Ideas and facts are free. Only expression is protected (R.G. Anand). Independent creation is a complete answer.
2. Limited term. Literary and dramatic works last for life plus sixty years (section 22). Sound recordings last sixty years from publication (section 27). The broadcast reproduction right lasts twenty-five years (section 37(2)) and the performer's right fifty (section 38).
3. Statutory exceptions. Fair dealing for private use, research, criticism, review and news reporting, and the other clauses of section 52(1), limit every owner. Broadcasts and performances have parallel exceptions: private recordings, teaching and research uses, and fair excerpts for news or review (section 39).
ICC Development (International) Ltd. v. New Delhi Television Ltd., Delhi High Court, 18 September 2012. The holder of cricket broadcast rights sued a news channel over its use of match footage in special programmes.
Held. The court refused a wide injunction but regulated the use. It required acknowledgement of the rights-holder and barred advertising over the footage. Reporting current events was allowed, but not beyond its proper limits.
4. Licences imposed by law. Compulsory licences (sections 31, 31A, 31B) and statutory licences for cover versions and broadcasting (sections 31C, 31D) permit use on payment. So do translation and reproduction licences (sections 32, 32A), even against the owner's wish.
5. Exhaustion. Once a copy is sold, the owner cannot control its further sale, because it is "already in circulation" (Explanation to section 14). Commercial rental of films and sound recordings remains reserved.
6. Territory. Copyright subsists in India only for works with an Indian connection or a treaty link (sections 13(2), 40).
7. Coexisting rights. A sound recording's copyright does not affect the separate copyright in the song it records (section 13(4)). Each owner's right is limited by the others.
At a glance
| Right | Infringed by | Not infringed by |
|---|---|---|
| Literary work | Copying the text's expression, translating, adapting | Using its ideas or facts; fair dealing |
| Dramatic work | Staging, filming or adapting the play | Same theme treated differently |
| Right | Infringed by | Not infringed by |
|---|---|---|
| Sound recording | Dubbing, ripping, streaming the recording | A new recording by other singers, licensed for the song |
| Broadcast | Re-broadcast, paid public showing, recording | Private recording; fair news excerpts (section 39) |
Conclusion. Infringement is determined by asking whether the defendant, without licence, did a reserved act by copying a substantial part of a protected work. The reserved acts differ by class. They are text and adaptation for literary works, and staging and filming for plays. For sound recordings it is copying the recording itself, and for broadcasts re-broadcast or recording. The exclusive right is limited by the idea-expression line, its term, sections 52 and 39, licences imposed by law, exhaustion, territory and coexisting rights.
The rest of the answers
The first answer is free. The rest come with the KSLU B.A. LL.B. Semester 10 solved papers.
You have read the question paper and its first answer in full. Buy the solved papers once and you can read every answer of every solved paper in this semester.
Solved papers: ₹499 Already bought it? Sign in
The question paper itself stays free.
Found an error in this volume? Report it and we will check it against the paper.