Mumbai University Solved Question Papers
Intellectual Property Laws
Previous Year Question Paper with Solution
LLB 3 years · Sem 6
Nov 2013 Examination
munotes.in
Mumbai
LLB 3 years Sem 6 Intellectual Property Laws Nov 2013 Question Paper with Solutions
Get access to whole semester resourcesSemester Pass
MU law student group
Free to join
First published on munotes.in on 24 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 the University of Mumbai. It is not affiliated with the University of Mumbai, 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 the University of Mumbai at the Nov 2013 examination.
The answers in this volume state the law as it stands today, not as it stood when the paper was set. The Intellectual Property Appellate Board was abolished on 4 April 2021 by the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021, so patent revocation petitions and appeals from the Controller and the Registrar now lie to the High Court, and the Copyright Board's work, including tariff appeals, lies with the Commercial Court. Since 1 August 2024 the Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2023 has turned several trade mark and patent offences into penalties imposed by an adjudicating officer, and the 2026 Act omitted section 119 of the Patents Act from 1 June 2026. Medicines and chemicals have had product patents only since 1 January 2005, and every patent alive on 20 May 2003 runs twenty years from filing. The Supreme Court reversed the Madras ruling in Khoday Distilleries on 27 May 2008. Copyright cases decided before 2012 cite section 52 by its old letters.
Contents
The questions below are the paper as the University of Mumbai set it at the Nov 2013 examination, in the order it was set.
MarksPage
MarksPage
The Paper as Set
The questions in this volume are the questions asked at the Nov 2013 examination, reproduced as the University of Mumbai set them, in the order it set them. Nothing has been reworded, added or left out. Only the answers are ours. See the original question paper.
Duration 3 hours · Total marks 100 · 25 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.
Q.1
Q.1: Answer the following in 2-3 sentences each
20 Marks - 2 marks each
(a)Explain "distinctiveness".[2]
Answer
Meaning. Distinctiveness is the capacity of a mark to identify the goods or services of one trader and set them apart from those of others. It is the essential quality of a trade mark (section 2(1)(zb) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999). A mark "devoid of any distinctive character, that is to say, not capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one person from those of another person" cannot be registered (section 9(1)(a)).
Two kinds.
- Inherent distinctiveness. The mark is distinctive from the start, like an invented word ("Xerox") or an arbitrary one ("Apple" for computers).
- Acquired distinctiveness. A descriptive word or a place name may become distinctive through long use, so that buyers link it with one trader. The proviso to section 9(1) then allows registration.
A scale. Invented words are the most distinctive, then arbitrary and suggestive words. Descriptive words come next, and generic words, the common name of the goods, are never distinctive.
Case. In Imperial Tobacco Co. of India Ltd. v. Registrar of Trade Marks, AIR 1968 Calcutta 582, the company sought to register SIMLA for cigarettes. The Calcutta High Court upheld the refusal. A place name in its ordinary meaning is not distinctive. It could be registered only on evidence of acquired distinctiveness, which was not proved.
The rest of the answers
The first answer is free. The rest come with the LL.B. 3 Years Semester 6 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.
Notes + Solved papers: ₹798 Already bought it? Sign in
Or solved papers only: ₹499
Or notes only: ₹499
The question paper itself stays free, and so does the syllabus.
Found an error in this volume? Report it and we will check it against the paper.