LLM Group 3 Law of Intellectual Property and Information Technology Law of Industrial Designs GI Layout Designs Data Protection and Trade Secrets Solved Question Papers with Answers 2015 to 2026 - Mumbai University | munotes

Six files in this folder hold SIX distinct printed papers and forty one questions, and all forty one are answered here. The 2018 scan carries two complete and different hundred mark papers, the paper on printer's form 60641 on its first page and Q.P. Code 29522 on its second, and the 2019 file is byte for byte the same scan, so the same fourteen answers are served at both addresses. The 2015 file is QP Code 15867 and the 2016 file QP Code 11871, and the two newest files are single papers printed in English and then in Marathi, form 86313 sat on 16 May 2025 and form 07050 sat on 6 April 2026. That is how fifty five answers come to stand against forty one questions.

Every one of the six papers sets questions on all four parts of this subject: industrial designs, geographical indications, semiconductor layout-designs, and confidential information with trade secrets. Of the forty one questions, eleven are on geographical indications and ten on industrial designs, seven are on layout-designs and seven on confidential information, and the remaining six are notes questions that mix the parts. Counted by paper, CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION and TRADE SECRETS are each set on ALL SIX papers and the SPRINGBOARD DOCTRINE on four. Within designs, the meaning of a design is set on four papers, and why designs are protected, the cancellation of a registration, the restoration of a lapsed design and the relationship with copyright on three each. Within geographical indications, the rights, effect or infringement of a registration is set on four papers, and the conditions for registration and the authorised user on three each.

That produces the most useful fact in this note, and it was computed by testing every combination rather than estimated. NO TWO of the four parts will give you four questions you can answer on every paper: the 2015 paper defeats five of the six possible pairings, and the sixth, layout-designs with confidential information, fails on all five of the other papers. ANY THREE of the four parts will: whichever part you leave out, every one of the six papers still offers at least four questions you can write. If one part must be left out, make it layout-designs, because without it every paper still offers at least five.

Three full questions are printed on more than one paper in the same words, and each of those repeats falls between the 2016 paper and one of the two 2018 papers: the meaning of design under section 2(d) with copyright in design and its distinction from ordinary copyright; the springboard doctrine, examined critically, with its effect on the employer-employee relationship; and the offences under the Semiconductor Integrated Circuits Layout-Design Act with their remedies and the liability of a company. Each repeated question carries the identical answer. Short notes repeat as well: trade secrets is set four times, the authorised user of a geographical indication three times, the restoration of a lapsed design three times, once on each of the two 2018 papers, and opposition to a geographical indication twice, and those notes are likewise the same text wherever they are printed. Nothing on the 2025-2026 paper is repeated anywhere.

Beware the questions that LOOK repeated and are not, because the difference is the whole answer. The two 2018 papers both ask why industrial designs are protected, but one wants the objects of the Designs Act and the grounds of cancellation under section 19 while the other wants the rights conferred by registration. Both ask for the procedure for registering a geographical indication, but one pairs it with the effect of registration and the other with the conditions for it. And the springboard doctrine is set three different ways: with the employer-employee relationship as its own question in 2015, with its effect on that relationship in 2016 and 2018, and paired only with the meaning of confidential information in 2024-2025.

The shape of the paper has moved once. The 2015 paper sets SIX questions and prints no marks against any of them; every later paper sets SEVEN and prints 25 against each. Every paper is three hours, a hundred marks and any four questions, so each answer is worth twenty five and has about forty five minutes. The last question is always a set of short notes, and its rubric changes: the 2015 paper wants any three of five, the 2016 paper and both 2018 papers want every note printed, the 2024-2025 paper wants any two of three and the 2025-2026 paper any two of four.

Several questions are set on law that has since changed, and every answer on them says so. The 2015 paper asks for a note on the APPELLATE BOARD under the Semiconductor Integrated Circuits Layout-Design Act: that Board was never constituted, the sections creating it and the provision naming the Intellectual Property Appellate Board as its stand-in were never brought into force, and that stand-in was itself abolished with effect from 4 April 2021, so there is no appellate body under the Act. The 2024-2025 paper asks when the REGISTRAR can cancel a layout-design registration, although the Act gives the general power to cancel to that absent Board, and the answer sets out the powers the Registrar actually has. Two papers ask about the PENALTIES FOR FALSE USE of a geographical indication, and since 1 August 2024 falsely representing an indication as registered has been a penalty imposed by an officer of the Registry, while falsifying and falsely applying an indication remain offences.

One thing a student will look for and not find. Although DATA PROTECTION is in the name of this subject, not one question on the six papers is set on it. Personal data enters these answers only where a question on confidential information makes it relevant, through the right to privacy and the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, whose main duties apply from 13 May 2027.

Every paper tells the candidate to cite case law, and the answers are built on the authorities this subject actually turns on, among them Bharat Glass Tube Ltd. v. Gopal Glass Works Ltd. on novelty and the burden of proving prior publication, Crocs Inc. USA v. Bata India Ltd. on a design published on the internet before its priority date, Cryogas Equipment Private Limited v. Inox India Limited on the boundary between designs and copyright, Tea Board, India v. ITC Ltd. on the limits of a geographical indication, The Scotch Whisky Association v. Golden Bottling Ltd. on protecting an indication that is not registered, Seager v. Copydex Ltd. and Anil Gupta v. Kunal Dasgupta on the springboard doctrine, Niranjan Shankar Golikari v. Century Spinning and Superintendence Company of India v. Krishan Murgai on restraints on employees, and Brooktree Corporation v. Advanced Micro Devices on what copying a layout-design means.

These are model answers prepared by munotes. They are a study aid and not official University answer keys, which the University of Mumbai does not publish.