LLM Group 3 Law of Intellectual Property and Information Technology Law of Trademarks Solved Question Papers with Answers 2015 to 2026 - Mumbai University | munotes

Eight files in this folder hold EIGHT printed papers and fifty six questions, and all fifty six are answered here. The count needs care. The 2018 scan carries two complete and different hundred mark papers, Q.P. Code 10865 on its first page and Q.P. Code 21536 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 and 2016 files hold one paper each, and each of the four newest is a single paper printed in English and then in Marathi. That is how seventy answers come to stand against fifty six questions.

Seven full questions are printed on more than one paper, in the same words or so nearly the same that one answer serves, and every one of those repeats falls among the 2015, 2016 and 2018 papers: what a trade mark is and its functions, infringement and the uses that are not infringement, the Appellate Board, the three short notes on textile goods, groundless threats and falsifying, registered users, the procedure for registration, and the offences. Each repeated question carries the identical answer. No full question has been repeated on the four papers set since, and the papers from 2024-25 onwards ask the candidate to discuss, examine and critically analyse rather than simply to explain the provisions, so the older papers alone are no longer enough to prepare from. Short note options repeat too: five of them carry identical text wherever they are printed, and four of those, deceptive similarity, Nice Classification, certification marks and opposition, reach the newer papers.

The shape of the paper has not moved. All eight papers set SEVEN questions, of which any four are to be answered, and all eight print 25 against every question, so each answer is worth a quarter of the paper. The last question is always a set of short notes: the four older papers want every note printed, and the four newest want any two of three.

What recurs is unusually predictable, and the counts are worth knowing before choosing what to revise. INFRINGEMENT is set on seven of the eight papers, and so are the OFFENCES of falsifying and falsely applying marks. So are COMMON LAW MARKS and PASSING OFF taken together: five papers ask about the unregistered or common law mark itself, and two of the newer ones set passing off against infringement. REGISTERED USERS, PERMITTED USE and LICENSING are set on six, and so is what a trade mark IS, its definition, functions and kinds. DECEPTIVE SIMILARITY is set on five. The REGISTRATION procedure and its advantages, ASSIGNMENT AND TRANSMISSION, OPPOSITION, GROUNDLESS THREATS, and the Registrar with REMOVAL AND RECTIFICATION are each set on four.

The thinner topics are where papers are won. The GROUNDS FOR REFUSAL are asked for by name on three papers, all of them among the four newest. The APPELLATE BOARD, CERTIFICATION MARKS, ASSOCIATED MARKS and COLLECTIVE MARKS are each set on three papers; WELL KNOWN MARKS, NICE CLASSIFICATION, TEXTILE GOODS, ABANDONMENT and the INTERNATIONAL TREATIES on two. And several topics appear exactly once in the folder, all answered in full here: whether SMELL MARKS are registrable, the role of trade marks in ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, JOINTLY OWNED marks, GOODWILL as a note of its own, the effect of registering PARTS OF A MARK, SERIES MARKS, and the RESTORATION of a mark removed from the register.

Three topics in this folder are set on law that has since changed, and every answer on them says so before answering what the examiner meant. Three papers, the last of them in 2018, ask for the composition, jurisdiction, powers and procedure of the INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY APPELLATE BOARD, which was abolished with effect from 4 April 2021. Two papers ask for the SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR TEXTILE GOODS, a chapter omitted from the Act with effect from 8 July 2013, before either paper was set. And every question on the OFFENCES must now be answered on the law as it has stood since 1 August 2024, when three offences were omitted and the false representation of a mark as registered became a penalty imposed by an officer of the Registry.

Every paper tells the candidate to cite cases, and the answers are built on the authorities this subject actually turns on, among them Amritdhara Pharmacy v. Satya Deo Gupta on the test of deceptive similarity, Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma v. Navaratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories on the difference between infringement and passing off, Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. on the matters to weigh in judging similarity, Renaissance Hotel Holdings Inc. v. B. Vijaya Sai on which limb of section 29 governs, S. Syed Mohideen v. P. Sulochana Bai on the superior right of the prior user, Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha v. Prius Auto Industries Ltd. on territorial reputation, and Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. v. Coca Cola Co. on licensing.

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.