The term ‘Intellectual Property Rights’ covers:a)Copyrightsb)Trade dressc)Patentsd)All of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?

EduRev

All Courses

Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity

Open App

CLAT Exam > CLAT Questions > The term ‘Intellectual Property Rights’ cove...

Join the Discussion on the App

The term ‘Intellectual Property Rights’ covers:

a)
Copyrights
b)
Trade dress
c)
Patents
d)
All of the above

Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?

FREE This question is part of

Practice Test for SLAT - 4

Attempt Test

Attempt this Test

Verified Answer

The term ‘Intellectual Property Rights’ covers:a)Copyrightsb)Trade dr...

Intellectual property refers to any intellectual creation, such as literary works, artistic works, inventions, designs, symbols, names, images, computer code, etc.

Intellectual property law exists in order to protect the creators and covers areas of copyright, trademark law, and patents.

Thus, intellectual property is an umbrella term encompassing both copyright and industrial property, such as trademarks, patents, and inventions.

Hence, the correct option is (D).

View all questions of this test

Most Upvoted Answer

The term ‘Intellectual Property Rights’ covers:a)Copyrightsb)Trade dr...

The term 'Intellectual Property Rights' covers:

Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) are legal rights that are granted to individuals or entities for their creations or inventions. These rights provide exclusive control over the use and distribution of these creations, allowing the creators to benefit from their work. The term 'Intellectual Property Rights' covers various forms of protection for different types of creations, including copyright, trade dress, and patents.

Copyright:
Copyright is a form of intellectual property protection that grants exclusive rights to the creators of original literary, artistic, and musical works. It covers a wide range of creative works, including books, music, films, software, and architectural designs. Copyright protection ensures that the creators have the sole right to reproduce, distribute, display, perform, and modify their works. It also allows them to authorize or prohibit others from using their creations without permission.

Trade Dress:
Trade dress refers to the visual appearance and overall image of a product or service that distinguishes it from other similar products or services in the market. It includes elements such as packaging, design, color schemes, and symbols that create a distinct identity for a brand or product. Trade dress protection prevents others from imitating or using similar elements that may confuse customers or dilute the distinctiveness of a brand.

Patents:
Patents are exclusive rights granted to inventors for their inventions, which can be processes, machines, compositions of matter, or improvements to existing inventions. Patents provide the inventors with the right to exclude others from making, using, selling, or importing their inventions without permission. Patent protection encourages innovation by providing inventors with a temporary monopoly over their inventions, allowing them to profit from their discoveries and incentivizing further research and development.

All of the above:
The correct answer is option 'D' - all of the above. Intellectual Property Rights encompass copyright, trade dress, and patents, along with other forms of protection such as trademarks and trade secrets. These rights are essential for creators and inventors to protect their creations, ensure fair competition, and encourage innovation in various fields.

Answered by Glance Learning Institute · View profile

Attention CLAT Students!

To make sure you are not studying endlessly, EduRev has designed CLAT study material, with Structured Courses, Videos, & Test Series. Plus get personalized analysis, doubt solving and improvement plans to achieve a great score in CLAT.

Legal Reasoning for CLAT

Lucent for GK

Current Affairs: Daily, Weekly & Monthly

CLAT Mock Test Series 2025

View all answers Start learning for free

< Previous Question Next Question >

Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Similar CLAT Doubts

The term ‘Intellectual Property Rights’ covers

View answer

Software and intellectual property have come a long way to provided new dimension to the markets. For a firm to be satisfied with the performance and functionality of an existing product was to risk losing market share to a competitor that targeted the same market. The nature of competition in the industry has been such that, if there is a perceived market for a particular software product, someone will build it, and someone else will, as well, said Harry C. Reinstein, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Aion Corp.While many software firms were aware of what intellectual property protection applied to software primarily trade secret law and copyright law, the actions of most of the firms suggested the legal concerns rarely entered into product-development decisions. The collective behavior of firms served to achieve the constitutional aim on which intellectual property law based: to promote the progress of science and the useful arts. More specifically, the software industry achieved the intent of intellectual property law, that is, to advance the public good, an objective widely interpreted to mean the generation and wide dissemination of ideas and innovations.Todays legal ferment indicates that software firms are much more attuned to intellectual property issues. And why not copyright law and patent law exist to encourage innovation. Both award limited monopolies to thosewho invest their resources, effort, and ingenuity in developing products that society may deem useful. Thus intellectual property law offers the potential for private financial gain as an incentive for undertaking the risks of innovation.To Francis D. Fisher, adviser to the Educational Technology Group at the Harvard Law School concerns that intellectuals property protection seem at odds with the industrys historically high rate of innovation. It is not enough to suggest that the incentives of monopoly are needed, Fisher maintained. We need evidence. We need to shift the burden of proof, so that those who believe that the public interest gains from extending property rights to software must prove their case. Among those who believe this case is unproven is Richard Stallman, whose Free Software Foundation and League for Progra-mming Freedom provide a test of his conviction that innovation is best served absent prices based on commercial monopoly. While Firms be unconvinced of the need to accord strict intellectual property right to software, by competitors and user is widespread. Firms trying to position themselves in the market to earn returns on their investment often devote considerable thought to protection strategies.Q.Who amongst the following is unconvinced according to Richard Stallman ?

View answer

Software and intellectual property have come a long way to provided new dimension to the markets. For a firm to be satisfied with the performance and functionality of an existing product was to risk losing market share to a competitor that targeted the same market. The nature of competition in the industry has been such that, if there is a perceived market for a particular software product, “someone will build it, and someone else will, as well, “said Harry C. Reinstein, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Aion Corp.While many software firms were aware of what intellectual property protection applied to software primarily trade secret law and copyright law, the actions of most of the firms suggested the legal concerns rarely entered into product-development decisions. The collective behavior of firms served to achieve the constitutional aim on which intellectual property law based: “to promote the progress of science and the useful arts”. More specifically, the software industry achieved the intent of intellectual property law, that is, to advance the public good, an objective widely interpreted to mean the generation and wide dissemination of ideas and innovations.Today’s legal ferment indicates that software firms are much more attuned to intellectual property issues. And why not copyright law and patent law exist to encourage innovation. Both award limited monopolies to thosewho invest their resources, effort, and ingenuity in developing products that society may deem useful. Thus intellectual property law offers the potential for private financial gain as an incentive for undertaking the risks of innovation.To Francis D. Fisher, adviser to the Educational Technology Group at the Harvard Law School concerns that intellectuals property protection seem at odds with the industry’s historically high rate of innovation.” It is not enough to suggest that the incentives of monopoly are needed,” Fisher maintained. “We need evidence. We need to shift the burden of proof, so that those who believe that the public interest gains from extending property rights to software must prove their case.” Among those who believe this case is unproven is Richard Stallman, whose Free Software Foundation and League for Progra-mming Freedom provide a test of his conviction that innovation is best served absent prices based on commercial monopoly. While Firms be unconvinced of the need to accord strict intellectual property right to software, by competitors and user is widespread. Firms trying to position themselves in the market to earn returns on their investment often devote considerable thought to protection strategies.Q.Who amongst the following is unconvinced according to Richard Stallman ?

View answer

Software and intellectual property have come a long way to provided new dimension to the markets. For a firm to be satisfied with the performance and functionality of an existing product was to risk losing market share to a competitor that targeted the same market. The nature of competition in the industry has been such that, if there is a perceived market for a particular software product, someone will build it, and someone else will, as well, said Harry C. Reinstein, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Aion Corp.While many software firms were aware of what intellectual property protection applied to software primarily trade secret law and copyright law, the actions of most of the firms suggested the legal concerns rarely entered into product-development decisions. The collective behavior of firms served to achieve the constitutional aim on which intellectual property law based: to promote the progress of science and the useful arts. More specifically, the software industry achieved the intent of intellectual property law, that is, to advance the public good, an objective widely interpreted to mean the generation and wide dissemination of ideas and innovations.Todays legal ferment indicates that software firms are much more attuned to intellectual property issues. And why not copyright law and patent law exist to encourage innovation. Both award limited monopolies to thosewho invest their resources, effort, and ingenuity in developing products that society may deem useful. Thus intellectual property law offers the potential for private financial gain as an incentive for undertaking the risks of innovation.To Francis D. Fisher, adviser to the Educational Technology Group at the Harvard Law School concerns that intellectuals property protection seem at odds with the industrys historically high rate of innovation. It is not enough to suggest that the incentives of monopoly are needed, Fisher maintained. We need evidence. We need to shift the burden of proof, so that those who believe that the public interest gains from extending property rights to software must prove their case. Among those who believe this case is unproven is Richard Stallman, whose Free Software Foundation and League for Progra-mming Freedom provide a test of his conviction that innovation is best served absent prices based on commercial monopoly. While Firms be unconvinced of the need to accord strict intellectual property right to software, by competitors and user is widespread. Firms trying to position themselves in the market to earn returns on their investment often devote considerable thought to protection strategies.Q.Which one of the following could be a possible conclusion in the light of arguments led by Harry C. Rein Stein, Richard Stallman, and Francis D. Fisher?

View answer

Software and intellectual property have come a long way to provided new dimension to the markets. For a firm to be satisfied with the performance and functionality of an existing product was to risk losing market share to a competitor that targeted the same market. The nature of competition in the industry has been such that, if there is a perceived market for a particular software product, someone will build it, and someone else will, as well, said Harry C. Reinstein, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Aion Corp.While many software firms were aware of what intellectual property protection applied to software primarily trade secret law and copyright law, the actions of most of the firms suggested the legal concerns rarely entered into product-development decisions. The collective behavior of firms served to achieve the constitutional aim on which intellectual property law based: to promote the progress of science and the useful arts. More specifically, the software industry achieved the intent of intellectual property law, that is, to advance the public good, an objective widely interpreted to mean the generation and wide dissemination of ideas and innovations.Todays legal ferment indicates that software firms are much more attuned to intellectual property issues. And why not copyright law and patent law exist to encourage innovation. Both award limited monopolies to thosewho invest their resources, effort, and ingenuity in developing products that society may deem useful. Thus intellectual property law offers the potential for private financial gain as an incentive for undertaking the risks of innovation.To Francis D. Fisher, adviser to the Educational Technology Group at the Harvard Law School concerns that intellectuals property protection seem at odds with the industrys historically high rate of innovation. It is not enough to suggest that the incentives of monopoly are needed, Fisher maintained. We need evidence. We need to shift the burden of proof, so that those who believe that the public interest gains from extending property rights to software must prove their case. Among those who believe this case is unproven is Richard Stallman, whose Free Software Foundation and League for Progra-mming Freedom provide a test of his conviction that innovation is best served absent prices based on commercial monopoly. While Firms be unconvinced of the need to accord strict intellectual property right to software, by competitors and user is widespread. Firms trying to position themselves in the market to earn returns on their investment often devote considerable thought to protection strategies.Q.Which one of the following is a correct deduction from the given passage?

View answer

Top Courses for CLATView all

Legal Reasoning for CLAT

Lucent for GK

Current Affairs: Daily, Weekly & Monthly

CLAT Mock Test Series 2025

Crash Course for CLAT