Passage Based Question on International Laws and IPR | Legal Reasoning for CLAT PDF Download

Passage 1: State Sovereignty and International Treaties

International law regulates state interactions, striving to balance sovereignty with treaty obligations. Sovereignty grants states absolute authority over their territory, but treaties, governed by the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969), impose binding commitments upon express consent, typically through ratification. Article 2(7) of the UN Charter safeguards domestic jurisdiction, prohibiting external interference, yet global challenges like climate change necessitate cooperation via treaties such as the Paris Agreement (2015), which mandates emissions reductions. In India, Article 253 of the Constitution empowers Parliament to enact laws implementing treaties, as seen in Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997), where international human rights norms shaped workplace harassment guidelines. Tensions arise when treaty obligations challenge sovereignty, particularly in maritime or territorial disputes. Consider a scenario: Indusland, a coastal state, ratified the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) in 1982, agreeing to a 12-nautical-mile territorial sea. In 2024, facing illegal fishing and piracy, Indusland unilaterally extended its claim to 15 nautical miles, citing national security and resource protection. Neighboring Maritima, dependent on the disputed waters for trade routes, protested, arguing that the extension violates UNCLOS. Maritima initiated arbitration at the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS), referencing the South China Sea Arbitration (2016), where unilateral maritime claims were invalidated. Indusland defends its actions, asserting sovereign rights over coastal waters and invoking Article 2(7) of the UN Charter. Under UNCLOS, territorial extensions require mutual agreement, and violations may lead to remedies like compensation or boundary restoration. Indian courts, in Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan (2003), have prioritized treaty compliance unless domestic law explicitly overrides it, as seen in tax treaty disputes. The scenario underscores broader 2025 challenges: maritime disputes are escalating due to resource scarcity, and states increasingly assert sovereignty against global frameworks. Indusland’s actions risk diplomatic fallout, especially as India navigates similar issues in the Indian Ocean, balancing regional influence with UNCLOS obligations. If ITLOS rules against Indusland, it may face economic sanctions or loss of maritime credibility, prompting debates on whether sovereignty can supersede international law in resource-driven conflicts. The case also reflects India’s growing role in shaping maritime governance, as seen in its 2024 push for a UNCLOS-compliant Exclusive Economic Zone policy.

1. What is the primary requirement for a treaty to bind a state under international law?
(A) Approval by the UN Security Council
(B) Express consent of the state
(C) Domestic legislation in all states
(D) Ratification by a majority of states

View Answer  

Answer: B
​The passage clarifies that, per the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969), a treaty binds a state only upon its express consent, typically through signature or ratification. Option (A) is incorrect, as the UN Security Council addresses security matters, not treaty approvals. Option (C) is wrong because domestic legislation is not a universal prerequisite for treaty binding, though India may implement treaties via Article 253. Option (D) is invalid, as treaties require individual state consent, not a collective majority.

2. In the scenario, what legal basis might Maritima use to challenge Indusland’s territorial extension?
(A) Article 253 of the Indian Constitution
(B) UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)
(C) Paris Agreement (2015)
(D) Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan

View Answer  

Answer: B
​The passage states that Maritima invokes UNCLOS, which sets a 12-nautical-mile territorial sea limit, to contest Indusland’s unilateral 15-nautical-mile extension. Option (A) is incorrect, as Article 253 governs India’s domestic treaty implementation, irrelevant to international maritime disputes. Option (C) is wrong, as the Paris Agreement addresses climate change, not maritime boundaries. Option (D) is irrelevant, as Vishaka pertains to human rights, not UNCLOS violations.

3. Which case illustrates India’s incorporation of international norms into domestic law?
(A) South China Sea Arbitration
(B) Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan
(C) Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan
(D) None of the above

View Answer  

Answer: C
​The passage highlights Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997), where international human rights norms influenced domestic workplace harassment guidelines under Article 253. Option (A) is incorrect, as the South China Sea Arbitration is an international maritime case, not Indian. Option (B) is wrong, as Azadi Bachao Andolan focused on treaty compliance, not norm incorporation. Option (D) is invalid, as (C) is correct.

4. If Indusland’s extension is ruled invalid by ITLOS, what might be a likely consequence?
(A) Indusland retains the 15-nautical-mile claim
(B) Maritima gains control of the disputed waters
(C) Indusland may face compensation or boundary restoration
(D) UNCLOS is amended

View Answer  

Answer: C
​The passage notes that ITLOS, as in the South China Sea Arbitration, may invalidate unilateral extensions, ordering remedies like compensation or restoring the 12-nautical-mile limit. Option (A) is incorrect, as an adverse ruling would nullify Indusland’s claim. Option (B) is wrong, as Maritima seeks access, not control, of the waters. Option (D) is incorrect, as ITLOS lacks authority to amend UNCLOS, which requires state consensus.

5. What broader issue does the scenario highlight in international law?
(A) Balancing sovereignty with treaty obligations
(B) Regulating domestic labor laws
(C) Enforcing intellectual property rights
(D) Preventing cybercrimes

View Answer  

Answer: A

The passage emphasizes the conflict between Indusland’s sovereign maritime claims and its UNCLOS obligations, a central theme in 2025 resource disputes. Option (B) is irrelevant, as labor laws are not discussed. Option (C) is incorrect, as IPR is unrelated to maritime issues. Option (D) is wrong, as cybercrimes are not mentioned.

Passage 2: Patent Protection and Public Interest

Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) safeguard innovations, with patents conferring exclusive rights for 20 years under the Indian Patents Act, 1970, incentivizing research while posing public access challenges. Section 3(d) curbs “evergreening” by denying patents for incremental drug modifications unless they significantly enhance efficacy, as upheld in Novartis v. Union of India (2013), where the Supreme Court rejected a patent for Glivec’s modified form. Globally, the TRIPS Agreement (1994) mandates patent protection but permits flexibilities like compulsory licensing under Article 31 to address public health crises, such as unaffordable medicines. India’s landmark compulsory license in Natco Pharma v. Bayer (2012) for Nexavar, a cancer drug, prioritized affordability, setting a global precedent. Consider a scenario: BioGenix, a multinational pharmaceutical firm, patented CureX, a breakthrough drug for a rare neurological disorder, in India. Priced at ₹5 lakh per dose, CureX is inaccessible to most patients, exacerbating healthcare disparities. In 2024, HealthRight, a public health NGO, petitions the Indian Patent Office for a compulsory license under Section 84 of the Patents Act, arguing that CureX’s price undermines public interest and violates India’s constitutional right to health under Article 21. BioGenix defends its pricing, citing ₹500 crore in R&D costs and the need to fund future innovations. Section 84 permits compulsory licenses if a patented invention is not reasonably priced, unavailable, or not worked in India. The Natco case demonstrated that public health supersedes monopoly rights in emergencies, but BioGenix warns that generics could deter investment, citing TRIPS compliance. In 2025, India grapples with soaring healthcare costs and pressure to balance its TRIPS obligations with domestic welfare policies, as seen in debates over the National Health Policy 2024. If granted, the license would enable a generic manufacturer to produce CureX at ₹50,000 per dose, but BioGenix could appeal, arguing economic losses and invoking Article 27 of TRIPS, which protects patent rights. The case highlights India’s role as the “pharmacy of the developing world,” navigating global IPR norms while addressing local needs, especially as rare disease treatments gain attention.

1. What is the purpose of Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act, 1970?
(A) To extend patent duration
(B) To prevent evergreening of patents
(C) To mandate compulsory licensing
(D) To protect traditional knowledge

View Answer  

Answer: B
The passage explains that Section 3(d) prevents evergreening by barring patents on minor drug modifications without significant efficacy improvements, as in Novartis v. Union of India. Option (A) is incorrect, as the Patents Act fixes a 20-year patent term, and Section 3(d) does not extend it. Option (C) is wrong, as compulsory licensing is governed by Section 84. Option (D) is incorrect, as traditional knowledge is protected under laws like the Biological Diversity Act, not Section 3(d).

2. In the scenario, what legal basis might HealthRight use to seek a compulsory license?
(A) Section 84 of the Indian Patents Act
(B) Novartis v. Union of India
(C) TRIPS Agreement Article 2
(D) Indian Constitution Article 21

View Answer  

Answer: A
​The passage specifies that HealthRight invokes Section 84, which allows compulsory licenses for patented inventions that are unaffordable, unavailable, or not worked in India. Option (B) is incorrect, as Novartis addressed patent eligibility, not licensing. Option (C) is wrong, as TRIPS Article 31, not Article 2, governs compulsory licensing. Option (D) is incorrect, as Article 21 supports the public health argument but is not the direct legal basis for licensing.

3.  case set a precedent for compulsory licensing in India?
(A) Novartis v. Union of India
(B) Natco Pharma v. Bayer
(C) Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan
(D) None of the above

View Answer  

Answer: B
The passage identifies Natco Pharma v. Bayer (2012) as India’s first compulsory license case, enabling affordable access to Nexavar. Option (A) is incorrect, as Novartis focused on patent denial under Section 3(d). Option (C) is wrong, as Vishaka pertains to human rights, not IPR. Option (D) is invalid, as (B) is correct.

4. If the compulsory license is granted, what is a likely outcome for CureX?
(A) BioGenix loses its patent permanently
(B) A generic version is produced at a lower cost
(C) CureX’s price is increased
(D) The patent duration is extended

View Answer  

Answer: B
The passage states that a compulsory license, as in Natco, allows a generic manufacturer to produce CureX at a reduced price (e.g., ₹50,000 per dose). Option (A) is incorrect, as licensing does not revoke the patent. Option (C) is wrong, as licensing aims to lower prices. Option (D) is incorrect, as licensing does not affect patent duration.

5. What tension does the scenario highlight in IPR law?
(A) Balancing innovation with public health access
(B) Protecting sovereignty over patents
(C) Regulating international trade
(D) Preventing environmental harm

View Answer  

Answer: A
The passage underscores the conflict between BioGenix’s need to recover R&D costs and HealthRight’s push for affordable CureX access, a core IPR issue in 2025. Option (B) is incorrect, as sovereignty is unrelated to patents. Option (C) is wrong, as trade is not the focus. Option (D) is irrelevant, as environmental issues are not discussed.

Passage 3: Trademark Infringement and International Standards

Trademarks, governed by the Indian Trade Marks Act, 1999, protect brand identity by granting exclusive rights to distinctive marks, ensuring consumers can distinguish goods or services. Section 29 defines infringement as the unauthorized use of a mark identical or deceptively similar to a registered trademark, causing confusion, as seen in Yahoo! Inc. v. Akash Arora (1999), where “YahooIndia.com” was restrained for resembling “Yahoo!”. Internationally, the Madrid Protocol (1989), adopted by India in 2013, streamlines global trademark registration, aligning with the TRIPS Agreement’s Article 16, which mandates protection against confusingly similar marks. Defenses like fair use or cultural significance may apply, but courts prioritize consumer clarity, as in Amritdhara Pharmacy v. Satya Deo Gupta (1963), where phonetic similarity led to infringement. Consider a scenario: GlobalBrew, a UK coffee chain, registered its stylized coffee bean logo under the Madrid Protocol, covering India. In 2024, CaféDesi, an Indian startup, launched rural outlets with a nearly identical bean logo, claiming it symbolizes India’s coffee heritage. GlobalBrew sues CaféDesi for infringement, alleging consumer confusion and dilution of its urban brand identity. CaféDesi argues its logo is culturally distinct and used in good faith, targeting rural markets unlike GlobalBrew’s metropolitan focus. Under Section 29, courts evaluate visual, phonetic, and commercial similarities, as in Cadila Healthcare v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals (2001), which emphasized confusion risks in sensitive sectors. In 2025, India’s startup boom intensifies trademark disputes, as local brands leverage cultural motifs while global firms enforce Madrid Protocol rights. If CaféDesi’s logo is deemed deceptively similar, GlobalBrew may secure an injunction or damages, but CaféDesi could invoke fair use, arguing cultural significance under Section 30. The case reflects India’s challenge in harmonizing domestic innovation with global IPR standards, especially as e-commerce blurs market boundaries. GlobalBrew’s victory could deter local startups, while CaféDesi’s success might weaken international trademark enforcement, impacting India’s reputation in global trade negotiations.

1. What constitutes trademark infringement under the Indian Trade Marks Act, 1999?
(A) Use of any mark without registration
(B) Unauthorized use of a similar mark causing confusion
(C) Use of a mark in non-commercial activities
(D) Registration of a mark internationally

View Answer  

Answer: B
The passage defines infringement under Section 29 as unauthorized use of a mark identical or deceptively similar to a registered trademark, causing consumer confusion, as GlobalBrew alleges. Option (A) is incorrect, as unregistered marks may have common law protection, but infringement pertains to registered marks. Option (C) is wrong, as non-commercial use is often a defense under Section 30. Option (D) is incorrect, as international registration is not infringement.

2. In the scenario, what legal basis might GlobalBrew use against CaféDesi?
(A) Section 29 of the Indian Trade Marks Act
(B) Yahoo! Inc. v. Akash Arora
(C) Indian Patents Act, 1970
(D) Article 253 of the Indian Constitution

View Answer  

Answer: A
The passage identifies Section 29 as the legal basis for GlobalBrew’s infringement claim, focusing on CaféDesi’s confusingly similar logo. Option (B) is incorrect, as Yahoo! is a precedent, not a statutory basis. Option (C) is wrong, as the Patents Act governs patents, not trademarks. Option (D) is irrelevant, as Article 253 concerns treaty implementation, not trademark law.

3. Which case illustrates trademark protection in India?
(A) Amritdhara Pharmacy v. Satya Deo Gupta
(B) Natco Pharma v. Bayer
(C) Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan
(D) None of the above

View Answer  

Answer: A
The passage cites Amritdhara Pharmacy v. Satya Deo Gupta (1963), where phonetic similarity resulted in trademark infringement, illustrating protection principles. Option (B) is incorrect, as Natco involves patents. Option (C) is wrong, as Vishaka addresses human rights. Option (D) is invalid, as (A) is correct.

4. If CaféDesi’s logo is found deceptively similar, what remedy might GlobalBrew secure?
(A) Cancellation of its own trademark
(B) An injunction against CaféDesi’s logo use
(C) A compulsory license for CaféDesi
(D) Extension of its trademark duration

View Answer  

Answer: B
The passage suggests that infringement, as in Yahoo! Inc. v. Akash Arora, warrants remedies like an injunction to halt CaféDesi’s logo use. Option (A) is incorrect, as GlobalBrew seeks to enforce its trademark, not cancel it. Option (C) is wrong, as compulsory licensing applies to patents. Option (D) is incorrect, as infringement does not extend trademark terms.

5. What broader issue does the scenario highlight in trademark law?
(A) Balancing local innovation with global trademark standards
(B) Regulating patent evergreening
(C) Enforcing environmental regulations
(D) Protecting sovereignty over brands

View Answer  

Answer: A
​The passage highlights the tension between CaféDesi’s culturally inspired logo and GlobalBrew’s Madrid Protocol rights, reflecting India’s 2025 challenge in aligning local innovation with global standards. Option (B) is incorrect, as evergreening pertains to patents. Option (C) is wrong, as environmental issues are unrelated. Option (D) is incorrect, as sovereignty is not a trademark concern here.