Daily Passage Test for CLAT - Aug 31 MCQs & solutions Free

The passage explains that Section 3(d) prevents “evergreening” by denying patents for minor modifications of existing drugs unless they significantly enhance therapeutic efficacy. This was upheld in Novartis v. Union of India (2013), where the Supreme Court rejected a patent for a modified version of Glivec.

Other options are incorrect because:

Option A: Patent duration is fixed at 20 years and is not extended by Section 3(d).

Option C: Compulsory licensing is governed by Section 84, not Section 3(d).

Option D: Traditional knowledge protection falls under different legal frameworks, not Section 3(d).

The passage clearly states that HealthRight petitions for a compulsory license under Section 84 of the Indian Patents Act, which permits such licensing if the patented invention is unaffordable, unavailable, or not worked in India.

Other options are incorrect because:

Option B: Novartis dealt with patent eligibility under Section 3(d), not compulsory licensing.

Option C: TRIPS Article 31, not Article 2, governs compulsory licensing.

Option D: Article 21 strengthens the public health argument but is not the direct statutory basis for granting a compulsory license.

The passage identifies Natco Pharma v. Bayer (2012) as India’s landmark compulsory licensing case, where a license was granted for the cancer drug Nexavar to make it affordable. This case set a precedent prioritizing public health over patent monopoly rights.

Other options are incorrect because:

Option A: Novartis concerned patent eligibility under Section 3(d), not compulsory licensing.

Option C: Vishaka relates to workplace harassment guidelines, not patent law.

Option D: Incorrect because Option B is correct.

The passage states that if granted, the compulsory license would allow a generic manufacturer to produce CureX at ₹50,000 per dose, significantly reducing its price. A compulsory license does not revoke the patent but permits another entity to manufacture the drug under certain conditions.

Other options are incorrect because:

Option A: The patent remains valid; only manufacturing rights are shared.

Option C: The aim of compulsory licensing is to reduce prices, not increase them.

Option D: Licensing does not affect the 20-year patent term.

The passage highlights the conflict between BioGenix’s need to recover substantial R&D investments and HealthRight’s demand for affordable access to CureX. This reflects the broader tension in IPR law between encouraging innovation through patent protection and ensuring public health access to essential medicines.

Other options are incorrect because:

Option B: Sovereignty is not central to patent disputes here.

Option C: International trade is mentioned only indirectly through TRIPS, not as the core issue.

Option D: Environmental concerns are not discussed in the passage.

The passage explains that under Section 29 of the Indian Trade Marks Act, 1999, infringement occurs when there is unauthorized use of a mark that is identical or deceptively similar to a registered trademark, leading to consumer confusion. This is illustrated in Yahoo! Inc. v. Akash Arora (1999).

Other options are incorrect because:

Option A: Not all unregistered use amounts to infringement; common law remedies may apply separately.

Option C: Non-commercial use may qualify as a defense under Section 30.

Option D: International registration under the Madrid Protocol does not constitute infringement.

The passage clearly states that infringement under Section 29 involves unauthorized use of a deceptively similar mark causing confusion. GlobalBrew’s claim directly relies on this statutory provision.

Other options are incorrect because:

Option B: This is a judicial precedent supporting infringement claims but not the statutory basis.

Option C: The Patents Act governs patents, not trademarks.

Option D: Article 253 relates to treaty implementation, not trademark disputes.

The passage refers to Amritdhara Pharmacy v. Satya Deo Gupta (1963), where phonetic similarity between trademarks resulted in a finding of infringement. This case illustrates how courts assess similarity and consumer confusion in trademark disputes.

Other options are incorrect because:

Option B: Natco concerns compulsory licensing under patent law.

Option C: Vishaka relates to workplace harassment guidelines, not trademarks.

Option D: Incorrect because Option A is correct.

The passage indicates that if infringement is established, courts may grant remedies such as an injunction or damages. An injunction would restrain CaféDesi from continuing to use the deceptively similar logo.

Other options are incorrect because:

Option A: GlobalBrew seeks enforcement, not cancellation of its own mark.

Option C: Compulsory licensing applies to patents, not trademarks.

Option D: Infringement does not affect the duration of trademark registration.

The passage emphasizes the tension between CaféDesi’s culturally inspired branding and GlobalBrew’s internationally protected trademark rights under the Madrid Protocol. This reflects the broader challenge of balancing domestic innovation and cultural identity with global trademark enforcement standards.

Other options are incorrect because:

Option B: Evergreening relates to patent law, not trademarks.

Option C: Environmental regulations are not discussed.

Option D: Sovereignty is not the central issue in trademark disputes.