IP Enforcement in India

Learning Objectives

By the end of this page, you should be able to:

• Explain why owning an IP right is worthless without a working enforcement mechanism behind it.
• Distinguish civil, criminal, and administrative (customs) routes to stopping infringement, and pick the right one for a given fact pattern.
• Describe the interim reliefs available in Indian IP litigation — interim injunctions, Anton Piller orders, and John Doe (Ashok Kumar) orders — and when courts grant them.
• State the criminal provisions under the Copyright Act, 1957 and the Trade Marks Act, 1999, including police powers of search and seizure.
• Explain how the IP Rights (Imported Goods) Enforcement Rules, 2007 let Customs stop counterfeit and pirated goods at the border.
• Trace what happened to the IPAB after the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 and where its functions went.
• Connect India's enforcement obligations to the WTO TRIPS Agreement and identify the cross-border problems that TRIPS enforcement alone cannot solve.

Quick Answer

IP enforcement is the machinery that turns a paper right — a copyright, patent, trademark, or design registration — into something a court will actually protect. In India this machinery has three tracks that a rights holder can use together or separately: civil remedies (injunctions, damages, accounts of profits) sought in a commercial court or High Court; criminal remedies (search, seizure, and imprisonment) available specifically for copyright and trademark offences because Parliament made them cognizable crimes, not just civil wrongs; and administrative/border measures, where Customs seizes infringing imports before they ever reach the market under the 2007 Border Rules. Enforcement matters because India's TRIPS obligations require it, and because a right that cannot be enforced quickly is not a deterrent — counterfeiters and pirates move fast, so Indian courts have developed fast-acting tools like ex-parte interim injunctions and John Doe orders to keep pace.

Overview

Think of an IP statute as a promise on paper: "you, the creator, have the exclusive right to do X." Enforcement is what makes that promise real. Without it, registering a trademark or securing a copyright would be a symbolic exercise — anyone could copy the work or the mark, and the "owner" would have no practical way to stop them.

India's enforcement architecture has evolved considerably. For decades, IP disputes moved slowly through ordinary civil courts, and there was no dedicated tribunal below the Supreme Court that specialized purely in IP. Two structural changes reshaped this:

1. The Commercial Courts Act, 2015, which routed IP disputes (among other commercial matters) into designated Commercial Courts and Commercial Divisions of High Courts, with tighter case-management timelines, mandatory pre-institution mediation for non-urgent matters, and specialized judges.
2. The Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021, which abolished the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) — the body that used to hear appeals from the trademark, patent, copyright, and GI registries — and transferred all its pending and future work back to the High Courts. The Delhi High Court responded by creating an IP Division, a specialized bench structure now often looked at as a model for other High Courts.

On top of the domestic machinery sits India's international commitment: as a WTO member, India must comply with the TRIPS Agreement's Part III (Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights), which sets minimum standards for civil, criminal, and border enforcement that member states must provide. This is why India's Customs rules on counterfeit goods, and its criminal provisions for copyright and trademark piracy, exist in a form recognizable across most WTO jurisdictions.

Core Concepts

Civil Remedies

Definition: Civil remedies are court-ordered relief sought by the IP owner against an infringer in a civil suit, aimed at stopping the infringement and compensating the owner — not punishing the infringer with imprisonment.

Explanation: The three classic civil remedies, available across copyright, trademark, patent, and design law, are:

• Injunction — a court order restraining the infringer from continuing the infringing act. This comes in two stages: an interim (or interlocutory) injunction, granted early in the suit (often within days, sometimes ex-parte, i.e., without hearing the defendant first) to stop ongoing harm while the case is pending; and a permanent injunction, granted at the end of the trial once infringement is proven.
• Damages — monetary compensation for the loss the owner actually suffered because of the infringement.
• Accounts of profits — instead of proving their own loss, the owner can ask the infringer to hand over the profits the infringer made from the infringing activity. A plaintiff must elect between damages and accounts of profits; they cannot claim both for the same infringement, since that would be double recovery.

Indian courts also use two special interim tools that plaintiffs in IP suits rely on heavily:

• Anton Piller orders (named after the 1976 English case Anton Piller KG v. Manufacturing Processes Ltd.) — an order permitting the plaintiff's representatives, often with a local commissioner appointed by the court, to enter the defendant's premises and inspect, photograph, or seize infringing goods and business records before the defendant knows a suit has been filed. Courts grant these ex-parte because if the defendant were warned in advance, evidence of infringement (counterfeit stock, master copies, accounts) would simply disappear.
• John Doe orders (called Ashok Kumar orders in Indian practice, reflecting the local placeholder name used instead of "John Doe") — an injunction issued against unknown or unidentified defendants. These are indispensable against film and music piracy and online counterfeiting, where the rights holder knows infringement is happening (piracy websites, unlicensed roadside sellers before a big film release) but cannot yet name every individual infringer. The Delhi High Court pioneered this in India in cases like Taj Television v. Rajan Mandal (2003) and it is now routine before major film releases and sporting broadcasts.

Example: A publisher discovers a pirated PDF of its bestselling textbook circulating on a file-sharing forum. It sues, and because it can name only "unknown persons operating the forum," it asks for — and gets — a John Doe order restraining anyone from uploading or distributing the book, plus a "dynamic injunction" that lets it add newly discovered mirror sites to the same order without re-litigating.

Real-World Example: In Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. v. Music Broadcast Pvt. Ltd. and the broader run of T-Series litigation, and in Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. v. Music Today Pvt. Ltd., Indian courts repeatedly used interim injunctions and damages to stop unlicensed use of sound recordings by broadcasters and video companies, reinforcing those statutory remedies under the Copyright Act.

Why It Matters: Civil remedies are the everyday workhorse of IP enforcement because they don't require the state to prosecute anyone — the rights holder controls the litigation. Speed matters more than severity here: an interim injunction obtained in a week can save a business more value than a permanent injunction obtained after a three-year trial.

Common Misunderstanding: Students often think winning a civil IP suit automatically gets you both damages and an account of the infringer's profits. It does not — a plaintiff must elect one or the other, because the point of a civil remedy is to compensate the loss or strip the unjust gain, not both at once.

Criminal Remedies

Definition: Criminal remedies are State-driven proceedings — police investigation, search and seizure, prosecution, and if convicted, imprisonment and fine — available specifically because Parliament classified certain IP infringements as criminal offences, not merely private civil wrongs.

Explanation: Not all IP rights carry criminal teeth. Patents, for instance, are enforced almost entirely through civil suits — there's no general "patent infringement is a crime" provision in the Patents Act, 1970 (its criminal sections deal narrowly with things like wrongful use of the words "patent office" or falsification of the register). Copyright and trademarks are different:

• Copyright Act, 1957 — Section 63 makes copyright infringement (including knowingly infringing or abetting infringement) a criminal offence, punishable with imprisonment from six months up to three years and a fine. Section 64 gives police the power to seize infringing copies without a warrant if satisfied an offence has occurred, and Section 65 punishes possession of plates used for making infringing copies. This criminal-cum-police machinery is why film and music piracy raids happen without the rights holder having to first go through months of civil process.
• Trade Marks Act, 1999 — Section 103 punishes applying a false trademark or false trade description, and Section 104 punishes selling goods with a false trademark, both with imprisonment of six months to three years and a fine. Section 115(4) is the crucial procedural provision: it empowers the police, at the rank of deputy superintendent or above, to search premises and seize counterfeit goods without a warrant, provided they first obtain the opinion of the Registrar of Trade Marks on whether the mark is genuinely infringing — a safeguard meant to stop police raids being used to settle purely civil trade disputes.

Example: A trader is caught selling shoes with a counterfeit "Nike" swoosh at a local market. The rights holder's local investigator alerts the police, who — after the Section 115(4) opinion step — raid the stall, seize the counterfeit stock, and the trader faces prosecution under Sections 103/104 of the Trade Marks Act, separate from and in addition to any civil suit Nike might file.

Real-World Example: In Reckitt Benckiser India Ltd. v. Ramesh Chand Gupta, the accused was convicted under Section 63/Section 103-type counterfeiting provisions for manufacturing and selling counterfeit products, resulting in imprisonment and fines — illustrating that the criminal route can run in parallel with, or even faster than, a civil suit against the same defendant.

Why It Matters: Criminal enforcement matters most where the infringer is small, judgment-proof, hard to trace, or operating at a street-market scale where a civil damages award would never be collected. The threat of arrest and seizure is a far stronger deterrent for that category of infringer than a civil injunction they can simply ignore and reappear under a new name.

Common Misunderstanding: Students often assume any IP infringement can be met with a police complaint. In reality, only copyright and trademark infringement carry these direct criminal/police-seizure provisions in the way described above; patent and design infringement in India are civil matters, and treating them as criminal will get a complaint dismissed at the threshold.

Administrative and Border Measures (Customs Enforcement)

Definition: Administrative enforcement uses a government agency — mainly Indian Customs — to intercept infringing goods at the border, before they enter the domestic market at all.

Explanation: India implements this through the Intellectual Property Rights (Imported Goods) Enforcement Rules, 2007, framed under the Customs Act, 1962. The mechanism works like this:

1. A rights holder registers its IP right with Customs (via the online Recordation system), giving details of genuine goods, known infringers, and likely ports of entry.
2. Customs officers use this registration to flag suspect shipments during import clearance and can suspend clearance of goods suspected of infringing a registered trademark, copyright, patent, design, or geographical indication.
3. The rights holder is notified and must confirm the goods are indeed infringing, after which Customs can seize and, ultimately, destroy or dispose of the goods (subject to procedural safeguards for the importer, who can also contest the seizure).

Example: A pharmaceutical company registers its trademark with Customs. A shipment of counterfeit medicine strips bearing an identical-looking mark arrives at Nhava Sheva port; Customs, cross-checking against the recordation database, suspends clearance and notifies the company, which confirms the counterfeit and the consignment is seized before it reaches any pharmacy.

Real-World Example: Indian Customs regularly publishes annual seizure data showing significant volumes of counterfeit branded goods (electronics accessories, apparel, footwear, pharmaceuticals) intercepted under these Border Rules — a direct, visible product of TRIPS-mandated border measures.

Why It Matters: Border measures are pre-emptive — they stop the harm before goods reach consumers, which is far cheaper and faster than chasing thousands of individual retailers after the goods are already in circulation.

Common Misunderstanding: Students sometimes think Customs will police infringement on its own initiative. In practice, the system depends heavily on the rights holder actively recording its IP with Customs and providing usable identification data — Customs officers are not IP experts and will not reliably catch sophisticated counterfeits without that registered guidance.

Specialized Adjudication: From the IPAB to High Court IP Divisions

Definition: This is the institutional question of which body hears IP disputes and appeals — a separate issue from which remedy is being sought.

Explanation: The Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) was set up in 2003 to hear appeals from decisions of the Trade Marks Registry, Patent Office, Copyright Board, and later the Geographical Indications Registry, taking that specialized appellate work out of the ordinary High Courts. The idea was that a dedicated tribunal with technical members (not just judges) would decide patent and trademark appeals faster and more expertly.

In practice, the IPAB suffered from chronic vacancies (technical member posts, in particular, often went unfilled for years) and lost credibility. The Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 abolished the IPAB along with several other tribunals, and its pending cases and future jurisdiction were transferred back to the High Courts and, for certain matters, the Commercial Courts set up under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

The Delhi High Court responded by constituting a dedicated IP Division in 2021-22, with specialized rules of procedure for IP matters and judges who regularly hear these cases — effectively recreating IPAB-style specialization inside the High Court itself. Other High Courts have moved more slowly, so IP litigants outside Delhi may still face judges with less concentrated IP experience.

Example: A patent applicant whose patent application is rejected by the Controller of Patents earlier could appeal to the IPAB. Today, that appeal goes directly to the relevant High Court (commonly the Delhi High Court's IP Division, if jurisdiction lies there), decided by judges dealing with a docket exclusively or predominantly of IP matters.

Real-World Example: Since the 2021 transfer, the Delhi High Court's IP Division has issued a large number of substantive rulings on patent revocation, trademark rectification, and copyright disputes that previously would have gone to the IPAB — becoming the de facto specialized forum many practitioners had wanted the IPAB to be.

Why It Matters: Institutional design affects enforcement speed and quality just as much as the substantive law. A backlogged or under-resourced tribunal makes even a perfectly drafted statute ineffective in practice.

Common Misunderstanding: Students sometimes still cite the IPAB as the current appellate authority in essays — since 2021 that is incorrect; the IPAB no longer exists, and all such appeals now lie with the jurisdictional High Court.

TRIPS and Cross-Border Enforcement

Definition: TRIPS (Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights), a WTO agreement, obliges member states — including India — to provide minimum standards of civil, criminal, and border enforcement for IP rights, in Part III of the Agreement (Articles 41-61).

Explanation: TRIPS does not create a single global court; it requires each member to build domestic enforcement machinery meeting certain minimums: fair and equitable civil procedures, provisional measures (interim injunctions), criminal procedures at least for willful trademark counterfeiting and copyright piracy on a commercial scale, and border measures allowing rights holders to request suspension of release of suspected counterfeit or pirated goods. India's Border Rules of 2007 and the criminal provisions in the Copyright and Trade Marks Acts are, in large part, India's compliance response to these obligations.

The gap TRIPS does not close is cross-border enforcement — a judgment or injunction from an Indian court generally has no automatic effect in another country, and pursuing an infringer based in a jurisdiction with weak IP enforcement (or one hosting an anonymous website) is often practically impossible even though TRIPS "requires" strong domestic enforcement everywhere. Rights holders dealing with cross-border online piracy therefore often rely on a mix of: takedown requests to platforms/ISPs, dynamic John Doe injunctions that can be updated as new mirror sites appear, and where available, parallel proceedings or complaints in the country where the servers or sellers are actually based.

Example: An Indian film studio secures a John Doe injunction blocking dozens of piracy websites within India through ISP-level blocking orders, but the same websites, hosted on servers abroad, keep re-appearing under new domain names — illustrating why domestic TRIPS-compliant enforcement alone cannot fully solve a borderless piracy problem.

Why It Matters: Understanding this gap is important for exam questions on "is TRIPS enforcement sufficient" — the honest answer is that TRIPS sets a floor for domestic law, not a mechanism for enforcing across borders, which is why dynamic and website-blocking injunctions have become such an important Indian judicial innovation.

Common Misunderstanding: Students often assume that because India is TRIPS-compliant, cross-border piracy is automatically covered. It is not — TRIPS harmonizes what each member's domestic law must offer; it does not create extraterritorial enforcement power for an Indian court order.

Visual Learning

Key Terms

Term	Definition	Context
Interim injunction	A temporary court order stopping infringement while a suit is pending, often granted ex-parte	The first line of defense in almost every urgent IP suit
Permanent injunction	A final order, granted after trial, permanently restraining the infringer	Concludes the civil remedy stage
Accounts of profits	A remedy requiring the infringer to surrender profits earned from infringement	Alternative to, not cumulative with, damages
Anton Piller order	An ex-parte order allowing inspection/seizure of evidence at the defendant's premises before they are warned of the suit	Prevents destruction of evidence in piracy/counterfeiting cases
John Doe / Ashok Kumar order	An injunction against unknown/unidentified infringers	Used heavily against film, music, and online piracy before named defendants can be identified
Cognizable offence	An offence for which police can arrest without a warrant	Copyright and trademark infringement are cognizable, non-bailable offences in many circumstances
IP Rights (Imported Goods) Enforcement Rules, 2007	Customs regulations allowing suspension of clearance for suspected infringing imports	India's TRIPS-compliant border enforcement mechanism
IPAB	Intellectual Property Appellate Board; heard appeals from IP registries from 2003 until its abolition in 2021	Replaced by High Courts under the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021
Commercial Courts Act, 2015	Statute routing IP and other commercial disputes into designated fast-track commercial courts	Provides the procedural fast-track most civil IP suits now use
TRIPS Part III	The section of the TRIPS Agreement (Arts. 41-61) setting minimum enforcement standards for WTO members	Basis for India's civil, criminal, and border enforcement obligations
Dynamic injunction	An injunction that can be extended to new, similar infringing websites without a fresh suit	Indian courts' response to mirror/rogue websites reappearing after blocking

Common Mistakes

1. "Any IP infringement can be reported to the police." Wrong — only copyright and trademark infringement have the specific criminal/police-seizure machinery described above (Copyright Act ss. 63-65; Trade Marks Act ss. 103, 104, 115). Patent and design infringement in India are enforced civilly; there is no general police remedy for a patent infringer.

2. "Winning a suit means you get both damages and the infringer's profits." Wrong — a plaintiff must elect between damages and accounts of profits for the same act of infringement. Claiming both would be double compensation for a single harm, which Indian courts do not allow.

3. "The IPAB still hears IP appeals." Wrong since 2021 — the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 abolished the IPAB, and all pending and future appeals from IP registries now go to the jurisdictional High Court (in Delhi, its specialized IP Division), not to any surviving tribunal.

Comparison and Connections

Feature	Civil Remedy	Criminal Remedy	Administrative (Customs)
Who initiates	Rights holder (files suit)	Police, often on rights holder's complaint	Rights holder (via Customs recordation)
Standard of proof	Balance of probabilities	Beyond reasonable doubt	Administrative satisfaction
Outcome	Injunction, damages, or accounts of profits	Imprisonment and fine	Seizure/destruction of goods
Available for	Copyright, trademark, patent, design, trade secret	Copyright and trademark only (broadly)	Any registered IP right on imported goods
Speed	Can be fast (interim injunction) but trial is slow	Can be very fast (raid) but prosecution is slow	Fast, pre-emptive, at the border
Where decided	Commercial Court / High Court (IP Division)	Magistrate's Court / Sessions Court	Customs authorities, appealable

It's also worth connecting this page to Licensing and Contracts — a poorly drafted license is often what turns a legitimate licensee into an infringer once the license terms are breached, triggering the very enforcement mechanisms discussed here. Similarly, enforcement strategy differs sharply depending on the underlying right: compare how Trademarks enforcement leans on both civil suits and criminal counterfeiting provisions, while Copyright enforcement additionally has to deal with the scale problem of online piracy discussed under IP in the Digital Era.

Practice Questions

Recall

1. What is the difference between an interim injunction and a permanent injunction? Answer: An interim injunction is granted early in a suit, often before the final hearing, to stop ongoing harm while litigation is pending; a permanent injunction is the final relief granted after trial once infringement is conclusively proven.

2. Which two Indian statutes make certain IP infringements a criminal offence, and what is the outer limit of imprisonment they prescribe? Answer: The Copyright Act, 1957 (Section 63, up to three years) and the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (Sections 103/104, up to three years).

Understanding

3. Explain why a plaintiff cannot claim both damages and accounts of profits for the same infringement. Answer: Damages compensate the plaintiff's actual loss; accounts of profits strip the defendant's unjust gain. Awarding both would over-compensate the plaintiff beyond making good the harm, so courts require an election between the two remedies.

4. Why did Indian courts develop the John Doe (Ashok Kumar) order? Answer: Because piracy, especially of films, music, and counterfeit goods, is often carried out by numerous unidentified or rapidly changing parties (unknown website operators, roadside sellers) who cannot practically be named as defendants before the harm occurs; the order lets rights holders get an injunction effective against anyone found infringing, identified or not.

Application

5. A garment company discovers a market stall selling t-shirts with a counterfeit version of its registered logo. What two parallel enforcement routes could it pursue, and what would each achieve? Answer: It could pursue a civil suit for injunction and damages/accounts of profits in a Commercial Court, and separately trigger a criminal complaint under Sections 103/104 of the Trade Marks Act (with police search and seizure under Section 115(4)), which could lead to seizure of counterfeit stock and imprisonment of the seller — the two routes address compensation/injunctive relief and deterrence/punishment respectively.

6. A pharmaceutical exporter learns that a shipment of counterfeit versions of its patented, trademarked drug is about to be imported into India. What should it have done in advance, and what can Customs do now? Answer: It should have recorded its trademark (and relevant IP) with Indian Customs under the IP Rights (Imported Goods) Enforcement Rules, 2007. With that recordation in place, Customs can flag the shipment, suspend clearance, notify the rights holder, and seize the goods once infringement is confirmed.

Analysis

7. A film studio obtains a John Doe order blocking a list of piracy websites, but new mirror sites with slightly different domain names appear within days. Evaluate whether the studio's remedy is adequate and what additional tool might help. Answer: A static John Doe order that lists only specific URLs is inadequate against fast-mutating mirror sites because each new domain technically falls outside the original order. A "dynamic injunction," which lets the rights holder apply to add newly discovered mirror/rogue sites to the same order without filing a fresh suit, addresses this gap — Indian High Courts (notably Delhi) have granted such dynamic injunctions in film piracy cases for exactly this reason.

8. Compare the abolition of the IPAB with the alternative of merely filling its vacant technical member posts. Which better serves enforcement, and why? Answer: Either could work in theory, but the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 chose abolition and transfer to High Courts, betting that existing judicial infrastructure (especially specialized IP Divisions like Delhi's) could deliver faster, more consistent outcomes than a chronically understaffed standalone tribunal. The trade-off is that High Courts outside Delhi may lack the same concentrated technical expertise the IPAB was originally designed to provide, so the answer depends partly on whether other High Courts replicate Delhi's specialized-bench model.

FAQ

1. Can I go straight to criminal court without filing a civil suit for copyright or trademark infringement? Yes. The criminal and civil routes are independent; you can file a criminal complaint (leading to police search/seizure and prosecution) without ever filing a civil suit, and vice versa. Many rights holders pursue both simultaneously for maximum pressure.

2. What happened to cases that were pending before the IPAB when it was abolished? Under the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021, all pending IPAB matters were transferred to the relevant High Courts (for trademark, copyright, and GI matters) — the transferred cases continue from where they left off, not from scratch.

3. Is an ex-parte interim injunction final? No. An ex-parte injunction (granted without hearing the defendant) is provisional — the defendant is normally given an early opportunity to apply for it to be vacated or modified once notified, and the court will hear both sides before deciding whether to continue it.

4. Do border/Customs measures apply only to trademarks? No, though trademark counterfeiting is the most common use case. The 2007 Border Rules cover trademarks, copyright, patents, designs, and geographical indications, provided the rights holder has completed the Customs recordation for that specific right.

5. Why can't Indian courts just order a foreign website to shut down permanently? Because Indian court orders bind parties and, through intermediaries like ISPs, can require blocking access within India — but they have no direct jurisdiction to shut down a server or entity based abroad. This is exactly the cross-border enforcement gap TRIPS's domestic-minimum-standards approach does not solve, which is why website-blocking and dynamic injunctions (rather than direct shutdown orders) are the practical Indian remedy.

Quick Revision

• Enforcement turns a paper IP right into an enforceable one; India uses three tracks — civil, criminal, administrative.
• Civil remedies: interim injunction (fast, often ex-parte) → permanent injunction (after trial) → damages or accounts of profits (never both).
• Anton Piller orders let plaintiffs seize evidence at the defendant's premises before the defendant is warned.
• John Doe / Ashok Kumar orders bind unknown/unidentified infringers — critical for piracy and counterfeiting.
• Copyright Act, 1957: Section 63 (criminal infringement), Section 64 (warrantless police seizure), Section 65 (possession of infringing plates).
• Trade Marks Act, 1999: Sections 103/104 (counterfeiting offences), Section 115(4) (police search/seizure after Registrar's opinion).
• Patents and designs are enforced civilly in India — there is no general criminal remedy for patent infringement.
• IP Rights (Imported Goods) Enforcement Rules, 2007 let Customs suspend clearance of suspected infringing imports, but only for IP recorded with Customs in advance.
• The Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 abolished the IPAB; IP appeals now go to High Courts — Delhi has a dedicated IP Division.
• Commercial Courts Act, 2015 routes IP suits into fast-track commercial courts with case-management timelines.
• TRIPS Part III sets minimum global enforcement standards but does not solve cross-border enforcement — dynamic injunctions are India's judicial response to that gap.
• Key cases: Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. v. Music Today Pvt. Ltd. (statutory damages for copyright infringement); Reckitt Benckiser India Ltd. v. Ramesh Chand Gupta (criminal conviction for trademark counterfeiting); Taj Television v. Rajan Mandal (early Indian John Doe order).

Related Topics

Prerequisites

• 1. Introduction to Intellectual Property Law
• 2. Copyright
• 4. Trademarks

Related Topics

• 3. Patents
• 6. Design Rights
• 7. Licensing and Contracts
• 11. Geographical Indications

Next Topics

• 9. Digital Rights
• 12. IP in the Digital Era
• 10. IP and International Standards