1 Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019
📚 Landmark Case:
Indian Airlines v. Dr. Jitendra Nath Singh (1991)
Issue:
Dr. Jitendra booked a confirmed airline ticket.
The airline denied him boarding without proper reason.
He sued for deficiency in service.
🧠 Analysis:
The airline argued about operational constraints.
Court ruled confirmed passengers have enforceable rights.
Deficiency in service was proved under the Consumer Protection Act.
✅ Suggested Solution:
Service providers must maintain transparency with consumers.
In case of unavoidable denial (like overbooking), proper compensation and
alternate arrangements should be offered immediately.
2 Competition Act, 2002
📚 Landmark Case:
CCI v. DLF Ltd. (2011)
Issue:
Homebuyers of DLF’s “Belaire” project alleged abuse of dominant position (unfair
terms in builder-buyer agreements).
🧠 Analysis:
DLF, being a dominant real estate player, imposed one-sided clauses in agreements
(penalties only on buyers, delayed possession without penalties).
The Competition Commission of India (CCI) ruled that DLF abused its dominant
position.
DLF was fined ₹630 crore.
✅ Suggested Solution:
Standardized builder-buyer agreements should be introduced to ensure balanced
contractual obligations.
Encourage competition in real estate markets to prevent dominance abuse.
3 Information Technology Act, 2000
📚 Landmark Case:
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015)
Issue:
Section 66A of IT Act criminalized sending "offensive" messages online.
It was challenged as violating freedom of speech (Article 19(1)(a)).
🧠 Analysis:
The Supreme Court struck down Section 66A, declaring it vague and
unconstitutional.
Court said that restrictions on free speech must be reasonable and clearly defined.
✅ Suggested Solution:
Draft clearer cyber laws that specifically define offenses like cyberbullying, trolling,
misinformation without being overbroad.
Ensure a balance between protecting individuals and preserving free speech.
Summary Table
Landmark
Act Issue Court Analysis Suggested Solution
Case
Deficiency in Confirmed Transparent
Consumer Indian Airlines
service (denial of passengers have services +
Protection Act v. Dr. Jitendra
boarding) rights Compensation
Abuse of Builders cannot
Competition Fair builder-buyer
CCI v. DLF Ltd. dominant position impose unfair
Act agreements
in real estate clauses
Shreya Singhal Free speech vs
Struck down Clear cybercrime
IT Act v. Union of vague cyber law
unconstitutional law definitions
India (Sec 66A)
1️⃣ Patent Law
📚 Landmark Case:
Novartis AG v. Union of India (2013)
🔥 Background:
Novartis filed a patent for Glivec, a cancer drug, claiming it was an invention.
Indian Patent Office rejected it under Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act, 1970
(prevents patenting of minor modifications).
Novartis challenged it in the Supreme Court.
🧠 Court’s Analysis:
Court ruled that Glivec was not a new invention, but merely a new form of a known
substance with no significant therapeutic efficacy improvement.
Section 3(d) aims to prevent "evergreening" of patents (companies extending patent
life by minor changes).
✅ Suggested Solution:
Companies should invest in genuine innovation instead of cosmetic modifications.
Strengthen patent examination procedures to prevent frivolous filings.
Focus on balancing innovation incentives with affordable healthcare.
2️⃣ Trademark Law
📚 Landmark Case:
Cadila Healthcare Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (2001)
🔥 Background:
Both companies used similar names: Cadila Healthcare launched "Falcitab" and
Cadila Pharmaceuticals had "Falcigo" (both anti-malarial drugs).
Cadila Healthcare alleged that the similarity could cause consumer confusion.
🧠 Court’s Analysis:
Court ruled likelihood of confusion is enough; actual confusion need not be
proved.
Extra care must be taken especially for medicines, where confusion can cause serious
health risks.
Emphasized phonetic, visual, and structural similarities in trademarks.
✅ Suggested Solution:
Comprehensive trademark searches must be conducted before product launches.
Special higher standard of care for industries affecting public health (pharma, food).
Strict enforcement against passing-off and deceptive similarity.
3️⃣ Copyright Law
📚 Landmark Case:
R.G. Anand v. M/s Deluxe Films (1978)
🔥 Background:
R.G. Anand wrote a play "Hum Hindustani". Later, Deluxe Films made a movie
"New Delhi" that had a similar storyline.
Anand claimed copyright infringement.
🧠 Court’s Analysis:
Court said ideas are not protected, only expression of ideas is protected.
The theme can be similar, but unless substantial copying of the expression happens,
there is no infringement.
✅ Suggested Solution:
Creators should differentiate expression from inspiration.
Film-makers and writers should document independent development to defend
originality.
Promote licensing models if adaptation of someone else's idea is intended.
🎯 Summary Table
IPR Type Landmark Case Issue Court Analysis Suggested Solution
No patent for
Patent for minor
Novartis AG v. incremental Promote true innovation,
Patent modification (Glivec
Union of India innovation (Section no evergreening
drug)
3(d))
Similar names Careful trademark
Cadila Healthcare Mere likelihood of
Trademark causing confusion in clearance, especially in
v. Cadila Pharma confusion is enough
medicines sensitive sectors
R.G. Anand v. Storyline copying Protection only for Clear separation between
Copyright
Deluxe Films allegation expression, not ideas inspiration and copying
