Comparative Analysis of Copyright, Trademark, and Patent Laws: A Law Enforcement Perspective

Introduction: Understanding Indian IP Laws and Enforcement

Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) safeguard creativity, innovation, and commercial identity. In India, the three principal statutes governing IPR are the Copyright Act, 1957, the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and the Patents Act, 1970. While all three aim to protect intellectual creations, they differ significantly in scope, nature, enforcement, and police powers.

This article presents a comparative analysis of these Acts, particularly focusing on their criminal enforcement mechanisms, investigatory powers, and judicial interfaces — aspects vital to law enforcement and legal practitioners.

1. Nature and Objective of Protection

• Copyright safeguards original expressions of ideas in literary, artistic, musical, and digital works. It grants the author moral and economic rights, preventing unauthorized reproduction or communication to the public.
• Trademark protects distinctive signs, logos, brand names, and symbols used in trade to distinguish goods or services. Its primary function is to prevent consumer deception and ensure brand authenticity.
• Patent law protects novel inventions with industrial applicability. It promotes technological innovation by granting inventors exclusive rights for a limited duration.

2. Criminal Nature and Enforcement

Copyright Act, 1957

Under Sections 63–70, copyright infringement constitutes a cognizable and non-bailable offence. The police can register an FIR and investigate without prior approval of the court or any other authority. This makes copyright enforcement the most police-active among IPR domains.

According to Section 64(1) of this Act, only a police officer of the rank of Sub-Inspector or above is authorized to conduct search and seizure. This implies that an officer below the rank of Sub-Inspector cannot conduct an investigation under this Act, as search and seizure form an essential part of the investigation process.

Case Law:

In State v. Naresh Kumar (Delhi High Court, 2014), the court upheld that the police have the power to register an FIR and investigate copyright infringement without prior sanction since such offences are cognizable under the Act.

Trade Marks Act, 1999

Sections 103–105 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, establish trademark infringement and counterfeiting as cognizable criminal offenses, authorizing police action. Critically, Section 115(4) restricts this power, mandating that search and seizure operations conducted without a warrant must be executed by an officer no lower than a Deputy Superintendent of Police (Dy. SP) and are strictly conditional upon obtaining the written technical opinion of the Registrar of Trade Marks, thus ensuring specialized oversight and preventing misuse of police authority.

Case Law:

In Dabur India Ltd. v. Rajesh Kumar (2008), the Delhi High Court clarified that while FIRs can be registered in trademark cases, searches or seizures cannot be conducted without the Registrar’s written authorization.

Patents Act, 1970

The Patents Act, 1970, focuses primarily on civil remedies, with limited criminal offenses created under Sections 118 and 120, such as the unauthorized use of patent titles or falsification of entries. Since these offenses are generally non-cognizable, the police cannot register a First Information Report (FIR) or make an arrest without a magistrate’s order. As no minimum police rank is specified in the Act, these investigations typically fall under the general provisions of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), previously Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), allowing officers of the rank of Sub-Inspector or above to be assigned for investigation.

Case Law:

In TVS Motor Co. Ltd. v. Bajaj Auto Ltd. (2009), the Supreme Court held that patent infringement is essentially a civil dispute, and criminal prosecution is not applicable.

3. Police Power and Cognizability

The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which replaced the CrPC, now governs such procedural matters. Section 96 BNSS corresponds to Section 93 CrPC, regulating search and seizure warrants — crucial where police powers are restricted, such as under the Patents and Trade Marks Acts.

4. Evidence and Expert Assistance

The evidentiary nature varies across IPR domains:

• Copyright: Involves digital forensics, metadata verification, and comparison of creative content.
• Trademark: Relies on physical comparison of goods, labels, and market representation.
• Patent: Requires technical examination by experts or scientists to establish novelty and inventive step.

Expert evidence, thus, plays a pivotal role, and collaboration between forensic experts, IP attorneys, and enforcement agencies is essential.

5. Role of Customs and IT Act Overlaps

Under the Intellectual Property Rights (Imported Goods) Enforcement Rules, 2007, the Customs Department actively combats IP infringements by detaining counterfeit or pirated goods at ports. Right holders can record their IPs with Customs, enabling administrative action against infringing shipments.

Additionally, the Information Technology Act, 2000 complements the Copyright Act by providing mechanisms for blocking online piracy and imposing civil penalties through Adjudicating Officers. This integration strengthens enforcement against digital offences like illegal streaming or torrent distribution.

6. Civil Remedies and Judicial Enforcement

While the police play an active role under the Copyright Act, civil courts remain central in IP protection. Civil remedies include:

• Injunctions – to restrain further infringement.
• Damages – to compensate losses.
• Account of Profits – to recover gains from unlawful use.
• Anton Piller Orders – civil search and seizure equivalent to police raids.
• Mareva Injunctions – freezing of infringer’s assets to prevent dissipation.

These remedies empower right holders when criminal prosecution is impractical or unavailable, particularly under patent and trademark disputes.

7. Investigation and Judicial Interface

• Copyright: Police initiate the process (FIR → Investigation → Charge Sheet → Trial).
• Trademark: Registrar’s opinion precedes FIR (Registrar → FIR → Trial).
• Patent: Complaint to Magistrate → Court may order inquiry or investigation → Judgment.

This layered procedural approach ensures judicial oversight while balancing enforcement powers and rights of the accused.

8. Comparative Challenges

These challenges demand specialized knowledge, making inter-agency collaboration between law enforcement, judiciary, and IP experts indispensable.

9. Mens Rea and Punishment

• Copyright: Requires willful infringement; The accused can be punished with imprisonment from six months to three years and a fine between ₹50,000 and ₹2,00,000. (Sec. 63).
• Trademark: Requires intent to deceive; similar penalty under Sec. 103.
• Patent: Usually civil in nature, but offences like false representation attract fine up to ₹1 lakh (Sec. 120).

Thus, while copyright and trademark violations often lead to imprisonment, patent breaches mostly result in monetary penalties.

10. Conclusion

The Copyright Act, 1957 remains the most law-enforcement friendly, empowering the police to act directly. The Trade Marks Act, 1999 introduces necessary checks through the Registrar, balancing enforcement and abuse prevention. The Patents Act, 1970, in contrast, relies primarily on civil litigation, reflecting its technical and commercial nature rather than criminal intent.

In the era of digital globalization, intellectual property crimes are increasingly complex, crossing territorial and technological boundaries. Strengthening forensic capacity, cross-border cooperation, and digital enforcement frameworks is essential to protect India’s creative and innovative economy.