CS Professional December 2025 Question Paper Intellectual Property Rights - Law and Practice

FOR CS PROFESSIONAL EXAM PREPARATION

CS Professional 2025
Question Paper ·
Intellectual Property
Rights - Law and
Practice
EXAM YEAR TYPE

CS Professional 2025 Question Paper
SUBJECT DATE

Intellectual Property Rights - Law and Practice December 2025

Notes · Sample Papers · Previous Year Papers · Mock Tests

co m .
m. s e
l a

a g

NEW SYLLABUS
543
Roll No. ..................................... : 1 : OPEN BOOK EXAMINATION

om . co
.c e m
Time allowed : 3 hours Maximum marks : 100

e m l a s
a s
l of questions : 4 a g
a g
Total number Total number of printed pages : 8

NOTE : Answer ALL Questions.

1. Comviva Technologies Limited, a company engaged in the field of mobile and digital solutions,
filed Indian Patent Application on 4 January 2016, seeking protection for an invention titled

m
‘‘Methods and Devices for Authentication of an Electronic Payment Card using Electronic

. co
Token.’’ The invention related to a secure method of authenticating electronic payment cards

em
through the use of electronic tokens, proximity-based data transfer, and multi-step verification

l a s
mechanisms, intended to improve the safety and reliability of contactless payment transactions.

a g
The application underwent examination by the Patent Office, and on l7 June 2020, the Examiner
issued the First Examination Report raising several objections, alleging lack of inventive step
and more significantly contending that the claimed subject matter fell within the statutory exclusion
from patentability as it was, in the Examiner’s view, a mere business method and a computer
program per se. Comviva responded to the First Examination Report on 14 June 2021 with
detailed submissions and claim amendments to demonstrate the technical nature and inventive
step of the invention.

m
c. o
Despite the submissions, the Patent Office issued a hearing notice dated 5 April, 2022, granting

m
c. o
the applicant an opportunity to address the pending objections. Comviva attended the hearing

e m
em s
and filed further written submissions on 20 May, 2022, reiterating that the invention did not

s la
ag
automate a mere commercial or financial process, but rather addressed a specific technical

la problem in the field of transaction authentication. It was argued that the solution relied on
secure token generation and validation protocols, data transfer via near-field communication,
and additional verification layers that enhanced the security of contactless payments features
that could not be dismissed as mere business logic or abstract computer code. Nevertheless,

2/2025/IPRLP/OBE P.T.O.

m
.co s e
m a
se
For more Question Papers, Sample Papers, Notes & Syllabus visit
g l
Page 1 of 8

543
: 2 :

on 25 August, 2022, the Assistant Controller of Patents refused the application, maintaining
that the claims were primarily directed towards commercial transaction automation, thus constituting
a business method and that they essentially comprised a computer program per se without
a demonstrable technical contribution. The refusal order did not accept Comviva's contention
that the claimed system operated at a technical level beyond mere software implementation,
and the application was rejected in its entirety.
Aggrieved by the decision, Comviva Technologies Limited filed an appeal before the Delhi
High Court, challenging the refusal on the ground that the Controller had erred in arriving
at a decision by equating any invention involving financial transactions with a business method,
irrespective of the underlying technical architecture. The appellant emphasized that the claimed
invention was not a generic financial solution but a specific technical mechanism for secure
electronic payment card authentication, which fell within the category of patentable subject
matter when assessed as a whole. The High Court examined the invention in light of the
statutory provisions and the 2017 Computer Related Inventions Guidelines, which require
consideration of the technical effect or contribution rather than focusing solely on the nature
of the transaction. The High Court set aside the Controller’s decision and directed that the
application proceed towards grant, subject to compliance with other patentability requirements.
Answer the following :
(a) ‘‘While assessing the patentability of computer software per se, the Controller has
to see whether the invention results in a technical effect or a technical advancement’’.
Explain with the help of the decided cases.
(b) ‘‘Adoption of similar trademark and trade name by the defendants is not only a
violation of the plaintiff’s rights, but may also deceive the general unwary consumers
and appears dishonest’’. Examine the observations of the Court based on a decided
case law.
(c) What are the features and uses of ‘‘ESPACENET’’ ?

2/2025/IPRLP/OBE Contd. ........

For more Question Papers, Sample Papers, Notes & Syllabus visit Page 2 of 8

co m .
m. s e
l a

a g

543
: 3 :

co
(d) Explain how the Bolar Provision under Section 107A of the Patents Act, 1970 promotes

m .
c. oproducts. m
research and generic competition, while parallel safeguards consumer access to affordable

m s e
a
patented

lase a g l

ag prior public use under Patents Act, 1970.
(e) Define prior public use in the context of patent law and also discuss exceptions to

2. The business unit named as PRAYATNJALI manufactures Ayurvedic medicines and nutraceutical
products at its production facility in Haridwar, Uttarakhand. According to the averments in

o m
the petition, the trust and its business establishment were formed to produce indigenous healthcare

c
.Sharing’’ (FEBS) as per the Biological Diversity
products. The Uttarakhand Biodiversity Board (UBB) passed an order levying a demand under

e m
s
the category of ‘‘Fair and Equitable Benefit
Act, 2002.
a
glthe UBB, PRAYATNJALI filed a Writ petition. The core
Aggrieved by the order passedaby
contention of the petitioner was that the Uttarakhand Biodiversity Board (UBB) has no authority
or jurisdiction to levy a demand under the category of ‘‘Fair and Equitable Benefit Sharing’’
(FEBS). It is argued that the petitioner is not liable to pay any amount or contribute in
any form. Since the petitioner does not fall within the categories specified under Section
3(2) of the Biological Diversity Act, the question of seeking prior approval from the National

m
Biodiversity Authority (NBA) does not arise. The petitioner further argued that the State

m per the Biological Diversity Act, 2002. Even the NBA does not possess c o
. the authority
Biodiversity Board (SBB) lacks the power to impose FEBS obligations on Indian entities

c. o asto delegate s
m
e to levy FEBS
em l a provision that mandates
such powers to the SBB, as the NBA itself is not empowered

las g
monetary or non-monetary contributions from Indian entities; a
on Indian entities. According to the petitioner, there is no statutory
FEBS obligations are restricted
solely to foreign entities. It was further submitted that the principle of statutory interpretation
requires words in a statute to be given their plain meaning, supported by precedent from
the Supreme Court.

2/2025/IPRLP/OBE P.T.O.

m
.co s e
m a
se
For more Question Papers, Sample Papers, Notes & Syllabus visit
g l
Page 3 of 8

543
: 4 :

In response, the respondents argued that ‘‘Fair and Equitable Benefit Sharing’’ (FEBS) is
a central objective of the Biological Diversity Act, 2002, and must be understood in the
context of international conventions and treaties that informed the legislation, including the Rio
de Janeiro Convention, Johannesburg Declaration, and the Nagoya Protocol. Counsel for the
State Biodiversity Board (SBB) submitted that there exists no distinction between foreign and
Indian entities with respect to FEBS obligations. Creating such a distinction would undermine
the purpose of the Act and contradict India’s international commitments. It was argued that
while foreign entities under Section 3 require prior approval from the NBA, Indian entities
under Section 7 are obligated to provide prior intimation to the SBB. Thus, regulatory authority
over Indian entities lies with the SBB, and the imposition of FEBS forms part of its statutory
regulatory functions.
The petitioner, being an Indian entity without foreign participation in either its shareholding
or management, challenged the imposition of FEBS on the ground that such obligations cannot
be extended to domestic entities. Therefore, when the SBB, acting as a regulator, demands
a fee in the form of FEBS from an entity utilizing biological resources for commercial purposes,
such an action cannot be regarded as beyond its powers.
The Court emphasized that FEBS must not be interpreted solely within the narrow confines
of the definition clause but rather in the broader context of the Act’s objectives and India’s
international commitments towards biodiversity conservation. It concluded that the SBB is legally
authorized to demand FEBS as part of its statutory role, and the NBA is empowered to
issue necessary regulations in this regard. Accordingly, the challenge to the validity of the
2014 Regulations on Access to Biological Resources and Associated Knowledge and Benefit
Sharing was dismissed.
Answer the following :
(a) Analyze and evaluate the concept of Fair and Equitable Benefit Sharing (FEBS) under
the Biological Diversity Act, 2002 with reference to the above stated facts.
(b) Define ‘‘Homonymous Geographical Indications’’ and explain how they are treated
under Section 10 of the Geographical Indications Act, 1999.

2/2025/IPRLP/OBE Contd. ........

For more Question Papers, Sample Papers, Notes & Syllabus visit Page 4 of 8

co m .
m. s e
l a

a g

543
: 5 :

co
(c) Explain the importance of technology transfer with reference to society and industry.

. c om e
m .
m is meant by ‘‘dominant position’’ in the context of Competition Law ? Explains
(d)
s e
What
g l a
g la how an enterprise can abuse its dominant position in the market.
a
a (5 marks)

(e) Analyze the role of National Biodiversity Authority (NBA) and the State Biodiversity
Authority in regulating access to biological resources.

3. A dispute arose involving the design of a seemingly simple but widely used everyday product :

m
c. o
the toothbrush. What appeared to be a small matter of shape and style soon evolved into

mplaintiffs named as XYZ was a large multinational
a significant case that tested the very principles of novelty, originality, and the protection

e
s in Europe, which had undergone several name
a
of industrial designs under Indian law. The

changes and mergers over theayears.
l
g Their business extended across continents, and among
healthcare corporation, originally incorporated

the many products they manufactured and marketed, toothbrushes formed an important segment.
The company XYZ gets registered a design for toothbrush under Indian law as Design No.
170554 with specific features of S-shaped’’ zigzag neck and a curved handle. One day plaintiff
discovered that a domestic manufacturer in India had introduced a toothbrush under its own
brand name which, in their view, closely resembled their registered design. The plaintiff filed

m
c. o
a suit of infringement alleging that the similarities were not coincidental but amounted to a

m
c. o m
fraudulent imitation. They argued that such unauthorized copying would mislead consumers

s e
em a
and allow the defendant to unfairly benefit from the reputation and market goodwill built

s l
la ag distributing, or selling the
around their product. To protect their interests, the plaintiffs approached the court seeking
an interim injunction to prevent the defendant from manufacturing,
allegedly infringing toothbrush. They also sought an account of profits earned by the defendant
through such sales. An ex parte ad-interim injunction was initially issued by the court, restraining
the defendant from further selling the contested toothbrush.

2/2025/IPRLP/OBE P.T.O.

m
.co s e
m a
se
For more Question Papers, Sample Papers, Notes & Syllabus visit
g l
Page 5 of 8

543
: 6 :

In response, the defendant argued that the design claimed by the plaintiffs was neither new
nor original. According to them, toothbrushes with the same essential shape and configuration,
particularly those with an ‘‘S-shaped’’ zigzag neck and a curved handle, had already been
manufactured and marketed for years in India and abroad. These features, they argued, were
well known in the industry and formed part of the public domain. In fact, similar designs
had been sold by multiple companies, which meant that the plaintiffs’ registration could not
legitimately claim exclusivity. As per the defendant the plaintiffs themselves had conceded that
their designs had been previously published and, therefore, lacked novelty. It was further
argued by the defendant that the zigzag bend was not a matter of aesthetic innovation but
rather a functional feature meant to improve flexibility in brushing. This admission, according
to the defendant, disqualified the plaintiffs from later attempting to re-register the same or
substantially similar designs and monopolize them through another round of litigation.

The court undertook a careful examination of the toothbrush designs. A comparison was
drawn between the plaintiffs' previously registered toothbrushes and the one protected under
Design No. 170554. The judges noted that while the plaintiffs tried to emphasize three minor
changes as evidence of novelty, these differences were superficial and merely amounted to
trade variations. The court emphasized that, although even a small change can result in a
new design, the key test is whether the design appears distinct and original at first sight
to the average consumer.

The court observed that the plaintiffs had failed to disclose material facts, including the existence
of earlier litigations where they had admitted that similar designs were already in the public
domain. This non-disclosure was seen as an attempt to mislead the court and obtain an
interim order unfairly. Ultimately, the court held that the plaintiffs registered design lacked
novelty and dismissed the suit.

Answer the following :

(a) What do you mean by Trade Variation ? Discuss the Court’s reasoning for holding
that the plaintiffs’ alleged novelty in design was merely a trade variation and not a
truly novel design.

2/2025/IPRLP/OBE Contd. ........

For more Question Papers, Sample Papers, Notes & Syllabus visit Page 6 of 8

co m .
m. s e
l a

a g

543
: 7 :

co
(b) What are the exclusive rights of a performer under the Copyright Act, 1999.

.c om (5 marks)
e m .
e m l a s
s
(c) What are the essential prerequisites for a design to qualify for protection under the

a g
l (5 a
Designs Act, 2000 ?

g
a(d) What is Design Piracy ? How does Section l9 of the Designs Act provide a ground
marks)

of defense in proceedings relating to piracy of a design ?
(e) What do you mean by integrated circuit layout, and what is the need for enacting
the Semiconductor Integrated Circuits Layout-Design Act, 2000, in India ?

m
o injunction to prevent the defendants
AB Ltd., the plaintiff, filed a suit seeking acperpetual
4.
from using the trademark ‘‘Sun Plus’’ inm
.
e
sfrom using the word ‘‘Sun’’ in any form, whether as
a
connection with soaps or detergents. The plaintiff

l
gemploying any labels incorporating the term ‘‘Sun Plus’’
also seeks to restrain the defendants
a prefix, suffix, as well as froma
or any other similar variations. The plaintiff contends that such usage infringes upon its registered
trademarks and is likely to mislead consumers into believing that the defendants’ goods originate
from or are associated with the plaintiff. The plaintiff alleged that such use amounted to
infringement of its well-established and registered trademark, as it sought to unfairly capitalize
on its longstanding reputation and brand value.

m
The plaintiff is the registered owner of the word marks ‘‘Sun,’’ ‘‘Sunlight,’’ and ‘‘Sunsilk’’

m c. o
under Class 3 of the trademark registry. The marks ‘‘Sunlight’’ and ‘‘Sunsilk’’ are closely

c. o e m
associated with ‘‘Sun,’’ reinforcing its brand identity. Additionally, the plaintiff holds registered

em la s
label marks prominently featuring the word ‘‘Sunlight.’’ However, it is undisputed that the

las ag
plaintiff has never used the standalone mark ‘‘Sun’’ in India, although its other registered
trademarks incorporate the word.
On the other hand, the defendant, AC Ltd., has been using the mark ‘‘Sun Plus’’ since
1997 and has independently built a reputation for its products in the State of Kerala. There
is no concrete evidence to indicate that the mark ‘‘Sunlight’’ has acquired such a level of

2/2025/IPRLP/OBE P.T.O.

m
.co s e
m a
se
For more Question Papers, Sample Papers, Notes & Syllabus visit
g l
Page 7 of 8

543
: 8 :

distinctiveness in Kerala that the plaintiff would automatically benefit from consumer recognition
merely by virtue of its existing trademarks. Moreover, the plaintiff’s mark ‘‘Sun’’ has remained
unused in India for over six decades, raising questions about its enforceability in the present
case.
Answer the following :

(a) Discuss the ‘‘Doctrine of Likelihood of Confusion’’ in trademark law. What are
the factors considered by courts while determining the likelihood of confusion between
two trademarks ?

(b) What is honest concurrent use, and how does it serve as an exception to relative
grounds for refusal of registration’’ under Section 11 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 ?

(c) Explain the main principle of the Utilitarian Theory of Intellectual Property and what
danger does this theory highlights regarding creator’s ability to recoup their costs of
expression.

(d) What are the key focus areas and goals outlined under the National IPR Policy,
2016 ?
(e) How is essentially derived variety defined under Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers
Rights Act, 2001 ? Enumerate the procedure for registration of essentially derived
variety.
(5 marks each)

————— o —————

2/2025/IPRLP/OBE Contd. ........

For more Question Papers, Sample Papers, Notes & Syllabus visit Page 8 of 8