ABSTRACT
In the digital era where data is a vital asset, the Intersection of Intellectual Property Rights is one of the most important developing topic in the Legal Studies, Intellectual Property Rights, give complete rights to the creators to promote their innovation and creativity, which impact sometimes with Data Protection regulations, which helps in avoiding unauthorized use of someone personal information’s. In light of the potential for IPR authorization to abuse private privileges and the potential for severe information security regulations to hinder the legitimate use and sharing of information for advancement, this assembly presents muddled lawful issues.
This research paper examines relations between Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) and Data Protection and investigating problems which are possible and alliances between these two legal frameworks.
Keywords
Intellectual Property Rights, Data Protection, Legal Framework, innovation, privacy.
Introduction
Intellectual Property Right (IPR)
This refers to rights which protects against unauthorised usage for those non-physical property owned by any person or firm. There are many Intellectual Property Rights but main type of Intellectual Property Rights includes Patents, trademarks, copyrights, and Geographical indications.
Patents
Legislation: The Patents Act, 1970 (amended in 2005).
Purpose: This refers to formal agreement that gives creators rights of prohibiting unauthorized use of their production or sale of their production.
Duration: 20 years from the filing date of the patent application.
Trademarks
Legislation: The Trademark Act, 1999.
Purpose: This refers to safeguarding all colours, logos, symbol that’s a firm uses to identify their goods and services. While patents are limited to single production of creators where as trademark covers collection of items.
Duration: 10 years, renewable indefinitely every 10 years.
Copyrights
Legislation: The copyright Act, 1957 (amended in 2012).
Purpose: These rights protect the rights of original creator of an content, with the help of this right creator can safeguard their content like musical, artistic, literary, etc. and if anyone use their content without their permission this copyright will safeguard them.
Duration: for literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works: 60 years after the death of the author. For cinematographic films, sound recordings, photographs, works of government and public undertakings, and works of international organizations: 60 years from the date of publications.
Geographical indications (GI)
Legislation: The Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999.
Purpose: Identifies goods as originating from a specific place, where a given quality, reputation, or other characteristic of the goods is essentially attributable to its geographic origin.
Duration: 10 years, renewable indefinitely every 10 years.
Data Protection
Data protection refers to basic human rights or fundamental rights, large volume of information are stored in computer systems. The information technology legislation is responsible for finding a person behind this data breaches and privacy which includes unauthorize access to computers, networks, resources, as well as unauthorized deletion, modification and transmission of data.
Research Methodology
This research paper is in detailed information on the topic of Intellectual Property Law and Data Protection including both primary and secondary resources in this research paper primary resources used are some cases as examples and in secondary resources to make this research paper informative, resources from different sites has been used.
Review of Literature
Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) and Data protection are crucial for protecting the inventions, designs of its creators. These rights are designed to provide creators and inventors with recognition and financial benefits, fostering an environment of innovation and creativity.
Historical context and evolution
Evolution of Intellectual Property Rights
Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) are now some of the most well-known rights in the world, but they have their roots in antiquity. The 6th century BCE has documented evidence that the city of Sybaris granted a monopoly to bakers to ‘inventing’ a new kind of pastry. Later, another form of IPR granted exclusive rights to dancing master in Ancient Greece, where it was banned to anyone else who ‘practised the profession’ that is not sanctioned by the holder of the previously granted patent. Through the ages, this concept about IPR has changed a lot; a more organised mechanism for intellectual property (IP) protection can be seen only during Renaissance, for example in granting the first known patent in 1421 to an Italian inventor. There was also a landmark law that defined patent law and granted inventors exclusive rights: the Statute of Monopolies (1623) that formalised patent law in England.
The Paris Convention of 1883 and the Berne Convention of 1886, setting common rules for patent protection beyond national borders, and for literary and creative works respectively, were the first steps in this internationalisation of intellectual property protection. They set the stage for the creation of the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) in 1970 to help the world regulate intellectual property law on an international level.
Development of Data Protection Regulations
Unlike intellectual property, legislation dedicated entirely to data protection doesn’t have quite such a founding myth. While some countries since the early days of computerisation enacted a ‘right to privacy’ that would protect people from the automatic processing of personal data, it wasn’t until 1981 that the first pact dedicated to data protection was drawn up, Convention 108 of the Council of Europe. The European Data Protection Directive (the basis of modern EU privacy policy) would not arrive until 1995.
Such frameworks needed updating for the requirements of the expanding internet and technologies, and that was why the 1995 Directive was ultimately superseded in 2016 by the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Stringent personal data rights and penalties for failing to comply provided for strict data-protection measures. This policy has not only had an impact within the 27 member states of the EU, it has been a model for data protection across the world, with EU policies providing guidance for how other nations have built data-protection policies.
Intellectual property Right and Data protection Law have evolved from simple but useful ideas to convoluted complicated but neccessary laws to support the requirements of the society in current gholbalised environment. This development demonstrates the appeal of laws that are dynamic and evolving to adapt to changing notions of privacy and creator rights.
Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) and Data Protection conflicts
These tensions take concrete form in the realm of legal rules: in particular, they are intermixed in the tensions between Data protection and Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), as occurs in relation to procedural protections for trademark protection and administration of copyright patents. These rules reflect the tensions between the goals of protection of privacy and data, and the goals of protection of art and literature.
Conflict in trademark enforcement
There often has to be a breach of data protection rules in order to execute those rights: for instance, according to the Directive 2004/48/EC on the enforcement of intellectual property rights, courts are empowered to order the disclosure in litigation concerning intellectual property infringement of information on the origin and distribution networks of infringing goods (ie, products or articles that are counterfeit or violate another’s patent, trademark or trade name). There can be tensions between the need for transparency of enforcement of IP rights and the protection of personal information. A good example of this type of tension is provided by the recital in the foregoing Directive noted earlier: Disclosures of this sort should not jeopardise the privacy of personal information and proprietary information.
The Norwich Pharmacal Order (NPO), for example – a judge’s ability to order a third party to disclose information about the wrongdoer – is an example of this conflict.
While this is a useful weapon in the IP enforcement arsenal, it has been recognised by courts as a severe invasion of privacy and data protection rights, and IP interests must be balanced against these interests.
Conflict in copyright and patent law
Copyright and patent laws pose a similar problem because of data privacy protection agendas. The laws governing patterns of ownership for these works were created to protect the interests of authors and inventors, and to promote ingenuity and creativity. But disparities can arise when the creation of intellectual property overlaps with personal data (for example, in the development, or use, of databases or software).
For example, databases that invested substantial amounts into their production can be protected under the Indian Copyright Act, but at the same time the privacy of personal data within these databases must be kept safe as well. This double-edged requirement (of the need to rely on and at the same time exclude data according to the rule of law) might lead to complex legal scenarios, where data protection laws and the provisions of intellectual property rights will have to be weighed against each other.
There must also be strict adherence to the rules on data privacy for personal information, for instance in the development of new software or technology. Many innovations in the field of artificial intelligence and machine learning involve large datasets, so you also have to navigate these legal environments in a way that doesn’t leave you open to violation of the IP and data privacy rules.
In other words, the balanced relationship between Data protection and Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) illustrates that, in this case, legislative policies must provide a solution between competitive interests. The legislation aimed at protecting IPRs and Personal data must adapt over time with technological innovation in order to ensure an adequate protection of both the two spheres, while also promoting innovation and privacy.
Enforcement and Regulatory Bodies
Patent office: Responsible for the registration and administration of patents.
Trademarks Registry: Manages the registration of trademarks.
Copyright Office: responsible for the administration of copyright registrations.
Geographical Indications Registry: responsible for the administration of geographical indications.
Plant Variety Authority: responsible for administration of protection of plant varieties.
Key Points
International Standards Compliance: Member of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and complies with the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement).
Legal Remedies: Given the substantial remedies available at law for IPR infringement (injunctions, damages, account of profits), I established a precedent for the marketplace.
Raising Awareness and Enforcement: The Indian government has policy initiatives for raising awareness and enforcement of IPR, such as the National IPR Policy adopted in 2016.
Intellectual Property vs Data Privacy Balance in Intellectual Property and Data Privacy.
Legal Frameworks
The legal framework pertaining to access versus data protections under intellectual property law is tricky and ever-changing. Any person knowing of the infringing copy is deemed liable for infringement under Section 63B of the Indian Copyright Act. This again shows how copyright law focuses on intellectual property rights rather than the right to privacy of the data in these databases.
Property law might be extended to records as legal objects, that is to say as evidence of a particular legal relationship, but not physical objects. The dual nature of both work and records suggests that intellectual property rights recently discussed must be balanced against the existing privacy protections. Access rights, intellectual property responsibilities, and privacy protections must be brought into alignment, so that rights of all parties are maintained in what we call the age of anythingness.[i]
Ethical Considerations
Intellectual property rights (patents, copyright, trademarks and trade secrets) provide the basic framework in which much important innovation and economic growth occurs. But they also create a range of ethical dilemmas by compromising public interests. For example, it is not uncommon for drugs to be patented when less costly versions already exist or when potential competitors would produce a new or better drug. Patents can make important medicines unaffordable for those who need them the most. How to balance these interests is likely to result in tension between property rights and broader social interests.
Moreover, the intellectual property protection for biotechnological inventions raises the question of the ethical responsibility of researchers and developers. In order to prevent this research and data from being used for criminal purposes with genetic manipulations or other dangerous methods, an ethical framework needs to be provided for potentially dangerous intellectual property.
Once such ethical concerns are properly taken into account, at least some of them have viable solutions – although, obviously, that is not an invitation to say that such problems can be entirely glossed over. On the contrary, the complications that they raise for scientific innovation – when transparency is retained, of course – are genuinely productive. They compel the tech–entrepreneurial complex to take seriously the tension between progress and ethics, a tension that is both legally enforceable and vital for the maintenance of public trust – a condition, as I hope I have shown, that is essential if the scientific innovation engine is not to blow up in our faces.[ii]
Case law
1.Apple vs Samsung
Another highly publicised dispute was the intellectual property litigation between Apple and Samsung over the design of products such as the iPhone and iPad. In 2011, Apple announced it was going to sue Samsung for infringing its patents to design its smartphones, tablets and mobile devices. The number of lawsuits spawned by the dispute astonishingly rose to a considerable high number in several jurisdictions spanning multiple countries. Collectively, such anecdotes reveal how important, contested and complicated cases pertaining to intellectual property can be in the technology sector. In sum, at a glance, the two leading categories of international litigation relating to patents and design rights appear to be emblematic of the confusing and symbiotic challenges of intellectual property protection and intellectual property enforcement in an industry characterised by very high rates of innovation.[iii][iv][v]
2.Equifax Data Breach.
The massive 2017 information spill at the financial ratings company Equifax, exposing the social security numbers and birthdates of more than 148 million people, was the biggest breach in corporate history. The financial and reputational fallout cost Equifax dearly, but the broader allegations reflect more than just one firm’s role in the trade-offs between private data safety and corporate commercialisation of personal information. In a very real sense, the incident marked a turning point in a growing debate about data stewardship.[vi]
Suggestion
IPR and Data Protection confront a multitude of pressingly important and intricate problems in the law. They aim to promote distinct but related interests, and often present potentially conflicting interests. A smart approach that is sensitive to how technology changes, to ethical concerns, and to the need for sensible regulation will be needed to deal with these tensions.
1. Bringing Legal Frameworks into Harmony.
If, however, they strive to create rules that respect personal information, intellectual property and their respective fundamental rights, they can decrease the tension between the two legal regimes. Legislators can take several approaches to achieve this goal by revising existing legislation to ensure that it survives incoming technology and that it gives clear guidance on how to resolve disputes or even incorporating data protection principles within IPR legislation. If the protection of personal data can be guaranteed through IPR regulations, and vice-versa..
2. Improving Data Security for IPR Litigation.
When this occurs, data protection should be enhanced because IPR enforcement runs afoul of data privacy. Personal data collected in the course of IPR enforcement must be treated with utmost secrecy and security, and courts and regulatory agencies should be sure that this is the case. Strong rules on data protection in IPR litigation and enforcement can help to balance the need to protect intellectual property with the need to respect privacy rights.
3. Promoting Global Collaboration.
International cooperation is needed because of the ‘borderless’ nature of data flows and intellectual property. Nations should work together to promote global best practices and standards in striking an appropriate balance between IPR/data protection nationally and internationally. International treaties and agreements, such as the GDPR and TRIPS Agreement, should be reviewed and periodically revised, taking into account the most recent developments and practices in data use and technology. Sharing best practices and lessons learned could also be part of the collaborative efforts to build a more common and effective international legal framework.
4. Encouraging Moral Thoughts.
Policies and practices at the intersection of intellectual property rights and data protection should be ethically driven, and policymakers and industry actors must think ethically to devise rules that prevent the misuse of intellectual property and personal data. Ethical norms can guide the pharmaceutical industry in getting the balance between cheap access to lifesaving drugs and patents rights, and similarly ethics should guide responsible data use in the tech sector for innovation and product development.
5. Raising Knowledge and Consciousness.
Having their technology explained, including the underlying legal issues of both data protection and intellectual property rights, is of paramount importance to each of these stakeholders. First, the general population should be informed about both data protection and intellectual property rights. Both the public and companies, as well as legal experts, should be made aware of the importance of protecting data privacy and intellectual property. Second, and as an additional measure, governments and organisations should perform an awareness campaign towards the stakeholders in both cases (legal users and companies), explaining their rights and obligations in both legal systems.
6. Applying Technology-Based Solution.
Some technological innovations can help to overcome the IPR versus data protection divide. Blockchain, encryption, and privacy-enhancing technologies can help to ensure data security and ensure that IPR are protected – by enabling the use of safe spaces for data storage and sharing. The use of such solutions could help to keep the competing interests of IPR and data protection in balance.
Conclusion
The grey area where IPR and Data Protection intersect, is a moving target and requires careful thinking and balanced legislation. The way to tackle the issues raised at this crossroad, is to make use of the different legal frameworks, ensure compliance with Data Protection in IPR enforcement, facilitate international cooperation, explore ethical ideals and human rights, and raise awareness.
We already see from the legal battles between Apple and Samsung, and more recently between Facebook and Cambridge Analytica, just how troublesome our data and ideas can be if the balance tilts in the wrong direction – that’s why perfect legal protections are vital as well as issues of ethics and philosophical integrity. It certainly means a data-driven future can’t be controlled softly or from the heart, but it must be controlled fiercely and uncompromisingly, and certainly not from the head, whether you are a human or an AI.
This intricate approach involving a mix of technological, ethical, legal and cooperative approaches is required to navigate the challenges related to IPR and data protection. A balance between encouraging innovation and maintaining individual’s privacy can be created by creating conducive legal framework, protecting data, encouraging international cooperation, setting up ethical standards, creating awareness, leveraging on technology and involving the relevant stakeholders. This holistic approach will ensure the security of personal information on an online platform while protecting the intellectual property owner from any infringement, allowing the digital atmosphere to embrace the future developments without compromising the wellbeing of the individuals.
Balancing the competing interests of data security and intellectual property rights will, ultimately, promote innovation, balance the interests of content creators, and guarantee the privacy and security of consumers’ personal information. The law should progress at the same pace as the technical innovation to create an enabling environment in which a balance between innovation and the protection of competing individual rights can be advanced. We can manage the complex interactions between IPR and data protection through continuous communication, cooperation and adaptation to ensure that the legal system serves the needs of our digital age.
Chirag Agrawal
OP Jindal Global University
[i] Footnotes: Jaya Vats, Data Privacy and Intellectual Property Rights, 3-4 (Dec. 14, 2020).
Bibliography: Vats, Jaya. “Data Privacy and Intellectual Property Rights.” Pages 3-4. December 14, 2020.
[ii] Footnotes: BRAINIAC GROUP, https://brainiac.co.in/ethical-issues-in-intellectual-property-rights/ (last visited June 14, 2024).
Bibliography: BRAINIAC GROUP. https://brainiac.co.in/ethical-issues-in-intellectual-property-rights/ (last visited June 14, 2024).
[iii] Footnotes: The Apple Patent Fight Between Apple and Samsung,” UCI Law, accessed June 14, 2024, https://www.law.uci.edu/centers/korea-law-center/news/klc-samsung-apple.pdf
Bibliography: UCI Law. “The Apple Patent Fight Between Apple and Samsung.” Accessed June 14, 2024. https://www.law.uci.edu/centers/korea-law-center/news/klc-samsung-apple.pdf.
[iv] Footnotes: Hani Albasoos & Nabil Al Musallam, The Conflict Between Apple and Samsung over Patents and Copyright (December 2020).
Bibliography: Albasoos Hani, & Nabil Al Musallam. (December 2020). The Conflict Between Apple and Samsung over Patents and Copyright.
[v] Footnotes: Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., 786 F.3d 983 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Bibliography: Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., 786 F.3d 983 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
[vi] Footnotes: Jason E. Thomas, “A Case Study Analysis of the Equifax Data Breach,” Journal Name (December 2019).
Bibliography: Thomas, Jason E. (December 2019). “A Case Study Analysis of the Equifax Data Breach,”.