Difference between Copyrights & Patents

Difference between patent and copyright - intellect vidhya solutions

The difference between Copyrights and Patents, and Trademarks is both obvious and perplexing. The trademarks and patents are part of industrial intellectual property, but copyright is a distinct kind of intellectual property in itself. A patent generally focuses on granting the inventor the exclusive right to use the patented invention/method/product. Copyright is granted to the author or creator of an original piece of work or art, and its purpose is to protect and credit the author for making his work public and accessible to others. Lastly, a trademark reflects a company’s identity, goodwill, and reputation in the market; a trademark serves as a name plate for a brand. 

Let us under the difference between Trademarks, Copyrights and Patents with example, consider the following: if a person creates a pen with a scanner, the invention will be a subject of a patent; if the same person gives the pen a name and begins selling it, the name becomes a trademark; and if the same person creates a song or poem to advertise his pen, it becomes a subject for copyright protection. 

However, for the purpose of this topic let us stick to understanding the difference between copyrights and patents in depth.


A patent grants the owner the legal and exclusive right to prevent any other person or company from using, manufacturing, or selling the patented invention. A patent can be granted on both the process of developing a product or invention and the final product. An innovation must satisfy three tests in order to be granted a patent.

  • Novelty- This means that only inventions that have not been anticipated by the public and have not entered the public domain can be patented.

In Novartis v. Union of India, while considering the novelty of a cancer medicine, the Supreme Court of India ruled that an innovation cannot be regarded novel if it is merely an addition to what already exists.

  • Inventive Step- This means that a product or process must be an innovative solution. It cannot be an obvious option to a manufacturer or anyone skilled in the same field.
  • Utility or Industrial Application- Industrial application simply denotes that an invention should have some practical utility so that it can be employed in the actual world, and that it should not be something abstract or purely theoretical that cannot be put to industrial use.

In F. Hoffman-La Roche, the court provided a comprehensive definition of the term, stating that re requirement necessitates an invention’s commercial viability and that even if the invention for which a patent application is filed is not in its final form, the patent can only be granted if the invention has some commercial viability.

5 Examples of Patents in India 

Susant’s breathing sensor apparatus - Intellect Vidhya

Susant’s breathing sensor apparatus

Invented by Susant Pattnaik, the Breathing Sensor Apparatus is a gadget that enables a totally impaired person to perform all forms of tasks that a normal human may perform by smelling or breathing.

Arun Cherian’s innovative cane prosthetic legs

Rise Legs, a Bengaluru-based startup, has developed a cane-based prosthetic limb for amputees that is not only lighter but also more inexpensive.

Anang Tadar’s Goggles For Blind

Tadar’s G4B goggles use echolocation technology, which replicates the way bats perceive their environment, to notify visually challenged wearers to items within 2 meters of their field of view.

Ashwath Hedge’s Edible Bags

EnviGreen’s bags are created from a combination of natural starch (derived from potato and tapioca) and vegetable oils; these bags biodegrade in 180 days and disappear in a day when submerged in water. Additionally, these bags are delicious. Therefore, even if animals consume these bags, they will suffer no severe impacts.

Arvind Thiagarajan’s HDFonoDoc

It is a well-known truth in the medical community that if the murmur is not recognized and treated in a timely manner, it can be fatal. HDFonoDoc is a revolutionary instrument that can detect heart murmur within 10 seconds.


A copyright is often granted to the author or creator of an original work. It grants the owner the sole right to copy, distribute, adapt, exhibit, and perform a creative work for a set period of time. Copyright can apply to a song, a movie, a book, a course module, poetry, dance, a painting, drama, and so on. To be protected, a work must meet two essential requirements: originality and fixation. In Sanjay Soya Private Limited v. Narayani Trading Company, the Bombay High Court ruled that registration of Copyright under the Act is voluntary and at the owner’s choice, and that none of the Act’s provisions necessitate registration of Copyright prior to obtaining remedy under the Act.

  • Originality implies that a work must be unique and not duplicated from elsewhere. Because the copyright law is silent on the extent of originality, the level of originality can be altered.
  • Fixation implies that a work should be written down or in some physical form, rather than being only an idea. The idea is not protected by copyright law, but the expression of the idea is.

Patent Vs. Copyright

Let us understand on what aspects, the copyright and patent is different

Governing Law

  • Copyright- Copyright Act,1957
  • Patents- Patent Act, 1970

What is protected?

  • Copyright safeguards creative works of authorship such as films, songs, poems, photographs, sketches, and so on.
  • A patent protects inventions such as products, methods, machines, and any additions or upgrades to existing ones.

Eligibility Criteria for Protection

  • To be eligible for copyright protection, a work must be original and fixed in a physical medium.
  • To be eligible for a patent, an invention must be unique, have an inventive step, and have an industrial application.

Rights Granted 

  • Copyright gives the owner the exclusive right to reproduce, distribute, adapt, display, and perform a creative work.
  • A patent gives the owner the legal and exclusive right to prevent anybody else from using, manufacturing, or selling the patented invention.

Exception to infringement

  • Sec 52 of the Copyright Act, 1957 talks about the fair use doctrine and mentions the situations where the use of copyrighted work would not amount to copyright infringement.
  • Prior Use exemption, scientific use exemption, and compulsory licensing by the government are some of the exception to the patent infringement.

Availability to Public

  • A copyright is granted as a reward to the author/owner of an original work for making it available to the public. 
  • A patent is granted when the invention is completely disclosed to the patent office and not to the public; a patent can never be granted to an invention that is already accessible to the public.

Filing Procedure 

  • The patent filing procedure is lengthy and complicated, and it includes the preparation of claims, specifications, and the filing of provisional and complete applications, prior art searches, examination reports, and oppositions and hearings. A patent might take anything from 2 to 5 years to acquire.
  • Copyright is a sui generis right that exists as soon as the work is created and made public; copyright registration is not required.

Term of Protection

  • Copyright- Author’s life plus 60 years.
  • Patent- 20 years from the day of filing.


In spite of the fact that the Indian laws on intellectual property provide a clear distinction between all intellectual properties, they are sure to overlap on occasion, and here is where the misunderstanding emerges, as the laws remain quiet on such instances. In India, for example, a computer code is protected as a literary work, but the same code can be patented if it is part of an invention that is both inventive and industrially applicable. Similarly, a device trademark that is an artistic work can likewise be protected by copyright. Despite these overlaps, the distinction between copyrights, patents, and trademarks is substantial and noteworthy.


Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on whatsapp
Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on whatsapp

Related Posts

Micro Copyright in India: Protecting Small-Scale Creative Works

In the digital age, the creation and sharing of content have reached unprecedented heights. With the proliferation of user-generated content, short-form media, and the increasing significance of individual contributions to larger works, the concept of “micro copyright” has emerged. Micro copyright refers to the protection of smaller, often more granular, creative expressions. In the context of Indian copyright law, this concept presents unique challenges and opportunities. This article explores the intricacies of micro copyright and the conundrums surrounding its protection in India. Understanding Micro Copyright Micro copyright encompasses the rights associated with smaller creative works such as social media posts, memes, short videos, gifs, and even individual elements within larger works, like specific phrases or designs. These forms of content, while often brief and seemingly inconsequential, can hold significant value and can be the subject of copyright protection. The Legal Framework of Copyright in India The Indian Copyright Act, 1957, primarily governs copyright protection in India. The Act provides protection to original literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works, cinematograph films, and sound recordings. For a work to be protected, it must be original and expressed in a tangible form. Challenges in Protecting Micro Copyright 1. Originality and Fixation One of the fundamental requirements for copyright protection is that the work must be original and fixed in a tangible medium. This can be challenging for micro content, where the line between original creation and common expression is often blurred. Determining the originality of a tweet, meme, or short video clip can be subjective and contentious. 2. De Minimis Doctrine The de minimis doctrine, which means “about minimal things,” can pose a significant challenge for micro copyright. This doctrine suggests that the law does not concern itself with trivial matters. Small snippets of content might be considered too insignificant to warrant protection, leaving creators without legal recourse for unauthorized use. 3. Fair Use The concept of fair use allows for limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders. In the context of micro copyright, determining what constitutes fair use can be particularly tricky. For instance, sharing a meme or a short clip might be considered fair use, but if it goes viral and gains commercial value, the original creator might seek protection and compensation. 4. Enforcement and Attribution Even if micro content is eligible for copyright protection, enforcing these rights can be challenging. Monitoring the vast expanse of the internet for unauthorized use of small-scale content is a daunting task. Additionally, the ease with which digital content can be shared and altered complicates the process of ensuring proper attribution and compensation. The Way Forward 1. Clearer Guidelines and Definitions To address the challenges of micro copyright, clearer guidelines and definitions are needed within the Indian Copyright Act. Defining what constitutes a protectable micro work and setting standards for originality can provide better clarity for creators and users alike. 2. Digital Rights Management (DRM) and Technology Leveraging technology, such as digital rights management (DRM) systems and content recognition algorithms, can help creators monitor and enforce their copyright more effectively. These technologies can automate the process of identifying unauthorized uses and facilitate easier enforcement. 3. Education and Awareness Increasing awareness among creators about their rights and the mechanisms available for protecting their content is crucial. Educational campaigns and resources can empower creators to navigate the complexities of copyright law and safeguard their micro creations. 4. Legal Reform and International Cooperation Given the global nature of digital content, international cooperation and harmonization of copyright laws can play a significant role in addressing the challenges of micro copyright. Legal reforms that consider the unique nature of digital content and micro works can provide a more robust framework for protection. Conclusion The rise of micro copyright in the digital era presents a unique conundrum under Indian copyright law. While the current legal framework provides a foundation for protecting creative works, the nuances of micro content require more specific attention and adaptation. By addressing the challenges of originality, fair use, enforcement, and attribution, and by leveraging technology and education, India can better protect the rights of creators in the evolving landscape of digital content.

Read More »
Importance of Trademarking your Restaurant Name - Intellect Vidhya

Importance of Trademarking your Restaurant Name

Have you ever walked into a restaurant, drawn by its catchy name or eye-catching logo, only to discover that it’s not the establishment you thought it was? In the bustling food and hospitality industry of India, this scenario is becoming increasingly common. As more and more eateries pop up, it’s crucial for restaurant owners to protect their brand’s identity through trademark registration. A trademark is like a unique fingerprint that sets your goods or services apart from the competition. It’s a legal stamp that says, “This is ours, and no one else can use it.” And in the world of restaurants, where first impressions can make or break your business, a strong trademark can be a game-changer. Why Trademarks Matter for Restaurateurs? Success Stories of Trademarked Restaurant Brands The Consequences of Neglecting Trademark Protection In the vibrant culinary landscape of India, trademarking your restaurant brand is more than just a formality – it’s a strategic move that can safeguard your business identity, maintain brand recognition, and provide legal recourse against infringement. By understanding the importance of trademarks and understanding the appropriate registration process under Indian trademark law, you can protect your valuable intellectual property and pave the way for a future as bright as a perfectly cooked dish, fresh out of the kitchen.

Read More »
The Significance Of Prior Use In The Trademark Law Vans V Ivans - Intellect Vidhya

The Significance of Prior Use in the Trademark Law: Vans v. Ivans

In the complex realm of intellectual property rights, few principles hold as much significance as the concept of “prior use” in Indian trademark law. The recent ruling by the Delhi High Court in the Vans v. Ivans case has brought attention to the fundamental concept of giving precedence to the first user of a trademark in the market. The Vans v. Ivans Case: The case centred on a disagreement between Vans Inc., a well-known American footwear and apparel company, and FCB Garment Tex, an Indian company that used the “IVANS” trademark. Vans Inc. filed a request to invalidate FCB Garment Tex’s trademark registration in India, claiming that their “VANS” mark had recently gained recognition as a well-known trademark in the country. Nevertheless, the Delhi High Court ruled in favour of FCB Garment Tex, citing the prior use principle. Important Factors in the Court’s Decision The court’s ruling was influenced by several crucial elements. Firstly, it emphasised that FCB Garment Tex had been using the “IVANS” mark in India for years before Vans Inc. entered the market, applying the “first in the market” principle. Furthermore, the court made it clear that simply declaring a trademark as well-known does not automatically give the owner the authority to cancel other marks that were used earlier in India. Finally, the court determined that FCB Garment’s utilisation of the marks was both sincere and simultaneous, granting them protection under Section 12 of the Trade Marks Act. Supporting the Principle of Prior Use This landmark ruling is a strong affirmation of the prior use principle in Indian trademark law. This principle emphasises that the initial user of a trademark in the market holds greater rights compared to later users, regardless of their registration status. This concept is deeply embedded in the Indian Trade Marks Act, 1999, and aims to safeguard businesses that have dedicated significant time and resources to establish their brand identity in the market. The Reasoning Behind Prior Use There are several reasons behind the prior use principle. It strives to recognise and safeguard businesses that have proactively built their brands in the marketplace. By prioritising the initial user, the law recognises the dedication and resources required to establish a strong brand presence and cultivate customer loyalty. This principle also helps to prevent unfair competition by ensuring that well-known brands are not replaced by new ones with similar marks, thus maintaining consumer trust and market stability. Territorial Nature of Trademark Rights In addition, the principle of prior use acknowledges the territorial nature of trademark rights. The Vans v. Ivans case clearly illustrates that having a worldwide reputation is not enough to establish legal rights in a particular jurisdiction. The principle highlights the significance of establishing a tangible market presence and utilising a trademark within India, rather than solely relying on international recognition or registration in other nations. Engaging with well-known Trademarks The prior use principle also has implications for other aspects of trademark law, including the recognition of well-known trademarks. The ruling by the Delhi High Court provides clarity on the advantages of having a well-known trademark status, while also acknowledging the rights of prior users in the market. This delicate equilibrium ensures the safeguarding of well-known local brands while acknowledging the prestige and recognition of globally renowned trademarks. Practical Considerations for Trademark Owners In practice, trademark owners are faced with a significant burden of maintaining proper documentation of their trademark use due to the prior use principle. This encompasses sales records, advertisements, and proof of customer recognition. Consistent and authentic use of the mark is essential, as any substantial gaps in usage can undermine a prior use claim. Conclusion Ultimately, the verdict of the Delhi High Court in the Vans v. Ivans case serves as a strong affirmation of the prior use principle within Indian trademark law. It emphasises the significance of having a strong market presence and building a reputable brand in order to establish and safeguard trademark rights in India. As the country continues to attract global brands while nurturing its own business ecosystem, this principle will undoubtedly have a significant impact on the development of trademark strategies and dispute resolutions.

Read More »
The Ethical and Legal Dilemma of AI Voice Cloning in the Music Industry - Intellect Vidhya

The Ethical and Legal Dilemma of AI Voice Cloning in the Music Industry

In recent years, artificial intelligence (AI) has made remarkable progress in various fields, including music production. Voice cloning in music has been a subject of intense debate, raising questions about copyright infringement, moral rights, and the preservation of artistic integrity. The recent criticism voiced by legendary Indian playback singer Kumar Sanu against AI voice duplication brings attention to the mounting concerns within the music industry. Power and Potential of AI Voice Cloning AI voice cloning technology has made significant progress in recreating the voices of singers with outstanding precision. This ability has resulted in the development of new songs that utilise the voices of artists who have passed away, as demonstrated in the recent example of “Pehle Hi Main.” This song was created using an AI-generated voice that mimics the late Mohammed Rafi, who sadly passed away in 1980. Although this technology presents fascinating opportunities for music production and preservation, it also brings up important ethical and legal concerns. Dealing with Copyright Infringement Copyright infringement is a significant legal concern when it comes to AI voice cloning. A singer’s voice is regarded as their valuable asset, safeguarded by copyright laws in numerous jurisdictions. When AI is employed to imitate a singer’s voice without authorization, it may potentially infringe upon copyright protections. This encompasses violations of reproduction rights, distribution rights, and the unauthorised creation of derivative works. Moral Rights and Personality Rights In addition to copyright concerns, AI voice cloning also brings up ethical and legal questions surrounding moral rights and personality rights. It is important for singers to safeguard their work from any alterations or manipulations that may negatively impact their reputation. Additionally, there is a potential for confusion and misrepresentation when AI-generated voices are not explicitly identified. Furthermore, in numerous legal systems, people possess the authority to regulate the commercial exploitation of their identity, appearance, or voice. Voice cloning might be perceived as a violation of these rights. Cloning the Voices of Deceased Artists Using AI to replicate the voices of deceased artists, such as Mohammed Rafi, brings about a whole new set of challenges. Although copyright protection usually lasts for many years after an artist’s passing, the ethical considerations surrounding the use of a deceased artist’s voice without their permission are quite substantial. There are concerns regarding the preservation of the legacy and artistic intentions of deceased musicians. Industry Response Kumar Sanu’s decision to pursue legal protection against AI voice cloning demonstrates a rising recognition of these concerns within the music industry. Other artists and industry professionals are also advocating for the establishment of regulatory frameworks to oversee the utilisation of AI in music production. There are several potential solutions being discussed to address the challenges posed by AI in music. These include establishing licencing protocols for the use of AI-cloned voices, requiring clear disclosure when AI voice cloning is used in a production, and developing specific laws to tackle these unique challenges. The Path Forward As AI technology advances, it is essential for the legal system to stay up to date. Collaboration between the music industry, legislators, and AI developers is crucial in establishing a framework that balances the protection of artists’ rights with the promotion of innovation. This could potentially include the need to revise copyright laws to specifically tackle AI-generated content, setting industry norms for the ethical application of AI in music production, and devising methods for artists to maintain control over and profit from the utilisation of their AI-replicated voices. Conclusion The emergence of AI voice cloning technology brings forth a range of possibilities and complexities for the music industry. Although it presents exciting opportunities for creativity, it also raises serious concerns regarding artists’ rights and the authenticity of their work. As evidenced by Kumar Sanu’s case, it is clear that there is a pressing requirement for the establishment of legal and ethical frameworks to regulate the utilisation of this technology. As we move forward with the more enhanced versions of AI, it’s crucial to find a harmony between technological advancement and safeguarding artists’ rights. It is crucial to establish thoughtful regulation and foster industry cooperation to ensure that AI positively impacts the creative ecosystem of the music industry.

Read More »