The IUP Journal of Law Review
Evolution and Application of IPR Laws with Reference to Pepsico vs. Gujarat Farmers Case

Article Details
Pub. Date : July 2022
Product Name : The IUP Journal of Law Review
Product Type : Article
Product Code : IJLR030722
Author Name : Anasruta Roy and Badal Chatterjee
Availability : YES
Subject/Domain : Arts & Humanities
Download Format : PDF Format
No. of Pages : 13



Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) have a stronger influence on societal progress today than at any other point in history. Whether it is a debate on the growth of open-source and free software movements or the exploration of ways to empower indigenous communities to benefit from traditional knowledge, or concerns about the impact of patenting plants, seeds, animals and genes for profit, it is a contentious issue. More importantly, granting patents and data protection rights on agricultural products has become increasingly hotly contested, particularly in low- and middle-income countries where monopoly prices associated with exclusive rights have made cultivation of several crops unviable for a vast majority of the world's population. The paper examines the impact of IPR on low- and middle-income countries by briefly exploring the historical development of IPR and the original purpose behind granting periods of monopoly as an incentive to stimulate innovation, followed by an analysis of the conflict between IPR and human rights, with reference to Pepsico vs. Gujarat Farmers case.


A definition of intellectual property must concentrate on two elements: the property element and the object to which the property element connects.

Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) are frequently referred to as intangible rights. This categorization is based on the assumption that the object of the right is intangible. All property rights bind the right holder to others in a legal relationship. The primary distinction between real property rights and IPR is that the latter's object is nonphysical. It can be considered an abstract object rather than a real item. It is possible to 'possess' an abstract item without really owning it. A letter written to a friend, for example, transfers the property in the letter but not the copyright.