India in the WTO

There has been some discussion in the blogosphere on whether the Indian Supreme Court ruling from 1984 in Gramophone  Company of India Ltd v. Birendra Bahadur Pandey and Others, [(1984) 2 Supreme Court Cases 534] supports the Dutch seizure of Indian generics bound for Brazil.  See previous posts on this issue. The decision can be found here.

I do not agree with SpicyIP bloggers that this 1984 decision would help the Netherlands on the generics seizure issue. Before I set out my reasons, let me first quote the arguments made by SpicyIP that I disagree with. 

Shamnad Basheer of SpicyIP writes on the International Economic Law and Policy blog:

However, countries may define import more broadly. And this is exactly what the Indian courts did in the Gramophone Company of India case that Brian cites in his post (involving pirated casettes to Nepal). We discuss this case in an article dealing with the infamous Novartis case and whether the Indian court was correct in ducking the TRIPS issue claiming it had no jurisdiction to rule on this. If you’re interested, is is available on SSRN: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1329201

In the Gramophone case, the Supreme Court interpreted "import" to mean any inflow into India, whether or not it was meant for the Indian market. Sample this extract from the court:

"36. It was submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondents that where goods are brought into the country not for commerce, but for onward transmission to another country, there can, in law, be no importation.

It was said that the object of the Copyright Act was to prevent unauthorised reproduction of the work or the unauthorised exploitation of the reproduction of a work in India and this object would not be frustrated if infringing copies of a work were allowed transit across the country. If goods are brought in only to go out; there is no import, it was said.

It is difficult to agree with this submission thought it did find favour with the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court, in the judgment under appeal. In the first place, the language of Section 53 does not justify reading the words ‘imported for commerce’ for the words ‘imported’. Nor is there any reason to assume that such was the object of the legislature."

Since the term "import" has not been defined by the TRIPS agreement, a panel is more likely to defer to the concerned member states’ definition (within reasonable bounds of course). I’m therefore not entirely sure that a panel would necessarily interpret import in the restricted way that you envisage. Therefore, at least on this count, my own view is that the EC may prevail in a TRIPS challenge by India or Brazil.

His co-blogger on SpicyIP Prashant Reddy writes that India has also seized goods in transit in the past for IP issues. He goes on:

“In fact the irony is that India itself has been impounding shipments destined for Nepal whenever those transit shipments infringe Indian intellectual property laws. In the 1984 Supreme Court case of Gramophone Company of India v. Birendra Bahadur Pandey Indian custom authorities had impounded a shipment of pirated cassettes that were being sent through India to Nepal by a Singapore based company. The case eventually reached the Supreme Court and in an excellent judgment by Justice Chinappa Reddy the Court held that the term ‘import’ used in the Copyright Act covered the activity of transit. In para 39 of the judgment the Supreme Court held that

39. We have, therefore, no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the word ‘import’ in Sections 51 and 53 of the Copyright Act means ‘bringing into India from outside India’, that it is not limited to importation for commerce only but includes importation for transit across the country. Our interpretation, far from being inconsistent with any principle of International law, is entirely in accord with International Conventions and the Treaties between India and Nepal.

…

Given the fact that India itself has defined ‘import’ as covering even those goods which are under ‘transit’ it is rather hypocritical of India to expect the E.U. to follow a different set of rules.”

Why do I think this old decision does not help the Netherlands case?

Well, first the Gramophone decision itself states in para 27 that “import” can mean different things in different places and takes color from the context where it occurs and that the sense of the statute is important. The Supreme Court expressly relied upon international opinion that protects copyright (para 29)as established by both international copyright and transit trade conventions. The Court ruled (para 29) “If this much is borne in mind, it becomes clear that the word “import” … cannot bear the narrow interpretation sought to be placed upon it to limit it to import for commerce. It must be interpreted in a sense which will fit the Copyright Act into the setting of the international conventions.”

This is the context in which the Supreme Court ruled that import would include importation for transit in addition to importation for commerce. The gramophone case dealt with copyright violation on which international opinion was clearly against such violations.

The present case is of patent infringement or alleged counterfeiting of generics. The policy context as well as international opinion as manifested by international law and treaties is completely different here. I think the Supreme Court (if this issue were ever to come before it) would take the different context into account and rule differently.

Both the export of generics by India and their import by Brazil are legal and supported by the flexibility provided under the TRIPS agreement in balancing public health and IP rights.

Second, and I will not discuss this here, the Gramophone decision is not in my opinion well-reasoned at all. It is dated and on many issues might not stand the test of time. Most obviously, it cannot be applied without modification to the TRIPS era and to the new IP regulation in India.

Are there any later Indian Supreme Court decisions after 1984? Prashant writes that “India itself has been impounding shipments destined for Nepal” but then only cites this one case from 1984.

I also have a question: Was the Dutch action based upon alleged patent infringement or on alleged counterfeiting?

Update

I have had an interesting discussion on this issue with Shamnad Basheer of SpicyIP on the International Economic Law and Policy Blog. I had posted the above post as a comment in the thread running there. For sake of continuty, here is the conversation:

Shamnad Basheer said…

Dear Seema,

Thanks for your post. I think you must keep my post/analysis on this issue (on this blog) separate and distinct from Prashant’s analysis on SpicyIP. As you will appreciate, although we’re part of the same blog, we think independently as well.

My short point in pointing to the Gramophone case was this: the term "import" does not have just one meaning. It is not defined in TRIPS. How then is it to be interpreted?

Henning makes some really valid points about how it might be differentially interpreted even within TRIPS keeping the context in mind. And you may perhaps be right (as Henning also argues) that given the context of Article 51, imports cannot include "in transit" consignments that violate patent rights..

ps: The Dutch action had nothing to do with counterfeiting–but was based on patents (to be best of my knowledge)

Reply January 30, 2009 at 04:31 AM

Seema Sapra said…

Dear Shamnad,
Mea culpa! I was responding to both Prashant’s SpicyIP post as well as your initial comment in this thread.

But leaving aside my references to Prashant’s post, my comment on the substantive issue of the relevance of gramophone was also addressed to your initial comment in this thread, when you wrote that:
“However, countries may define import more broadly. And this is exactly what the Indian courts did in the Gramophone Company of India case that Brian cites in his post (involving pirated casettes to Nepal). … Since the term "import" has not been defined by the TRIPS agreement, a panel is more likely to defer to the concerned member states’ definition (within reasonable bounds of course). I’m therefore not entirely sure that a panel would necessarily interpret import in the restricted way that you envisage. Therefore, at least on this count, my own view is that the EC may prevail in a TRIPS challenge by India or Brazil.”

But I agree with you that reference to domestic interpretations would be relevant, and that policy contexts would also determine the meaning of import.

Apparently there is an ECJ decision Montex Holdings Ltd. v. Diesel SpA (Case C-281/05), where the court held that there could be no infringement by virtue of goods merely passing through a member state if the goods are not in free circulation there. I get this reference courtesy a comment posted on SpicyIP. For the link see http://www.jenkins.eu/mym-spring-2007/keep-on-trucking.asp

This brings some more information to mind that I found while googling. Don’t know what to make of this or whether this would influence the issue we are discussing. According to http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=1907716:
“Spanish Court Finds in Favor of Stada in Generic Losartan Case Against Merck, Sharp & Dohme 10/4/2007
A high-level Spanish tribunal (APB) in Barcelona has found in favor of the Stada against Merck, Sharp & Dohme, a part of US drugmaker Merck & Co., in a case that followed the commercialization of Stada’s copycat version of the angiotensin receptor blocker Cozaar/Hyzaar (losartan).” Losartan is the very same product seized by the Dutch.”

Thanks for clarifying about whether the Dutch action was for patent infringement or counterfeiting. I ask because the EC regulation allows action for both and a lot of the news reports talk about the relevance of the WHO’s discussions on how to define counterfeiting. Plus I think I read somewhere quotes from some Indian pharma guys as well as Commerce Secy Pillai which mention the issue of counterfeiting in the context of the Dutch action. Let me see if I can dig up one of these reports again.

Reply January 30, 2009 at 05:27 AM

Shamnad Basheer said…

Dear Seema,

No worries. I think I might have made a mistake as well in assuming that the prospect of a successful TRIPS action by India was really weak. I am now reconsidering my position and have just shot off my initial thoughts to Bryan and Henning on private email. Once I am clearer on this, I will run another post on SpicyIP and I will look forward to your insights and inputs.

Reply January 30, 2009 at 08:22 AM

Shamnad Basheer said…

you’re also right abotu the fact that the WHO anticounterfeiting issue has been conflated with this issue. And I warn against this conflation in my very first interview with Mint on this theme. And yes, some EU cases suggest that the "transhipment" part of the EU council regulations have been read down–which might mean that India could moot a challenge in the EU courts itself. I am still studying these cases.

The whole thread can be accessed here.