Introduction

International treaties, conventions, and agreements act as India’s connectivity with global cooperation, empowering it to address major obstacles such as climate change, trade, and human rights while promoting and achieving a country’s goals, ambitions, and interests. These frameworks shape India’s laws and policies. These laws, policies, and institutions lead to positive outcomes in areas like biodiversity and intellectual property. India’s commitment to global cooperation leads to a better future, built on progress, fairness, and shared humanity by a sense of responsibility and concern for the well-being of all people, promoting a more equitable and just world. This is exhibited with Paris Convention and India especially in the Indian Patent Laws.

The first stage of the Paris Convention was established with 11 countries (Belgium, Brazil, El Salvador, France, Guatemala, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Serbia, Spain and Switzerland). The Paris Convention began its legal operation on July 7, 1884, after Great Britain, Tunisia, and Ecuador joined three additional parties, thus expanding membership to 14. Today, the convention includes 179 member nations. India joined the Paris Convention on December 7, 1998. The most recent member is the Republic of Cabo Verde.

What is the Paris Convention?

At the 1873 Vienna International Exhibition, exhibitors struggled with protecting their inventions because adequate legal protection was not available. The creation of industrial property protection required a meeting in Paris in 1883 to develop a union. Three key aspects of protection appear throughout the convention including Patent protection alongside Trademark protection and Industrial Design protection. The historic situation motivated authorities to establish essential international agreements for intellectual property protection. The IP treaty known as the Paris Convention, established on March 20, 1883, defends industrial property through provisions for patents, trademarks and industrial designs. It remains in force today, shaping international IP protection.

Importance of the Paris Convention

The Paris Convention and patent laws are important because they:

1. Protection of inventors’ rights
2. Encouragement of innovation
3. Fairness in opportunities

Historical Revisions and Amendments of Paris Convention

It was originally established on March 20, 1883, and has undergone multiple revisions to strengthen IP protections across member countries:

1. Brussels on December 14, 1900
2. Washington on June 2, 1911
3. The Hague on November 6, 1925
4. London on June 2, 1934
5. Lisbon on October 31, 1958
6. Stockholm on July 14, 1967

Paris Convention and India

1. National Treatment (Article 2): Article 2 of the Paris Convention guarantees foreign nationals the same IP protections (patents, trademarks, industrial property) as locals in member countries, preventing discrimination. Article 2(2) prohibits requiring foreign applicants to reside or establish a business locally, ensuring fair access to IP rights.
2. Right of Priority (Article 4): Article 4 of the Paris Convention grants inventors and businesses a priority period of 12 months for patents and 6 months for industrial designs and trademarks to file in other member countries while keeping the original filing date, ensuring international IP protection against loss due to public disclosure or third-party filings.
3. Independence of Patents (Article 4bis): It ensures patents for the same invention in different member countries are independent, so revocation, forfeiture, or amendments in one country do not affect the patent’s validity in others, protecting its status across jurisdictions.
4. Patentability Despite Legal Restrictions (Article 4 quarter): It makes sure inventors can get patents based on their invention’s technical quality, not blocked by legal limits on selling the product. Even if rules in some countries restrict sales for reasons like safety or environmental concerns, the patent stays valid, giving creators a fair shot at protecting their ideas.
5. Compulsory Licenses (Article 5A): Member countries pass laws for compulsory licensing, allowing others to use a patented invention without the owner’s permission if the patent isn’t used or is abused, like through monopolies. Revoking the patent is a last resort, only if licensing fails, and owners get a fair wait, four years from filing or three from grant before a license can be requested.
6. Grace Period for Fee Payments (Article 5bis): It gives a six-month grace period to pay fees for maintaining patents, trademarks, and designs, with a possible surcharge, based on local laws. This helps inventors and businesses facing short-term financial or admin issues keep their IP rights active.
7. Restoration of Patents (Article 5bis): The provision allows patent holders a minimum 6-month grace period to pay fees and potentially restore lapsed patents with a surcharge, helping rectify unintentional lapses and maintain patent protection.

Landmark cases related to the Paris Convention and its impact on Indian patent laws

1. Novartis v. UOI (2013): A decisive court proceeding targeted India’s entire patent system through the evaluation of Section 3(d) from the Patents Act. This was because it blocks patents for minor drug chemical structure adjustments. The Supreme Court backed India’s stance. It argued that under the Paris Convention nations hold freedom to construct patent regulations which protect public health interests.
2. Natco Pharma v. Bayer Corporation (2013): The Indian government issued a manufacturing license for a cancer drug to Natco Pharma instead of Bayer through its patent protection system to ensure public medicine accessibility.
3. Eli Lilly v. Canada (2017): International patent laws recognized this current case as particularly essential. The major pharmaceutical organization Eli Lilly took legal action against Canadian patent invalidation processes because it believed these methods unfairly deprived the company of patent rights. The Canadian tribunal sided with the Canadian stance through decisions that reaffirmed states possessing the authority to create their patent regulations based on economic and public policy needs. This dispute outside India produced worldwide implications that affected the jurisdiction of India. The judgment affirmed the right of nations to maintain full power over their patent criteria and their intellectual property systems must align with their domestic economic and policy targets. The Indian Health Company precedent changed worldwide patent policy development standards which require nations to strike a middle ground between global innovation and national peculiarities.

Challenges of the Paris Convention

1. Monopoly Concerns: Some foreign companies use patents to gain control over markets instead of encouraging local innovation.
2. Limited Oversight on Patent Misuse: The Convention has few provisions (mainly Article 5) to tackle unfair patent practices, like import monopolies.
3. Lack of Public Interest Focus: It prioritizes market-driven patents but doesn’t have strong measures to promote technology for the greater good.

These challenges show why the Convention needs continuous improvements to keep intellectual property laws fair and beneficial for both businesses and society.

Paris Convention’s Role in Growing India’s Patent System

The Paris Convention will boost India’s patent system in the coming years. Article 2 ensures Indian inventors get the same rights as foreigners, encouraging startups and colleges to file over 200,000 patents each year by 2030 in areas like artificial intelligence, medicines, and green technology, while Article 4 gives a 12-month window to file patents abroad, helping India grow as a world leader in new ideas and Article 5A, as shown in the Novartis case (2013) with Section 3(d), allows India to stop even minor chemical structure modifications of drugs so medicines stay cheap while supporting big drug discoveries. The Natco v. Bayer case allows India to check patents its own way, following new ideas with public needs. Article 5bis offers extra time to pay patent fees, helping small businesses, but more awareness is needed to make it work.

Conclusion

India’s participation in the Paris Convention has helped shape its patent laws to harmonise global standards with local needs. This has benefited startups and researchers by providing better protection and recognition. India still faces two key obstacles which include sluggish patent examination procedures and finding the right balance for affordable innovation. To strengthen India’s patent system, revised licensing laws, better digital infrastructure, and greater awareness are essential. The Convention will continue to support India’s growth in innovation and economic development. For the Indian patent system to be effective, it needs updated licensing laws, enhanced digital infrastructure, and greater public awareness.

References

1. List of international treaties, agreements and conventions. Pwonlyias. https://pwonlyias.com/international-treaties-agreements-conventions/ 
2. WIPO. https://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/intproperty/120/wipo_pub_120_1983_03.pdf 
3. WIPO,2023 (Contracting Parties) http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ShowResults.jsp?treaty_id=2. 
4. Paris Convention, Notification (226) https://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/intproperty/120/wipo_pub_120_1977_10.pdf 
5. Deo A (2023). Intellectual Property Rights and the Paris Convention. Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research. 10(3): 77-85. https://www.jetir.org/papers/JETIR2303012.pdf 
6. Payal Majumdar “Paris Convention for Protection of Industrial Property (1883)”. Legalserviceindia.
7. Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property. Abounaja https://abounaja.com/blog/paris-convention-of-1883#:~:text=One%20reason%20why%20the%20Paris%20Convention%20has,indications%2C%20and%20the%20repression%20of%20unfair%20competition.
8. Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (as amended on September 28,1979) (Official translation). World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). TRT/PARIS/001. https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text/288514 
9. Belakud R (2024). Salient Features of the Paris Convention, 1883. The Legal Qna. https://thelegalqna.com/salient-features-of-the-paris-convention-1883/ 
10. Paris Convention Vs Patent Cooperation Treaty: Pros and Cons (2020). Internet. https://www.intepat.com/blog/paris-convention-vs-patent-cooperation-treaty-pros-andcons/#:~:text=Paris%20Convention%20%E2%80%93%20Cons:,principle%20itself%20can%20be%20changed