Skip to content
Notes

Morality and Public Order

The intersection of morality, public order, and Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) involves considerations where the protection of IP might conflict with societal values or public interest. Here’s how these concepts interact:

Morality in IPR

General Principle

Many jurisdictions allow for the refusal of IP protection if the subject matter is considered immoral or against public morality. This is often seen in patent law, where inventions might be denied protection if their use or exploitation would be contrary to ethical standards.

Patent Law

  • Example: In India, Section 3(b) of the Patents Act states that inventions whose primary or intended use or commercial exploitation could be contrary to public order or morality cannot be patented. This provision has been used to deny patents for inventions like certain sex toys or methods that might be seen as unethical.
  • Case Law: The case of Morality-Obscenity Dichotomy: An Unfathomable Intellectual Property Law Approach highlights the subjective nature of morality, especially concerning patents for sex toys in India, where public morality led to the denial of patentability. morality
  • Moral rights protect the personal relationship between the creator and their work, ensuring that works are not distorted or modified in ways that could be prejudicial to the author’s honor or reputation. This can intersect with morality when considering what modifications are deemed derogatory or harmful to the creator’s moral standing. copyright

Trademarks

  • Marks that are scandalous or likely to offend public decency might be refused registration or have their registration revoked. The assessment of what is immoral or scandalous can be quite subjective and culturally dependent.

Public Order in IPR

Definition

Refers to the maintenance of peace, stability, and respect for basic societal norms. IP that could disrupt public order might not be protected.

Patent Law

  • Public order considerations might prevent the patenting of inventions that could lead to public harm, like certain types of weapons or methods that could endanger public safety.
  • Works that incite violence or promote illegal activities might not receive copyright protection in some jurisdictions, although this is less common due to the broad protection copyright typically offers.

Trademarks and Public Order

  • Similarly, trademarks that could lead to public disorder or confusion might be refused registration. For instance, a trademark that mimics a national flag might be seen as contrary to public order.

Balancing Act

  • Public vs. Private Interest: The challenge lies in balancing the rights of IP holders with the interests of society. Intellectual property laws often include provisions to ensure that IP does not override public health, safety, or morality.

  • Fair Use and Exceptions: In copyright law, doctrines like fair use or fair dealing allow for the use of copyrighted material in ways that do not harm public interest, such as for education, commentary, or news reporting.

  • Compulsory Licensing: In patent law, compulsory licensing can be used to ensure that patents do not block access to essential medicines or technologies, particularly in emergencies or for public health reasons.

International Perspective

  • TRIPS Agreement: While the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) sets minimum standards for IP protection, it also allows countries to exclude inventions from patentability if they are necessary to protect public order or morality.

  • Cultural and National Variations: What’s considered moral or conducive to public order can vary widely, leading to different IP protections across countries. This variability is particularly evident in areas like biotechnology or pharmaceutical patents.

Conclusion

The integration of morality and public order into IPR systems reflects a broader societal agreement on what should be encouraged or restricted in terms of innovation, expression, and commerce. While these principles aim to safeguard public interest, they also introduce a level of subjectivity and cultural specificity into what is otherwise a largely objective legal framework.