TAMILNADU NATIONAL LAW SCHOOL

III YEAR B.A. LL.B. (HONS.) & B.COM. LL.B. (HONS.) DEGREE COURSE
SUBJECT: INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW
COURSE FACULTY:
MR. M. MAHINDRA PRABU,
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, TNNLS

PROJECT GUIDELINES

A. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

1. The soft copy of the completed project work shall be e-mailed to both
projects.tnnls@gmail.com and mmp.tnnls@analysis.urkund.com.
2. All submissions as to a hard copy of the project in softbound shall be through
class representative only. It shall be the responsibility of the class representative
to maintain a list as to student submissions and submit the same to the course
faculty before 5.00 p.m. of the scheduled date.
3. In respect of projects which are theoretically oriented judicial interpretations are
to be furnished.
4. In respect of case studies, a review of the whole case has to be written as per law
applicable.
5. The marks for the project will be accorded in terms of content analysis and
presentation.
6. The project evaluation sheet shall be attached at the end of the project i.e. after
Bibliography/References.
7. Improving a paper is different from redoing a paper. It is the discretion of the
course faculty to determine whether it is an improvement or redo. The decision
of the course faculty is final.

B. TYPE FORMAT

1. The Project Report of the Course should be only in typed and printed version.
2. Word limit: 3500 – 6000 words (excluding footnotes)
3. Font and Page Formatting

Font Type: Times New Roman / Palatino Linotype/ Arial

Font Size: Body: 12 Footnote: 10
Line Spacing: Body: 1.5 Footnote: 1.0
Margins: Left, Right, Top & Bottom: 1
C. Citation Format: Blue Book 20th Edition (Please see Annexure 1)

D. Instruction as to the use of Bluebook Citation Signals1

Citation signals are notoriously confusing. However, they can be understood and used
with a little bit of knowledge. Signals are used to give the relationship of the source you
are citing to your text, and how that relates to other material in the citation sentence. In
simpler terms, it is kind of like a form of code that quickly conveys extra information
to the reader. Signals can be used with any type of authority, and the 11 signals can be
organized into four groups based on relationship information:

1. Those that show support (Supportive)

2. Those that suggest a useful comparison (Comparative)
3. Those that indicate contradiction (Contradictory)
4. Those that indicate background materials (Background)

As noted above, there are 11 signals that you can use. They are:

 [no signal]: Use this when the cite directly supports the text, when the source is a
quote, or when you are directly referring to something in your text. This is used
when what you are citing is clearly supporting the text.
 E.g.: Meaning "for example", this is used to indicate that the sources you are using
are only a small representative of a larger sample.
 See: This indicates that the source you are using does not directly state the
proposition, but supports it.
 See also: This can be used after a no signal cite to a "see" cite to give additional
authorities.
 Accord: This is used when only one source is mentioned in the text, but additional
sources are being cited.
 Cf.: Meaning to “compare” this is used when an authority doesn't exactly support
what you are saying, but still lends support to the argument.
 Compare...with...: This contrasts two authorities that have different views on
what you are discussing.
 Contra: This is used when the authority contradicts the proposition.
 But see: This is used when the authority contradicts the proposition, but without
being direct (implicitly).
 But cf.: This is used when the authority contrasts the proposition indirectly (by
analogy).
 See generally: This is used when your cited authority uses background material
to support your text

1
Mary Kilpatrick, Bluebook Legal Citation: Signals, Law Library, THE MASSACHUSETTS SCHOOL OF LAW (Jan. 24, 2014),
http://mslaw.libguides.com/content.php?pid=500368&sid=4116739
 Supportive Comparative Contradictory Background
No signal Compare…with… Contra See generally
E.g. But see
Accord But cf.
See
See Also
Cf.

To use a signal:

 Capitalize your signal only if it begins a sentence.

 Italicize the signal when it is used in the citation sentence.
 Make sure to consult Rule 1.2 to ensure the proper use of a signal!

Multiple Signals
If you are using more than one signal, they should be ordered accordingly:

1. [no signal]
2. E.g.,
3. Accord
4. See
5. See also
6. Cf.
7. Compare...with...
8. Contra
9. But see
10. But cf.
11. See generally.

In simpler terms, you can remember that signals are generally ordered
with supportive first, followed by comparative, then contradictory, then background signals.
Additionally, you may have multiple authorities in a single signal. This is known as a
"string cite." Refer to Rule 1.4 to see the Bluebook guidelines for ordering the
authorities. In general, if one source is considered more "authoritative" than the others,
place this one first in the string cite. Separate each authority with a semicolon.
Finally, there may be times when you will use a signal that could be aided by the use of
a descriptive parenthetical. There are general rules for when to include a parenthetical
with your signal, and these are summarized in the table below:
 No Parentheticals Parentheticals Parentheticals Strongly
Encouraged Recommended
[no signal] See also Cf.
E.g., See generally Compare...with...
See But cf.
Accord
Contra
But see

As stated above, include the parenthetical at the end of the citation sentence, after the
date.
See Reichman, Harmonization without Consensus: Critical Reflections on Drafting a
Substantive Patent Law Treaty, 57 Duke L.J. 85, 98 (2007) (noting that the developing
countries are being pressurized to provide the higher, TRIPS-plus levels of intellectual
property protection embodied in bilateral or regional trade agreement).
 Annexure I o
Quick Reference: Law Review Footnotes o
This table give s example s of commonly use d citation forms printed in thc type face s
uscd in law revicw footnotes (as explained in rule 2). The last page and insidc back
cover present examples in the typefaces used in court documcnts and legal memo
o
randa (as explained in the Bluepages).
o
Clsns
reporter
rule ro

lackson v. Metro. Edison Co., 348 Supp. 954, 956-58 (M.D.

o
o
F.
rutelo.j Pa.ry7z),aff'd,4gt.zd754(ldCir.rgZt),aff'd,4r9U.S.l+S
(tgt r+).

service
rule 19
/n re Looney, lrgSl-rg$g Transfer Binderl Bankr. L. Rep. (CCH)
lllz,44l (Bankr. WD. Va. Sept. 9, 1988). o
and
pending
unreported
cases
Atbrecht v. Stanczek, No. 8Z-C9515,
at *t n.t (N.D. ltt. Apr. r8, r99r).
r99r U.5. Dist. LEXIS

lackson v. Virginia, No.77-tzo5, stip op. at I (4th Cir. Aug. 3,

5o88,

o
-i.io."., rgZS) (percuriam), aff'd,443U.5. lo7 (rgtil.
Ross v. Weissman, l{o.9o-345 (0. Mass. fited Sept. r8, r99o). o
Cleary v. Rizkalla, 9z5F.zd 314 (1st Cir.19gt),petition for
cert. filed,60 U.S.L.W. l,4zz (U.5. lan. U, r9g2) (No. 9z-zrz). o
Coxsl.nuTroNs
rule 11
N.M. Coxsr. art. lV,5 Z.
o
SrATtnns
code
rule l2'3
-t. tz
Administrative Procedure Act S 6, 5 U.S.C. S 555 (zoo6). o
session laws
r2.4
zz U.S.C. g 2567 (Supp. I 1983).

Department ofTransportation Act, Pub. L. No. 89-67o, S 9, 80 Stat.

o
rule

Lncrsrnfrvn MaTnnnl,s
yt,944-47 $966).

rule r3
o
unenacted bill
rule 13.2(a)
S.5r6, ro5th Cong.5 z (1992). o
hearing
rule 13.3
Transforming the Federol Government To Protect Americo from
Terrorism: Hearing Before the H. Select Comm. on Homeland Sec., o
repoft
roTth Cong. z3-25 (zooz) (statement of.lohn Ashcroft, Att'y Gen.
ofthe United States).
S. REp. No. 95-797, at 4 GglS), as reprinted in r9Z8 U.S.C.C.A.N.
o
rule 13.4

UrupUnrrSHnO Victoria
926o,9261,.

E. Anderson, Company Outing: How Consensual

o
Mm;scnrprs Relationsh p Agreements Adve rsely Affect Homosexua I Em ployees
rule r7.2.r
i

rz (Mar. ry, zoo4) (unpubtished comment) (on file with the

University of Pennsylvania Journal of Labor and Employment Law).
o
Lnrmns
rule 17.2.3
Letter from Pierre Arsenault, Exec. Editor, Harvard Law Review, to o
Bryan M. Killian, Supreme Court Chair, Harvard Law Review (Apr. z,
zoo4) (on fite with the Harvard Law School Library).
a
o DEBoRAH L. RHoDE, JusrrcE AND GENDER 56 G989).

O CHARLEs DrcKENs,
Penguin Books
Blelx House 49-55
r97r) (1853).
(Norman Page ed.,

I 21 CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT & ARTHUR R. MILtER, FEDERAL

PRAcrcE AND PRocEDURE S roo6 (zd ed. 1987).

I
pamphlets WoMEN's BUREAU, U.S, Dep'r oF LABoR, LEAFLET No, 55,
rulc l5 A WoRKTNG WoMAN's GU|DE ro HER ,loB RrGHrs 4 (1978).

works in Kay Deaux & Brenda Maiot, A Social-Psychologica! Motdel of

o collection
rule 15.5
Gender, ln TseonerrclL PERspEcflvEs oN SEXUAL DTFFERENcE 89,
89 (Deborah L. Rhode ed., r99o).

I OLf vER WEN DELL HoLMEs, Law

in Couecreo LEGAL PApERs
in Science and Science in Law,
zto, zro Q.gzo).
fohn Adams, Argument and Report, in 2 LEGAL PAeERS oF,oHN

I ADAMs 285,

Pemoorcer MaTERTALS mle

lz2-lS L Kinvin Wroth & Hitter B. Zobel eds., 1965).

| (r

o consecutively
paginated
David Rudovsky, Police Abuse: Can the Violence Be Contained?,
27 HARv. C.R.-C.L. L. Rrv.465, 5oo (1992).

a i-ty$t,
rulc l(t''
Thomas R, McCoy & Barry Friedma n, Conditional Spending:
Federalism'sTrojan Hors-e,1988 sup. cT. REV.45, ioo.

o nonconsecutively Barbara Ward, Progress for a Smalt Planef,

rult,
journals Sept.-Oct. 7979 , at 89,90,
pagin4ted
16.5
HARV, Bus, Rev.,

a .
sruoe nt-
*:tTl--:t* ,
Etten London, Comment,,4 Critigue of the Strict Liability Standard
for Determining Chitd Suppoft in Cases of Male Victims of Sexual
Assault and Statutory Rape, r52 U. PA. L. Rev. 1957, tgsg-61 Qoo,).

a
rule 16.7.1
Note, Ihe Death of a Lawyer, 56 CoLUM. L. Rev. 6o6 (1956).

review , Robert Bork's Grand Inquisition, 99 Ylr-e L.l.

I
book Bruce Ackerman
rulc 1(r.7.2 7479,7422-25 (rggo) (book review)'

newsPaPer Andrew Rosentha[, White House Tutors Kremlin in How a

o rulc |6.6 Presidency Works,N,Y, Ttnnes, lune r5, r99o, at Ar.

Cop Shoots Tire, Halts Stolen Car,S.F. CHRoN., Oct.70 ,1915 , at 43,

I Innnnvrsws
ruk: 17 .?.5
Telephone Interview with Michael Leiter, President, Harvard Law
Review (Oct. zz, t999),

o FonTncolrncc
PUsLrcATrous
Sarah Greenberger, Comment, Enforceable Rights, No Child Left
Behind, and Political Patriotism: A Case for Open-Minded Section

o rulc

Tnr
r7.j 1983 lurisprudence,Tsj U. PA. L. Rev. (forthcoming f an. zoo5).

t
Eric Posner, More on Section 7 ofthe Torture Convention,
Ilrrnmrnt VoLoKH CoNsprnlcv (Jan. 29,2oog, ro:o4 AM), http://www.
rulc | 11.2 volokh.com/ p osts/rz33z4r58.s htm l.

o Tn-netrrs
rule 21.4
Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation, Japan-U.S., art. X,
Apr, z, 1953, 4 U.S.T, 2o63.

o Urvrrnl
NatroNs
OF!'ICIAL RBCORDS
U.N. GAoR, 56th sess., r st plen. mtg. at 3, U,N. Doc. Als6lPv.t
(Sept. rz, zoor).

O rul('21.7. I
 Annexure - II
Model Format of Final Draft:

i. Contents
ii. Table of Cases
iii. List of Abbreviations

Chapter – I Introduction
 Research Objective
 Hypothesis (Optional)
 Research Questions
 Research Methodology
 Review of Literature

Chapter – II ABC
Chapter – III DEF
Chapter – IV XYZ
Chapter – V Conclusion & Suggestions
Bibliography
 Primary Sources
 Secondary Sources
 Webliography

Annexure (Optional)
 Annexure - III
Case Analysis Format
Contents:
i. Introduction
ii. Background of the Study
a. International Background (Reference to International Treaties etc.)
b. Constitution and Statutory Provisions discussed
iii. Facts (including Procedural History)
iv. Issues which are in challenges
v. Arguments
vi. Judgment
a. Ratio Decidendi
b. Obiter Dicta
c. Dissenting Opinion, if any
vii. Parallel developments
viii. Relevancy & Applicability
ix. Conclusion
x. References

Possible Approaches:
1. Law is not clear
2. The judgment is correct & clarifies the law
3. The judgment was wrong
4. The judgment was not wrong but the reasoning
5. Important issue not discussed
Footnotes: It is advisable to use speaking notes (Please see Bluebook 20th Ed.)
(The above said model is only tentative, students may follow any case study method
of their choice, provided such student shall have a prior consultation as to proposed
format with the course faculty)
 Annexure - IV
PROJECT EVALUATION SHEET
Name of the Student: Course: B.A. LL.B., / B.Com. LL.B.,
Reg. No: Year & Section: III – A / B
Subject: INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW
Project Topic:

TO BE FILLED BY THE COURSE FACULTY:

Whether the Synopsis / Abstract is approved: Yes / No
Scheduled Date of Submission of completed project:
Actual Date of Submission: Delay, if any: Yes / No
Marks deducted for late submission / Redo:

Plagiarism detected (URKUND Analysis Report): %

Sl. No: Particulars Total Marks

Marks Awarded
A. PROJECT
1. Cognitive Content
a. Review of Literature
b. Research Objective / Problem / Questions
c. Research Methodology 6
d. Foot Notes / End Notes / Bibliography / References
e. Relevant Cases / Statutes etc.
2. Data Analysis, Reasoning & Presentation Style 6
3. Originality 5
4. Conclusion / Suggestions / Recommendations 3
Total Marks (A) 20
(-) Marks for late submission
B. VIVA-VOCE / PROJECT PRESENTATION
1. Subject Knowledge 2
2. Analysis / Articulation / Presentation 2
3. General Assessment 1
Total Marks (B) 5
(-) Marks for failure to appear on scheduled date & time
Grand Total (A+B) 25

Signature of Course Faculty

Remarks: (if any)