tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27498269253805907272024-03-01T15:28:45.667+05:30ASWAL ASSOCIATES- Patent and Trademark Attorneys
INDIA, NEPAL, BHUTAN, SRI LANKA, PAKISTAN, MALDIVES, BANGLADESHSudhir Kumarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01116694886109710344noreply@blogger.comBlogger80125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2749826925380590727.post-67264676532173455572022-05-17T19:06:00.005+05:302022-05-17T19:08:05.095+05:30Use of registered marks on the Google Ads Program as keywords amounts to trademark infringement and constitutes passing-off: Delhi High Court<p> </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="border: none windowtext 1.0pt; color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 13.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-border-alt: none windowtext 0cm; padding: 0cm;">In the matter of <b><i>Makemytrip
India Private Limited vs Booking.com B. V. & Ors.</i></b>, vide its order
dated 27th April 2022, Justice Pratibha M. Singh of </span><span style="background: white; color: #2a3744; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 13.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Delhi High Court granted injunction in favour
of Make My Trip (hereinafter “MMT”. </span><span style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 13.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="background: white; line-height: 19.2pt; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="border: none windowtext 1.0pt; color: black; font-size: 13.0pt; mso-border-alt: none windowtext 0cm; mso-color-alt: windowtext; padding: 0cm;">MMT had filed the suit seeking protection of its </span><span style="background: white; color: black; font-size: 12.5pt; mso-color-alt: windowtext;">registered
trademarks 'MakeMyTrip' and its variants</span><span style="border: none windowtext 1.0pt; color: black; font-size: 13.0pt; mso-border-alt: none windowtext 0cm; mso-color-alt: windowtext; padding: 0cm;"> used by Booking.com B.V. as keywords on the Google Ads Program for promoting its services</span><span style="background: white; color: black; font-size: 12.5pt; mso-color-alt: windowtext;"> as
advertisements when search results are displayed on the Google search engine</span><span style="border: none windowtext 1.0pt; color: black; font-size: 13.0pt; mso-border-alt: none windowtext 0cm; mso-color-alt: windowtext; padding: 0cm;">. </span><span style="background: white; color: black; font-size: 12.5pt; mso-color-alt: windowtext;">The
contention of MMT was that when a search is carried out for 'MakeMyTrip' in the
Google search bar, quite often the first advertisement which is displayed in
the search results in the advertisement category is that of Booking.com, who is
one of the major competitors of MMT. According to MMT, such use of its
registered mark would constitute infringement, especially when done by its
competitor such as booking.com.</span><span style="background: white; font-size: 12.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="background: white; line-height: 19.2pt; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="color: red; font-size: 13.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p style="background: white; line-height: 19.2pt; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="border: none windowtext 1.0pt; color: black; font-size: 13.0pt; mso-border-alt: none windowtext 0cm; mso-color-alt: windowtext; padding: 0cm;">Booking.com relied on the </span><span style="background: white; color: black; font-size: 13.0pt;">judgment of the European Commission in Case
AT.40428-GUESS dated 17th December, 2018 (“Guess” judgement),</span><span style="border: none windowtext 1.0pt; color: black; font-size: 13.0pt; mso-border-alt: none windowtext 0cm; mso-color-alt: windowtext; padding: 0cm;"> that there cannot be any
restriction on the use of a trademark on the Google Ads Program as a keyword,
including by competitors. Booking.com contended that</span><span style="background: white; color: black; font-size: 12.5pt;"> apart from conducting
business in India, it is also a global player in the area of providing hotel
bookings, airline bookings etc. An injunction restraining it from bidding on
the trade mark of MMT would put it in contravention of the law of other foreign
jurisdictions such as the European Union. Therefore, it ought to be permitted
to file a reply in this matter, before any order is passed. It further
contended that any restriction which may be put on the use of MMT’s mark
'MakeMyTrip' as a keyword through the Google Ads Program would be contrary to
competition law. It was finally contended that the words 'make', 'my', 'trip'
can be used in a generic and descriptive fashion, which in any case ought not
to be injuncted in view of </span><span style="color: black; mso-color-alt: windowtext;"><a href="https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1478365/"><span style="background: white; font-size: 12.5pt;">Sections 34</span></a></span><span style="background: white; color: black; font-size: 12.5pt; mso-color-alt: windowtext;"> and </span><span style="color: black; mso-color-alt: windowtext;"><a href="https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1344839/"><span style="background: white; font-size: 12.5pt;">35</span></a></span><span style="background: white; color: black; font-size: 12.5pt; mso-color-alt: windowtext;"> of the Act.</span><span style="color: black; font-size: 13.0pt; mso-color-alt: windowtext;"> </span><span style="color: red; font-size: 13.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="background: white; color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 13.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Court observed that the factual background of the present case is
distinct from those in the judgment of the European Commission in “Guess” case/judgement.
The European Commission was concerned therein with a case where authorised
distributors and retailers of 'GUESS' products were contractually being
prevented from using 'GUESS' brand names and trademarks as keywords or bidding on
the Google Ads Program. Court observed that the European Commission was dealing
with 'intra-brand' competition and partitioning national markets, being
restricted contractually. In the case at hand, the facts are entirely different
as MMT seeks to restrict Booking.com, which is its competitor, from using its
mark as a keyword through Google Ads Program.</span><span style="background: white; color: #2a3744; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 13.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="background: white; color: #2a3744; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 13.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Court observed that as per </span><span style="background: white; color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 13.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Kerly's Law of Trade Marks and Trade Names (15th Ed., p.628 & 629)</span><span style="background: white; color: #2a3744; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 13.0pt; line-height: 107%;"> a third party bidding on trademarks as
sponsored keywords for use by internet search engines can constitute
misrepresentation. </span><span style="background: white; color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 13.0pt; line-height: 107%;">The
"invisible" use of a mark as a keyword (metatag) can constitute
passing off as a matter of principle. </span><span style="background: white; color: #2a3744; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 13.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="background: white; color: #2a3744; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 13.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Court was </span><span style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 13.0pt; line-height: 107%;">prima facie of the opinion
that the use of </span><span style="background: white; color: #2a3744; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 13.0pt; line-height: 107%;">MMT</span><span style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 13.0pt; line-height: 107%;"> 's registered mark 'MakeMyTrip' on the Google Ads Program as a
keyword amounts to trademark infringement and would be detrimental to MMT's
monetary interest. Court opined th</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 13.0pt; line-height: 107%;">at it is not permissible
to allow competitors such as Booking.com and even G<span style="color: black;">oogle
to encash upon the reputation of MMT's mark for their own monetary advantage. <o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 13.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Court
restrained Booking.com as well as Google from using the mark 'MakeMyTrip'
together/ in conjunction, with or without spaces for the purpose of using it as
a keyword on the Google Ads Program till the next date of hearing. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 13.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Being
conscious of global repercussion of the interim injunction, court also clarified
that the injunction shall be restricted to the territory of India and granted
one week’s time to Booking.com and google to comply with/implement the order.</span><span style="background: white; color: #2a3744; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 13.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>Sudhir Kumarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01116694886109710344noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2749826925380590727.post-22651010575693494902022-05-09T14:04:00.001+05:302022-05-09T14:04:36.965+05:30Extended date to file Opposition against any trademark published from Journal No. 1928 dated 18/11/2019 to Journal No. 2036 dated 24/01/2022<p><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 16.6667px;">The Office of CGPDTM, Mumbai, Govt of India</span> <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12.5pt;">public notice dated </span><b style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12.5pt;">March
28, 2022</b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12.5pt;"> in compliance to the
direction of the </span><span class="il" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12.5pt;">Hon</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12.5pt;">’</span><span class="il" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12.5pt;">ble</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12.5pt;"> </span><span class="il" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12.5pt;">High</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12.5pt;"> </span><span class="il" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12.5pt;">Court</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12.5pt;">, Delhi under Order dated </span><b style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12.5pt;">21/03/2022</b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12.5pt;">
in the matter of </span><b style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12.5pt;">W. P. (C) IPD 4/2022 & CM 27/2022 & Others</b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12.5pt;">. has clarified that any person who wishes to file an opposition against
any trademark published from Journal No. 1928 dated 18/11/2019 to Journal No.
2036 dated 24/01/2022 (both inclusive, irrespective of status of the
application whether it be registered / opposed / accepted & advertised /advertised
before acceptance) may submit the same in the respective jurisdictional office
of the Trade marks</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12.5pt;"> </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12.5pt;">registry either through
hand or post as to reach to registry office on or before </span><b style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12.5pt;"><u>May 30,
2022</u></b></p>Sudhir Kumarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01116694886109710344noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2749826925380590727.post-2676357150286625772019-11-06T14:20:00.001+05:302019-11-06T14:20:49.666+05:30Trademark Registation in Myanmar<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div class="MsoPlainText">
The Parliament of Myanmar has passed the Myanmar Trademark Law on January 30, 2019. Myanmar is making efforts to commence the new Trademark system by replacing the current practice of registration of Trademarks by registration of Deeds of Trademark Ownership Declaration with the Office of the
Registration of Deeds. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">
<o:p> The I</o:p>ntellectual Property Office (IPO) of Myanmar will
be established under the Ministry of Commerce of Myanmar.</div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">
The trademark system will recognize existing trademark registrations, for that the IPO
of Myanmar will commence a “soft-opening” period starting from January
2020 for these existing trademark registrations to be <b>re-filed</b> within six (06)
months on a first-to-file principle. </div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">
Fresh Trademark Applications can only be filed after above period is over i.e. tentatively July 1, 2020.</div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">
There is no bar to secure registration by earlier method till then and therefore it is possible to file new applications under the existing system (as decaration of ownernship) before December 31, 2019 and re-filing the said applications on and after January 1, 2020 to take advantage of first to file rule. </div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">
The Trademark Applications shall be processed for formality and substantive examiantion. The requisition as to documents and fee is yet to be finalised. </div>
<br />
<div class="MsoPlainText">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">
<br /></div>
<div>
<o:p><br /></o:p></div>
</div>
Sudhir Kumarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01116694886109710344noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2749826925380590727.post-89759870070739546562019-09-20T16:03:00.000+05:302019-09-20T16:03:16.453+05:30Patent Amendment Rules 2019<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">With effect from September 17, 2019, Patent Amendment Rules, 2019 have been notified. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><o:p><br /></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><o:p>The Rule 24 (C) has been amended to include 8 other types of categories (3 to 10 as mentioned below) where expedited examination would be available.</o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">Now the expedited examination is possible for
following cases:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<ol start="1" style="margin-top: 0cm;" type="1">
<li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left: 0cm; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">Where Indian is indicated as
ISA or elected as IPEA in corresponding PCT Application<o:p></o:p></span></li>
<li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left: 0cm; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">If Applicant is start up<o:p></o:p></span></li>
<li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left: 0cm; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">If Applicant is small entity<o:p></o:p></span></li>
<li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left: 0cm; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">If Applicant/s is/are
natural persons/ and at least one of them is female<o:p></o:p></span></li>
<li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left: 0cm; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">If Applicant is Govt
Department<o:p></o:p></span></li>
<li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left: 0cm; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">If Applicant is an
institution established by a Central, Provincial or state Act, and which
is owned or controlled by the Govt.<o:p></o:p></span></li>
<li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left: 0cm; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">If Applicant is Govt company<o:p></o:p></span></li>
<li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left: 0cm; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">If Applicant is an
institution wholly or substantially financed by the Govt. <o:p></o:p></span></li>
<li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left: 0cm; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">If invention pertains to a
notified sector</span></li>
<li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left: 0cm; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">If there is an agreement
with a foreign patent office and Applicant is eligible under such
arrangement<o:p></o:p></span></li>
</ol>
There is no distinction between Indian or Foreign Applicant and the Rules are applicable to any foreign applicant too. The requisite documents have also been indicated where ever possible. Two categories (9 and 10) would not come into force immediately and appropriate notification would be issued from time to time for priority sector as policy need or agreements would be signed for reciprocal arrangements with foreign patent office to extend similar benefits to Indian Applicant. </div>
Sudhir Kumarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01116694886109710344noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2749826925380590727.post-1153174435785027812017-06-19T19:10:00.003+05:302018-06-18T14:25:50.656+05:30Madrid Protection in India: Advantages and Disadvantages<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">India
became member of Madrid Protocol on July 8, 2013. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">The Initial advantages of
Madrid system were huge as compared to filing a convention or ordinary
application in India. For example, there was no limitation as to no. of goods
or services in the description for Madrid filing, while those entering India
otherwise were to pay for each additional character beyond 500 characters
excluding space. Further, there was no mandate for payment of association fee,
while other applicants with prior applications were to pay association fee for
each of their prior application. Other advantage of course was saving the
attorney fee and centralisation of trademark portfolio.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">But
since the Trademark Amendment Rules 2017 have been notified from March 6, 2017,
the disparity as to misc. fees for extra characters and association fee has
been removed. Now even for direct Application into India otherwise than Madrid
route, there is no limit as to description of goods or services. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">However, the
major advantage a direct filer has as compared to Madrid filing, is the
examination, the direct applications are examined within a month of filing,
whereas for Madrid Application it takes time for designation, allocation of
IRDI no., examination of application and then communication of Provisional
refusal if any to the Applicant. The time lapse is so big that where one has
filed two applications for same mark on same day, one through Madrid and one
direct, it is possible that one may get a registration certificate for its
direct application before Madrid Application is examined.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">There may be
repercussions where two or more entities are adopting the same mark
simultaneously and are coming to India through different routes. One other
major disadvantage of Madrid system qua India is that it does not allow
Applicants to claim user date, where a direct Applicant in India may file an
application along with user affidavit/ evidence and where user is substantial
and prior than the cited marks, on basis of same, the application may be
allowed to proceed to registration, even where similar marks are on register. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">Unlike the direct Trademark applications which are allowed with some disclaimer and limitations, the Indian Trademark Registry has not yet started allowing the Madrid designated applications with disclaimer or limitation. They are either accepted in totality or objections are retained.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt;">Besides watch services for conflicting marks that are usually offered by all major IP firms in India would be big issue, in absence of instructions Applicant would not be aware if some mark conflicting to its mark is sought to be registered in India.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">Considering
pros and cons, direct filing still looks more beneficial, where brand owners
have substantial stake in the marks.</span></div>
Sudhir Kumarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01116694886109710344noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2749826925380590727.post-42018377028824458272017-06-03T16:29:00.000+05:302018-06-18T14:36:46.380+05:30Trademark Amendment Rules 2017<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Trademark Amendment Rules 2017 have been notified from March 6, 2017. The positive feature of amendment is that now only few forms are applicable for various proceeding. The dichotomy in practice where ordinary Applicant was supposed to pay for extra character beyond 500 characters as well as association with earlier mark (whereas those entering through Madrid were exempted), is done away with.<br />
<br />
The drawback is Govt fee has been increased up to 125% for various services. But the impact is minimum for natural persons, small entity and start ups where increase in fee is only 12.5% for e-filing and 25% for physical filing.<br />
<br />
The provision as to declaration of a mark as well known mark on payment of fee by Registry is somehow controversial provision, as earlier only the Court and IPAB were vested with such powers. Now it needs to be seen what marks are declared as well known by registry. If used carefully, this provision may save substantial costs towards infringement and passing off action, as such declaration would come handy for the holders of well known mark. However, the Trademark Registry is insisting on evidence in support so that a reasoned order could be passed after assessing all the claims and information provided by the claimant.<br />
<br />
Besides the above amendments the TM Registry has reduced the examination time to 1-2 months for newly filed applications. Where user is claimed, a duly notarised affidavit in support of the user is to be filed for claiming the user date.<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
Sudhir Kumarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01116694886109710344noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2749826925380590727.post-59157779672608463482016-05-16T13:39:00.000+05:302016-05-19T11:57:35.234+05:30<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
The Patent (Amendment) Rules, 2016 have been notified with effect from May 16, 2016. The salient feature of the Rules are as follows:<br />
<br />
1. It is now possible to delete the no. of claims while filing the PCT national phase application in India (as this amendment only allows deletion of claims, amendment of claims can only be made after filing of national phase)<br />
<br />
2. Timeline for putting application in order for acceptance has been reduced to 6 months from 12 months earlier. A further extension of 3 months would be made available on filing of request for extension.<br />
<br />
3. Where India has been indicated as ISA or IPEA, it is possible to file expedited request for examination on Form 18A. The fee for expedited request for examination is INR 8000 for natural person and start ups, INR 25000 for Small entity, and INR 60000 for other entity, and this request can only be filed online.<br />
<br />
4. Also in case of start up a request for expedited examination could be filed on Form 18A and fee payable shall be INR 8000.<br />
<br />
5. It is possible to turn the earlier request for examination to expedited request, by paying the balance requisite fee (exceeding the normal examination fee).<br />
<br />
6. However, Application is not yet published or not request for early publication is filed, the request for expedited examination shall be filed along with request for publication.<br />
<br />
7. An obligation has been cast on the Controller to Dispose off the Application within 3 months of filing of last response or final date of acceptance, whichever earlier.<br />
<br />
8. Startups shall be allowed to pay the discounted official fee as payable by natural person, where the invention is filed by startup alone or with natural person/s.<br />
<br />
9. A new Form 1 has been issued and it shall bear a unique Identification no. allotted to Applicant (as is being done in case of Trademarks).<br />
<br />
10. For claiming startup status, a duly notartised affidavit may be required for non-Indian entity.<br />
</div>
Sudhir Kumarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01116694886109710344noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2749826925380590727.post-53323029151043568242015-07-10T11:48:00.000+05:302015-07-10T11:48:03.801+05:30Supreme Court clarifies Suit section 62 of the Copyright Act or section 134 of the Trade Marks Act to be filed plaintiff is residing or carrying on business if cause of action wholly or partly has also arise there<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-IN;">Supreme Court in Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd. vs. Sanjay Dalia held that </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">the provisions of
section 62 of the Copyright Act and section 134 of the Trade Marks Act have to
be interpreted in the purposive manner and clarified that if the plaintiff is
residing or carrying on business etc. at a place where cause of action, wholly
or in part, has also arisen, he has to file a suit at that place.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #2e2e2e; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">The
Court observed that under Section 62 of the Copyright Act and Section 134 of
the Trade Marks Act, an additional forum has been provided by including a
District Court within whose limits the plaintiff actually and voluntarily
resides or carries on business or personally works for gain. The object of the
provisions was to enable the plaintiff to institute a suit at a place where he or
they resided or carried on business, not to enable them to drag defendant
further away from such a place also as is being done in the instant cases. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #2e2e2e; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">The
Court held that the expression “notwithstanding anything contained in the Code
of Civil Procedure” does not oust the applicability of the provisions of
section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure and it is clear that additional
remedy has been provided to the plaintiff so as to file a suit where he is
residing or carrying on business etc., as the case may be. Section 20 of the
Code of Civil Procedure enables a plaintiff to file a suit where the defendant
resides or where cause of action arose. Section 20(a) and section 20(b) usually
provides the venue where the defendant or any of them resides, carries on
business or personally works for gain. Section 20(c) of the Code of Civil
Procedure enables a plaintiff to institute a suit where the cause of action
wholly or in part, arises. The Explanation to Section 20 C.P.C. has been added
to the effect that Corporation shall be deemed to carry on business at its sole
or principal office in India or in respect of any cause of action arising at
any place where it has subordinate office at such place. Thus, ‘corporation’
can be sued at a place having its sole or principal office and where cause of action
wholly or in part, arises at a place where it has also a subordinate office at
such place.</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">On a due and
anxious consideration of the provisions contained in section 20 of the CPC,
section 62 of the Copyright Act and section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, and the
object with which the latter provisions have been enacted, it is clear that if
a cause of action has arisen wholly or in part, where the plaintiff is residing
or having its principal office/carries on business or personally works for
gain, the suit can be filed at such place/s. Plaintiff(s) can also institute a
suit at a place where he is residing, carrying on business or personally works
for gain <i>de hors </i>the fact that the cause of action has not arisen at a
place where he/they are residing or any one of them is residing, carries on
business or personally works for gain. However, this right to institute suit at
such a place has to be read subject to certain restrictions, such as in case
plaintiff is residing or carrying on business at a particular place/having its
head office and at such place cause of action has also arisen wholly or in
part, plaintiff cannot ignore such a place under the guise that he is carrying
on business at other far flung places also. The very intendment of the
insertion of provision in the Copyright Act and Trade Marks Act is the
convenience of the plaintiff. The rule of convenience of the parties has been
given a statutory expression in section 20 of the CPC as well. The
interpretation of provisions has to be such which prevents the mischief of
causing inconvenience to parties.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">The intendment of
the aforesaid provisions inserted in the Copyright Act and the Trade Marks Act
is to provide a forum to the plaintiff where he is residing, carrying on business
or personally works for gain. The object is to ensure that the plaintiff is not
deterred from instituting infringement proceedings “because the court in which proceedings
are to be instituted is at a considerable distance from the place of their
ordinary residence”. The impediment created to the plaintiff by section 20
C.P.C. of going to a place where it was not having ordinary residence or
principal place of business was sought to be removed by virtue of the aforesaid
provisions of the Copyright Act and the Trade Marks Act. Where the Corporation
is having ordinary residence/principal place of business and cause of action
has also arisen at that place, it has to institute a suit at the said place and
not at other places. The provisions of section 62 of the Copyright Act and section
134 of the Trade Marks Act never intended to operate in the field where the
plaintiff is having its principal place of business at a particular place and
the cause of action has also arisen at that place so as to enable it to file a
suit at a distant place where its subordinate office is situated though at such
place no cause of action has arisen. Such interpretation would cause great harm
and would be juxtaposed to the very legislative intendment of the provisions so
enacted.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">In our opinion, in
a case where cause of action has arisen at a place where the plaintiff is
residing or where there are more than one such persons, any of them actually or
voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain would
oust the jurisdiction of other place where the cause of action has not arisen
though at such a place, by virtue of having subordinate office, the plaintiff
instituting a suit or other proceedings might be carrying on business or
personally works for gain.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">At the same time,
the provisions of section 62 of the Copyright Act and section 134 of the Trade
Marks Act have removed the embargo of suing at place of accrual of cause of
action wholly or in part, with regard to a place where the plaintiff or any of
them ordinarily resides, carries on business or personally works for gain. We
agree to the aforesaid extent the impediment imposed under section 20 of the
CPC to a plaintiff to institute a suit in a court where the defendant resides
or carries on business or where the cause of action wholly or in part arises,
has been removed. But the right is subject to the rider in case plaintiff
resides or has its principal place of business/carries on business or personally
works for gain at a place where cause of action has also arisen, suit should be
filed at that place not at other places where plaintiff is having branch
offices etc.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">There is no doubt
about it that the words used in section 62 of the Copyright Act and section 134
of the Trade Marks Act, ‘notwithstanding anything contained in CPC or any other
law for the time being in force’, emphasise that the requirement of section 20
of the CPC would not have to be complied with by the plaintiff if he resides or
carries on business in the local limits of the court where he has filed the
suit but, <b><u>in our view, at the same
time, as the provision providing for an additional forum, cannot be interpreted
in the manner that it has authorised the plaintiff to institute a suit at a
different place other than the place where he is ordinarily residing or having
principal office and incidentally where the cause of action wholly or in part
has also arisen</u></b>. The impugned judgments, in our considered view, do not
take away the additional forum and fundamental basis of conferring the right
and advantage to the authors of the Copyright Act and the Trade Marks Act
provided under the aforesaid provisions.</span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">The Supreme Court
further refuting the submission of the Appellant observed that it is settled
proposition of law that the interpretation of the provisions has to be such
which prevents mischief. The said principle was explained in <i>Heydon</i>’s
case [76 ER 637]. According to the mischief rule, four points are required to
be taken into consideration. While interpreting a statute, the problem or mischief
that the statute was designed to remedy should first be identified and then a
construction that suppresses the problem and advances the remedy should be
adopted. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">The rule was explained in the <i>Bengal
Immunity Co. v. State of Bihar </i>[AIR 1955 SC 661] by S.R. DAS, CJI as
follows: “It is a sound rule of construction of a statute firmly established in
England as far back as 1584 when <i>Heydon’s </i>case (supra) was decided that
for the sure and true interpretation of all Statutes in general (be they penal
or beneficial, restrictive or enlarging of the common law) four things are to
be discerned and considered:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">1st - What was the
common law before the making of the Act?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">2nd - </span></i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">What was the
mischief and defect for which the common law did not provide?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">3rd
- What remedy the Parliament hath resolved and appointed to cure the disease of
the commonwealth, and<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">4th
- The true reason of the remedy;<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Considering the
first aspect of aforesaid principle, the common law which was existing before the
provisions of law were passed was section 20 of the CPC. It did not provide for
the plaintiff to institute a suit except in accordance with the provisions
contained in section 20. The defect in existing law was
inconvenience/deterrence caused to the authors suffering from financial
constraints on account of having to vindicate their intellectual property
rights at a place far away from their residence or the place of their business.
The said mischief or defect in the existing law which did not provide for the plaintiff
to sue at a place where he ordinarily resides or carries on business or
personally works for gain, was sought to be removed. Hence, the remedy was
provided incorporating the provisions of section 62 of the Copyright Act. The
provisions enabled the plaintiff or any of them to file a suit at the aforesaid
places. But if they were residing or carrying on business or personally worked
for gain already at such place, where cause of action has arisen, wholly or in
part, the said provisions have not provided additional remedy to them to file a
suit at a different place. The said provisions never intended to operate in
that field. The operation of the provisions was limited and their objective was
clearly to enable the plaintiff to file a suit at the place where he is
ordinarily residing or carrying on business etc., as enumerated above, not to
go away from such places. The Legislature has never intended that the plaintiff
should not institute the suit where he ordinarily resides or at its Head Office
or registered office or where he otherwise carries on business or personally
works for gain where the cause of action too has arisen and should drag the
defendant to a subordinate office or other place of business which is at a far
distant place under the guise of the fact that the plaintiff/corporation is carrying
on business through branch or otherwise at such other place also. If such an
interpretation is permitted, as rightly submitted on behalf of the respondents,
the abuse of the provision will take place. Corporations and big conglomerates
etc. might be having several subordinate offices throughout the country.
Interpretation otherwise would permit them to institute infringement
proceedings at a far flung place and at unconnected place as compared to a
place where plaintiff is carrying on their business, and at such place, cause
of action too has arisen. In the instant cases, the principal place of business
is, admittedly, in Mumbai and the cause of action has also arisen in Mumbai.
Thus, the provisions of section 62 of the Copyright Act and section 134 of the
Trade Marks Act cannot be interpreted in a manner so as to confer jurisdiction
on the Delhi court in the aforesaid circumstances to entertain such suits. The
Delhi court would have no territorial jurisdiction to entertain it.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">The avoidance of
counter mischief to the defendant is also necessary while giving the remedy to
the plaintiff under the provisions in question. It was never visualised by the
law makers that both the parties would be made to travel to a distant place in
spite of the fact that the plaintiff has a remedy of suing at the place where
the cause of action has arisen where he is having head office/carrying on
business etc. The provisions of the Copyright Act and the Trade Marks Act provide
for the authors/trade marks holders to sue at their ordinary residence or where
they carry on their business. The said provisions of law never intended to be
oppressive to the defendant. The Parliamentary Debate quoted above has to be
understood in the manner that suit can be filed where the plaintiff ordinarily
resides or carries on business or personally works for gain. Discussion was to provide
remedy to plaintiff at convenient place; he is not to travel away. Debate was
not to enable plaintiff to take defendant to farther place, leaving behind his
place of residence/business etc. The right to remedy given is not unbriddled
and is subject to the prevention of abuse of the aforesaid provisions, as
discussed above. Parliament never intended that the subject provisions to be
abused by the plaintiff by instituting suit in wholly unconnected jurisdiction.
In the instant cases, as the principal place of business is at Mumbai the cause
of action is also at Mumbai but still the place for suing has been chosen at
Delhi. There may be a case where plaintiff is carrying on the business at
Mumbai and cause of action has arisen in Mumbai. Plaintiff is having branch
offices at Kanyakumari and also at Port Blair, if interpretation suggested by
appellants is acceptable, mischief may be caused by such plaintiff to drag a
defendant to Port Blair or Kanyakumari. The provisions cannot be interpreted in
the said manner devoid of the object of the Act.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">The Court further
refuted the argument that <i>Heydon</i>’s rule is not applicable where the
words of the statute are clear. Reliance has been placed on <i>M/s. Hiralal
Rattanlal etc. etc. v. State of U.P. and Anr. etc. </i>[1973 (1) SCC 216] in
which it has been observed that when the provision is unambiguous and if from
the provision legislative intent is clear, the court need not call into aid the
other rule of construction of statutes such as that of ‘mischief’. The Court
opined that when two interpretations are possible, the court has to adopt the
one which furthers the object as provided in the statute itself.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Court opined that the
provisions of section 62 of the Copyright Act and section 134 of the Trade
Marks Act have to be interpreted in the purposive manner. No doubt about it
that a suit can be filed by the plaintiff at a place where he is residing or
carrying on business or personally works for gain. He need not travel to file a
suit to a place where defendant is residing or cause of action wholly or in
part arises. However, if the plaintiff is residing or carrying on business etc.
at a place where cause of action, wholly or in part, has also arisen, he has to
file a suit at that place, as discussed above.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
Sudhir Kumarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01116694886109710344noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2749826925380590727.post-38171349353052562892015-06-23T00:38:00.000+05:302015-06-23T00:40:13.145+05:30NOTICE FOR SUSPENSION OF CLEARANCE OF INFRINGING GOODS <div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua', serif; font-size: 12pt;">The Intellectual Property Rights (Imported Goods) Enforcements Rules 2007 allows registration of notice for suspension of clearance of infringing goods by Indian custom authorities, but rarely this notice is registered by Registered Proprietor/ Owners of Intellectual property rights (Right Holder).</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua', serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span>
</div>
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua', serif; font-size: 12pt;">Registration of notice allows the IP owner protection against import of infringed goods especially in case of Copyrights, Trademarks and Designs. Though Patents are also covered but they involve more technicality and expertise as compared to other IP rights. The period of protection is minimum one year unless any shorter period is demanded by the right holder.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua', serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua', serif; font-size: 12pt;">The notice is to be filed along with certified copy of the IP right, Annexure containing details of Right Holder's rights as well as grounds for registration of notice and prescribed fee of INR 2000. An indemnity bond along with surety bond is to be supplied along with the request. Where such request is filed through an Attorney, POA should be supplied. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua', serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua', serif; font-size: 12pt;">Wherever required, the custom office may demand photographs or sample of the product/article/work (IP right). Where information is not provided in requisite format the Custom office may demand same from the Right holder.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Book Antiqua, serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Book Antiqua, serif;">Within 30 days of filing of such notice or providing of requisite information/details as demanded by custom authorities, the custom authorities have to either register such request or reject it. Once registered, the custom office shall inform the validity period of the notice, which is minimum of one year unless any shorter period is sought by right holder. Once notice is registered, the custom office notifies all custom offices covered under said notices.</span><br /><span style="font-family: Book Antiqua, serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Book Antiqua, serif;">Once any import of goods is suspended, the Custom office informs the right holder as well as importer about such suspension with reasons for such suspension.</span><br /><span style="font-family: Book Antiqua, serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Book Antiqua, serif;">Where within 10 working days from the date of suspension of imported goods, the Right holder does not join the proceeding, the custom office may decide the matter on merit. The time limit may be extended by 10 working days by custom offices in appropriate cases.</span><br /><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua', serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span><br />
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua', serif; font-size: 12pt;">The right holder and importer are allowed to examine the goods, even representative samples for examination, testing and analysis where felt necessary. </span><br /><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua', serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span><br />
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua', serif; font-size: 12pt;">Where the right holder joins the proceedings and the goods are found to be infringing the IP rights the custom officials can seize such goods. U</span><span style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua', serif; font-size: 16px;">nder intimation to right holder, t</span><span style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua', serif; font-size: 12pt;">he seized goods would be destroyed under official supervision or disposed outside normal trading channel by custom authorities and after obtaining NOC or concurrence from the right holder. The right holder may oppose to manner/mode of disposal by custom authorities within 20 day of information. The cost towards detention and destruction shall be borne by the right holder.</span><br /><span style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua', serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua', serif; font-size: 12pt;">Goods of non-commercial nature contained in personal baggage or sent in small consignments for person use does not come under the purview of these regulations. </span><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua', serif; font-size: 12pt;">However, in case of perishable goods such time limit is only 3 working days, further extendible to 4 working days where custom officials are satisfied and same does not affect the condition of goods.</span></div>
</div>
Sudhir Kumarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01116694886109710344noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2749826925380590727.post-89342916997681573462015-06-22T23:49:00.001+05:302018-06-18T14:39:03.642+05:30Notice of Provisional Refusal by Indian Trade marks Registry<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Where the Indian Trademark Registry has any objection to the Trademark, a provisional refusal report is issued by IRDI Section and forwarded to WIPO and then WIPO notifies the Right Holder. The registry normally issues the notice of provisional refusal to WIPO within a week of issuance of same and within 15 days of receipt WIPO dispatches the notice to right holder vide registered mail or post.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The deadline to respond to provisional refusal is one month from the date of receipt of notice of provisional refusal by the Holder or his legal representative. The response to provisional refusal is required to be filed through an Agent (either a Trademark Agent or an Advocate) or through a representative, having address within territory of India.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
A response to provisional refusal or request for reconsideration of provisional refusal, evidence in support of prior use of Trademark in India by way of Owner's Affidavit, or limiting the scope of protection or a request for hearing can be sought the Agent/ Attorney/ Representative.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Unlike the typical examination reports issued to Applicants in India, the notice of provisional refusal by Trademark Registry also provides in detail the essential provision under the Indian Trademarks Act as well as information relating to subsequent procedure.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
Sudhir Kumarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01116694886109710344noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2749826925380590727.post-22953296428237010442015-01-02T14:08:00.000+05:302015-01-02T14:08:58.055+05:30Design (Amendment) Rules 2014 Notified<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Design (Amendment) Rules 2014 have been notified with respect from December 30, 2014 and similar to Patents Act, three categories of Applicants have been introduced i.e. Natural Person, Small entity and other entity. For claiming small entity status Form 24 has to be filed (similar to Form 28 under Patents Act). The fee payable by small entity is twice that of payable by a natural person and the fee payable by other entity is 4 times that of payable by a natural person.<br />
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">Small
entity means an entity whose investment in <b>plants/ machines</b> in case
indulged in manufacturing/ production of goods is less than 10 crores (approx.
1.6 Millions US Dollars, RBI reference rate shall prevail) and in
case indulged in service industry the investment in <b>equipment</b> is less
than 5 crores (approx 0.8 Million US Dollar </span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">RBI reference rate shall prevail</span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">). It is to be noted that while calculating investment in plants
and machinery, the cost of pollution control, research and development,
industrial safety devices, and such other things specified under THE MICRO,
SMALL AND MEDIUM ENTERPRISES DEVELOPMENT ACT, 2006 is to be excluded.</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 150%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 150%;">In case of foreign entity an
affidavit duly executed and notarised could be filed along with Form 24 to
claim the small entity status, such document should be filed along with every document for which a fee is specified. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 150%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 150%;">Where an Applicant is transferred to small entity or other entity, respective difference in scale of fee is to be paid. </span></div>
</div>
Sudhir Kumarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01116694886109710344noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2749826925380590727.post-86511145063883514522014-08-08T11:03:00.000+05:302014-08-08T11:03:24.421+05:30Trademark (Amendment) Rules 2014 notified<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
The Trademark (Amendment) Rules 2014 have been notified and w.e.f. August 1, 2014, the Govt fee for filing Trademark Application in India has been increased to INR 4000 from earlier 3500. There is approx 15% increase in Govt. fee towards filing Now. Earlier in December 2010 the Govt fee was increased from INR 2500 to INR 3500.<br />
<br />
Further, the Govt fee towards express examination has also been increased from INR 17500 to INR 20000.<br />
<br /></div>
Sudhir Kumarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01116694886109710344noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2749826925380590727.post-20242963891381879602014-03-16T21:11:00.000+05:302014-03-16T21:12:26.432+05:30Supreme Court held that Registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "BookmanOldStyle","serif"; font-size: 13.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: BookmanOldStyle;">While considering under Section 32 of Constitution of India in
Criminal Writ Petition no. 68 of 2008 titled Lalita Kumari Vs. State of UP
& Ors. as to whether “a police officer is bound to register a First
Information Report (FIR) upon receiving any information relating to commission
of a cognizable offence under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, or
the police officer has the power to conduct a “preliminary inquiry” in order to
test the veracity of such information before registering the same?” and in view
of the conflicting decisions of Supreme Court on the issue, larger bench (5
Judge Bench) of the Supreme Court held that <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "BookmanOldStyle","serif"; font-size: 13.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: BookmanOldStyle;">(i) Registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the
Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no
preliminary inquiry is<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "BookmanOldStyle","serif"; font-size: 13.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: BookmanOldStyle;">permissible in such a situation.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "BookmanOldStyle","serif"; font-size: 13.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: BookmanOldStyle;">(ii) If the information received does not disclose a
cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary
inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is
disclosed or not.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "BookmanOldStyle","serif"; font-size: 13.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: BookmanOldStyle;">(iii) If the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable
offence, the FIR must be registered. In cases where preliminary inquiry ends in
closing the complaint, a copy of the entry of such closure must be supplied to
the first informant forthwith and not later than one week. It must disclose
reasons in brief for closing the complaint and not proceeding further.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "BookmanOldStyle","serif"; font-size: 13.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: BookmanOldStyle;">(iv) The police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering
offence if cognizable offence is disclosed.
Action must be taken against erring officers who do not register the FIR
if information received by him discloses a cognizable offence.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "BookmanOldStyle","serif"; font-size: 13.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: BookmanOldStyle;">(v) The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the
veracity or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain whether
the information reveals any cognizable offence.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "BookmanOldStyle","serif"; font-size: 13.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: BookmanOldStyle;">(vi) As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is
to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The
category of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be made are as under:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "BookmanOldStyle","serif"; font-size: 13.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: BookmanOldStyle;">(a)Matrimonial disputes/ family disputes<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "BookmanOldStyle","serif"; font-size: 13.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: BookmanOldStyle;">(b)Commercial offences<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "BookmanOldStyle","serif"; font-size: 13.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: BookmanOldStyle;">(c) Medical negligence cases<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "BookmanOldStyle","serif"; font-size: 13.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: BookmanOldStyle;">(d)Corruption cases<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "BookmanOldStyle","serif"; font-size: 13.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: BookmanOldStyle;">(e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating
criminal prosecution, for example, over 3 months delay in reporting the matter
without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "BookmanOldStyle","serif"; font-size: 13.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: BookmanOldStyle;">The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all
conditions which may warrant preliminary inquiry.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "BookmanOldStyle","serif"; font-size: 13.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: BookmanOldStyle;">(vii) While ensuring and protecting the rights of the accused
and the complainant, a preliminary inquiry should be made time bound and in any
case it should not exceed 7 days. The fact of such delay and the causes of it
must be reflected in the General Diary entry.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "BookmanOldStyle","serif"; font-size: 13.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: BookmanOldStyle;">(viii) Since the General Diary/Station Diary/Daily Diary is
the record of all information received in a police station, we direct that all
information relating to cognizable offences, whether resulting in registration
of FIR or leading to an inquiry, must be mandatorily and meticulously reflected
in the said Diary and the decision to conduct a preliminary inquiry must also
be reflected, as mentioned above.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
Sudhir Kumarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01116694886109710344noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2749826925380590727.post-17588868708991768122014-03-09T17:46:00.000+05:302014-03-09T17:47:07.961+05:30New Patent Amendment Rules 2014 have increased the fee<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="color: #1f497d;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">New Patent<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(Amendment) Rules 2014 have been published.
There is change in Govt. fee with effect from February 28, 2014. Accordingly
the Govt. fee disbursements would be higher. There is cost associated for
filing Patent Application physically (10% surcharge). Further, a new category
of Applicant is introduced i.e. “small entity”. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="color: #1f497d;"><o:p><span style="font-family: Calibri;"> </span></o:p></span></div>
<span style="color: #1f497d;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Small entity means an entity
whose investment in <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">plants/ machines</b>
(in case indulged in manufacturing/ production of goods) or investment in <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">equipment</b> (in case indulged in
services) does not exceed the following limits (it is to be noted that while
calculating investment in plants and machinery, the cost of pollution control,
research and development, industrial safety devices, and such other things
specified under THE MICRO, SMALL AND MEDIUM ENTERPRISES DEVELOPMENT ACT, 2006
is to be excluded)<o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="color: #1f497d;"><o:p><span style="font-family: Calibri;"> </span></o:p></span></div>
<span style="color: #1f497d;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Micro: investment in plants/
machines for manufacturing industry is less than INR 25 Lakhs or investment in equipment for service industry is less than 10
lakhs<o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="color: #1f497d;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Small: investment in plants/
machines for manufacturing industry is between INR 25 Lakhs to 5 Crores or investment in equipment for service industry is between
10 lakhs to 2 crores<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="color: #1f497d;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Medium: investment in plants/
machines for manufacturing industry is between INR 5 Crores to 10 Crores or investment in equipment for service industry is
between 2 crores to 5 Crores</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="color: #1f497d;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;"></span></span> </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="color: #1f497d;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Therefore small entity are those entity (other than non-natural) having investment in plants/ machines for manufacturing industry less than 10 Crores or investment in equipment for service industry less than 5 Crores.</span></span></div>
</div>
Sudhir Kumarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01116694886109710344noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2749826925380590727.post-48716605583777675542013-12-26T15:32:00.000+05:302013-12-26T15:33:00.775+05:30DOCTRINE OF ESTOPPEL BY ACQUIESCENCE OR WAIVER FOR INFRINGEMENT<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u><span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-IN;">Acquiescence as a defense:</span></u></b><span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-IN;"><o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-IN;">Section 33 (1) of the
Trademarks Act, 1999 provides that if the earlier Registered Proprietor has
acquiesced for a continuous period of 5 years in the use of a registered
trademark, being aware of that use, he is not entitled to either seek
invalidation of such later mark or oppose its use in relation to goods or
services in relation to which it has been so used, unless registration of such
mark was applied in bad faith. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-IN;">The essential for defense of
acquiescence shall be: <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt 36pt; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify; text-indent: -18pt;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-IN;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">(a)<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-IN;">The mark should be registered<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt 36pt; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify; text-indent: -18pt;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-IN;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">(b)<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-IN;">The earlier registered
proprietor should be aware of use of such registered mark for a period of 5
years or more<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt 36pt; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify; text-indent: -18pt;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-IN;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">(c)<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-IN;">The subsequent Applicant/
registered proprietor has used such registered trademark for a continuous
period of 5 years <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt 36pt; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify; text-indent: -18pt;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-IN;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">(d)<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-IN;">The subsequent mark if
registered cannot be cancelled unless registration was applied in bad faith<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt 36pt; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify; text-indent: -18pt;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-IN;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">(e)<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-IN;">The subsequent mark cannot be
opposed for usage in respect of goods or services in respect of which it has
been so used, unless application was made in bad faith<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-IN;">This section clearly
establishes that if there is acquiescence for a continuous period of 5 years,
the usage of such mark cannot be stopped by earlier registered proprietor.
Though any application or registration of such mark can be challenged either in
rectification or opposition proceedings if such application was made in bad
faith. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-IN;">Where such doctrine applies,
the proprietor of later trademark is not entitled to oppose use of the earlier
registered mark or exploitation of the earlier right. Burden of proof is on the
defendant.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u><span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-IN;">Acquiescence vs. Consent<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-IN;">Acquiescence is implied
consent by remaining silent spectator. Section 30 (2) (c) of the Trademarks Act
provides that express or implied consent by the registered proprietor or
registered as to use of the mark is a defense to infringement. But as the
infringement is a continuous process this consent may be withdrawn subsequently
and such acts would amount to infringement unless a defense of acquiescence is
available.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In other words implied
consent of 5 years can be termed as acquiescence. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u><span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN;">Laches:<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN;">Failure to assert
one’s rights in a timely manner can result in a claim being barred by laches. <span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">Laches</span> is an equitable defense or
doctrine asserted in litigation. It is defined as an "unreasonable delay
pursuing a right or claim by one party in a way that prejudices the opposite
party". The person invoking laches is asserting that an opposing party has
"slept on its rights," and that, as a result of this delay,
circumstances have changed such that it is no longer just to grant the
equitable relief sought for such as an interim or temporary injunction. Laches
is a form of estoppel for delay. A successful defense of <span style="mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">laches</span> will find the court denying
the request for equitable relief. However, even if equitable relief is not
available, the party may still have an action at law if the statute of
limitations has not run out.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0cm -2.3pt 0pt 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">The Hon’ble Supreme
court of India in Khoday Distilleries Limited vs. The scotch whisky association
and others, bared challenge to “peter scot” on principles of acquiescence and/
or waiver. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0cm -2.3pt 0pt 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Appellant i.e.
Khoday Distilleries Limited hereinafter “Khoday” was a company incorporated
under the Companies Act, 1956 and manufactured whisky under the mark “Peter
Scot” since May, 1968.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Its application
for registration of its mark was accepted and allowed to proceed with the
advertisement, subject to the condition that the mark would be treated as
associated with Reg. T.M. No.249226-B. The said trade mark was subsequently
registered. Respondents came to know of the appellants mark on or about 20th
September, 1974. They filed an application for rectification of the said trade
mark on 21st April, 1986.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Appellant by
way of affidavit explained coining of the mark “Peter Scot” where “Peter” was
his father’s name and “Scot” was his nationality. Another factor behind the
coining of this brand name was the internationally known British explorer,
Captain Scott, and his son Peter Scott, who is widely known as an artist,
naturalist and Chairman of the World Wildlife Fund.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0cm -2.3pt 0pt 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">However, the
application for rectification was allowed. The appellant then preferred an
appeal before the High Court. One of the main ground of appeal was that in one
of the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents affirmed by Ian Barclay it
was stated that the respondents were aware of infringement of mark as far back
in 1974 but as no action was taken in relation thereto till 1986, therefore the
application for rectification was barred under the principles of waiver and
acquiescence.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0cm -2.3pt 0pt 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">A learned Single
Judge of the High Court dismissed the said appeal and as regards the plea of
acquiescence held that the acquiescence if it is to be made a ground for declining
to rectify, must be of such a character as to establish gross-negligence on the
part of the applicant or deliberate inaction which had regulated in the
appellant incurring substantial expenditure or being misled into the belief
that the respondents though entitled to, had deliberately refrained from taking
any action and were unmindful of the use of the mark by the person in whose
name it was registered and held that the facts of this case are not such as to
warrant the conclusion that there has been acquiescence.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0cm -2.3pt 0pt 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">On an appeal a
Division Bench of the High Court, dismissed the said appeal and appellant
approached the Supreme Court against said order.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span><br />
<br />
<div style="line-height: 18pt; text-align: justify;">
Supreme Court relied on ratio
laid down by Oliver, L.J., in Taylor Fashions Ltd. v. Liverpool Victoria
Trustees Co. Ltd. [ (Note) [1981] 2 W.L.R.] 576 <o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: 18pt; text-align: justify;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">“Of course, estoppel by conduct has been a field of the law in which
there has been considerable expansion over the years and it appears to me that
it is essentially the application of a rule by which justice is done where the
circumstances of the conduct and behaviour of the party to an action are such
that it would be wholly inequitable that he should be entitled to succeed in the
proceeding.”<o:p></o:p></i></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: 18pt; text-align: justify;">
Supreme Court observed that “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Thus, in cases involving equity or justice also,
conduct of the parties has also been considered to be a ground for attracting
the doctrine of estoppel by acquiescence or waiver for infringement</i>.” <o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: 18pt; text-align: justify;">
The ratio laid down in M/s.
Power Control Appliances and others v. Sumeet Research and Holdings, [(1994) 2
SCC 448 ] was relied, where Supreme Court held :- <o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: 18pt; text-align: justify;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">26. Acquiescence is sitting by, when another is invading the rights and
spending money on it. It is a course of conduct inconsistent with the claim for
exclusive rights in a trade mark, trade name etc. It implies positive acts; not
merely silence or inaction such as is involved in laches. In Harcourt v. White
Sr. John Romilly said: It is important to distinguish mere negligence and
acquiescence. Therefore, acquiescence is one facet of delay. If the plaintiff
stood by knowingly and let the defendants build up an important trade until it
had become necessary to crush it, then the plaintiffs would be stopped by their
acquiescence. If the acquiescence in the infringement amounts to consent, it
will be a complete defence as was laid down in Mouson (J.G.) & Co. v.
Boehm. The acquiescence must be such as to lead to the inference of a licence
sufficient to create a new right in the defendant as was laid down in Rodgers
v. Nowill.<o:p></o:p></i></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: 18pt; text-align: justify;">
Supreme Court observed that the
question again came up for consideration in Ramdev Food Products (P) Ltd. v.
Arvindbhai Rambhai Patel and others, [(2006) 8 SCC 726] wherein it was held :- <o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: 18pt; text-align: justify;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">103. Acquiescence is a facet of delay. The principle of acquiescence
would apply where: (i) sitting by or allowing another to invade the rights and
spending money on it; (ii) it is a course of conduct inconsistent with the
claim for exclusive rights for trade mark, trade name, etc.<o:p></o:p></i></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: 18pt; text-align: justify;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The delay by itself, however, may not be necessarily a ground for
refusing to issue injunction. </i><o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: 18pt; text-align: justify;">
It was opined:-<o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: 18pt; text-align: justify;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">106. The defence of acquiescence, thus, would be satisfied when the
plaintiff assents to or lays by in relation to the acts of another person and in
view of that assent or laying by and consequent acts it would be unjust in all
the circumstances to grant the specific relief. <o:p></o:p></i></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: 18pt; text-align: justify;">
It was furthermore observed:-<o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: 18pt; text-align: justify;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">108. Specific knowledge on the part of the plaintiff and prejudice
suffered by the defendant is also a relevant factor. (See Spry on Equitable
Remedies, 4th Edn., p. 433.)</i><o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0cm -2.3pt 0pt 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Taking into
considerations all peculiar facts of the case as well as precedents laid down
by Supreme Court it was observed that stand of respondents to object to the
evidence that was produced before the learned Single Judge with regard to the
increase in the volume of sale of Peter Scot, on the other hand urging that if
a comparison is made of the Indian whisky and Scotch Whisky it would appear
that some Indian whiskies are costlier than some of the Scottish brands.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The stand taken by the respondents is self-contradictory
and is not fair and Supreme Court was of opinion that action of the respondents
is barred under the principles of acquiescence and/ or waiver.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0cm -2.3pt 0pt 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0cm -2.3pt 0pt 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">As regards the
question as to consideration is as to whether the use of the term Scot would
itself be a sufficient ground to form an opinion that the mark Peter Scot is
deceptive or confusing. The Supreme Court relied upon precedents operating in
Australia and United States of America.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0cm -2.3pt 0pt 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0cm -2.3pt 0pt 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">The Supreme
Court observed that they are concerned with the class of buyer who supposed to
know the value of money, the quality and content of Scotch Whisky. Who are
supposed to be aware of the difference of the process of manufacture, the place
of manufacture and their origin.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Trademark
Registry, the learned Single Judge as also the Division Bench of the High
Court, therefore, failed to notice the distinction, which is real and otherwise
borne out from the precedents operating in the field. The SC further observed
that had these tests been applied the matter might have been different.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In a given case probably SC would not have
interfered but intend to do so only because wrong tests applied led to a wrong
result.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0cm -2.3pt 0pt 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0cm -2.3pt 0pt 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">The Supreme
Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the impugned judgement of High Court,
thereby cancelling the rectification proceedings in respect of “Peter Scot’
mark abs reinstating the Registration in favour of Appellant.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
Sudhir Kumarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01116694886109710344noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2749826925380590727.post-1849303178405474002013-10-16T16:20:00.000+05:302013-10-16T16:20:44.949+05:30Indian Patent office starts functioning as International Searching Authority and International Preliminary Examining Authority under the PCT<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<h2 style="background-color: white; border: 0px; font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.2em; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 4px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">Since October 15, 2013 the Indian Patent office starts functioning as International Searching Authority and International Preliminary Examining Authority under the PCT</span></h2>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The fee for Search and Preliminary Examination is very reasonable. A Search with Indian Patent Office (IPO) could be done for as little as USD 40 (for Individual) and USD 160 for Companies. Similarly where IPO has chosen for Search, the Preliminary Examination could be done for as little as USD 40 (for Individual) and USD 160 for Companies, in other cases cost would USD 60 (for Individual) and USD 200 for Companies.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.2em;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The Fees and Charges are as follows: </span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #900000; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, 'Helvetica Neue', sans-serif; font-size: 1.2em; line-height: 1.2em;"><br /></span></div>
<table style="background-color: white; border-collapse: collapse; border-spacing: 0px; border: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 0.75em; line-height: 18px; margin: 5px 0px 1em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: top; width: 732px;"><tbody style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<tr style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><td colspan="2" style="border-collapse: collapse; border: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 3px; vertical-align: top;"><h5 style="border: 0px; color: #900000; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, 'Helvetica Neue', sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: inherit; font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.3em; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 2px; vertical-align: baseline;">
Kind of Fee or Charges</h5>
</td><td style="border-collapse: collapse; border: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 3px; vertical-align: top;"><h5 style="border: 0px; color: #900000; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, 'Helvetica Neue', sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: inherit; font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.3em; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 2px; vertical-align: baseline;">
Amount (INR)</h5>
</td></tr>
<tr style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><td style="border-collapse: collapse; border: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 3px; vertical-align: top;">1</td><td style="border-collapse: collapse; border: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 3px; vertical-align: top;"><strong style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Search fee (<a href="http://www.wipo.int/pct/en/texts/rules/r16.htm#_16_1" style="border: 0px; color: #990000; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;" target="_blank">Rule 16.1(a)</a>)</strong></td><td style="border-collapse: collapse; border: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 3px; vertical-align: top;">10000 (2500)"</td></tr>
<tr style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><td style="border-collapse: collapse; border: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 3px; vertical-align: top;">2</td><td style="border-collapse: collapse; border: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 3px; vertical-align: top;"><strong style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Additional fee (<a href="http://www.wipo.int/pct/en/texts/rules/r40.htm#_40_2" style="border: 0px; color: #990000; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;" target="_blank">Rule 40.2(a)</a>)</strong></td><td style="border-collapse: collapse; border: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 3px; vertical-align: top;">10000 (2500)"</td></tr>
<tr style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><td style="border-collapse: collapse; border: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 3px; vertical-align: top;">3</td><td style="border-collapse: collapse; border: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 3px; vertical-align: top;"><strong style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Protest fee (<a href="http://www.wipo.int/pct/en/texts/rules/r40.htm#_40_2" style="border: 0px; color: #990000; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;" target="_blank">Rule 40.2(e)</a> and <a href="http://www.wipo.int/pct/en/texts/rules/r68.htm#_68_3" style="border: 0px; color: #990000; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;" target="_blank">68.3(e)</a>)</strong></td><td style="border-collapse: collapse; border: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 3px; vertical-align: top;">4000 (1000)"</td></tr>
<tr style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><td style="border-collapse: collapse; border: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 3px; vertical-align: top;">4</td><td style="border-collapse: collapse; border: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 3px; vertical-align: top;"><strong style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Late furnishing fee (<a href="http://www.wipo.int/pct/en/texts/rules/r13ter.htm#_13ter_1" style="border: 0px; color: #990000; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;" target="_blank">Rule 13ter.1(c)</a> and <a href="http://www.wipo.int/pct/en/texts/rules/r13ter.htm#_13ter_2" style="border: 0px; color: #990000; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;" target="_blank">13ter.2</a>)</strong></td><td style="border-collapse: collapse; border: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 3px; vertical-align: top;">4000 (1000)"</td></tr>
<tr style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><td style="border-collapse: collapse; border: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 3px; vertical-align: top;">5</td><td colspan="2" style="border-collapse: collapse; border: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 3px; vertical-align: top;"><strong style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Preliminary examination fee (<a href="http://www.wipo.int/pct/en/texts/rules/r58.htm#_58_1" style="border: 0px; color: #990000; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;" target="_blank">Rule 58.1(b)</a>):</strong></td></tr>
<tr style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><td style="border-collapse: collapse; border: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 3px; vertical-align: top;"> </td><td style="border-collapse: collapse; border: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 3px; vertical-align: top;">- where the international search report was issued by the Authority</td><td style="border-collapse: collapse; border: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 3px; vertical-align: top;">10000 (2500)"</td></tr>
<tr style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><td style="border-collapse: collapse; border: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 3px; vertical-align: top;"> </td><td style="border-collapse: collapse; border: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 3px; vertical-align: top;">-in other cases</td><td style="border-collapse: collapse; border: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 3px; vertical-align: top;">12000 (3000)"</td></tr>
<tr style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><td style="border-collapse: collapse; border: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 3px; vertical-align: top;">6</td><td colspan="2" style="border-collapse: collapse; border: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 3px; vertical-align: top;"><strong style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Additional fee (<a href="http://www.wipo.int/pct/en/texts/rules/r68.htm#_68_3" style="border: 0px; color: #990000; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;" target="_blank">Rule 68.3(a)</a>):</strong></td></tr>
<tr style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><td style="border-collapse: collapse; border: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 3px; vertical-align: top;"> </td><td style="border-collapse: collapse; border: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 3px; vertical-align: top;">–where the international search report was issued by the Authority</td><td style="border-collapse: collapse; border: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 3px; vertical-align: top;">10000 (2500)"</td></tr>
<tr style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><td style="border-collapse: collapse; border: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 3px; vertical-align: top;"> </td><td style="border-collapse: collapse; border: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 3px; vertical-align: top;">–in other cases</td><td style="border-collapse: collapse; border: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 3px; vertical-align: top;">12000 (3000)"</td></tr>
<tr style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><td style="border-collapse: collapse; border: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 3px; vertical-align: top;">7</td><td style="border-collapse: collapse; border: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 3px; vertical-align: top;"><strong style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Cost of copies (<a href="http://www.wipo.int/pct/en/texts/rules/r44.htm#_44_3" style="border: 0px; color: #990000; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;" target="_blank">Rules 44.3(b)</a>,<a href="http://www.wipo.int/pct/en/texts/rules/r71.htm#_71_2" style="border: 0px; color: #990000; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;" target="_blank"> 71.2(b)</a> and <a href="http://www.wipo.int/pct/en/texts/rules/r94.htm#_94_2" style="border: 0px; color: #990000; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;" target="_blank">94.2</a>), per page</strong></td><td style="border-collapse: collapse; border: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 3px; vertical-align: top;">4</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</div>
Sudhir Kumarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01116694886109710344noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2749826925380590727.post-44102921433759614712013-06-16T17:08:00.000+05:302013-06-16T17:10:15.020+05:30Suggestions to Draft Patent Amendment Rules 2013<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #0b5394; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Some of the suggestions and objections are general and may not have bearing to the draft Amendment Rules but to prevailing Patent Law/ practice/ procedure. Nothing wrong in earning more revenues but there are other ways through which they can earn. One would be fee for expedited examination of Patent Applications.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;"><br /></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">As forwarded to </span><span style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">'chandni.raina@nic.in' (chandni.raina@nic.in) on </span></span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: x-small; text-align: left;">Fri 14/06/2013 11:15 AM</span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b><u><span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">My
objections are as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">No plausible
reason has been provided for such steep increase in official fee when the
Indian Patent offices are lagging in delivery of services. It takes 4-5 years
for a Patent to be examined in India and by each passing year the pendency is
increasing. Though there is no examination for 4-5 years from date of filing of
request for examination, there is no extension provision if deadline for 48
months for filing request for examination is missed. When no apparent
examination is to happen immediately after filing request for examination (and
in fact it takes 4-5 years thereafter) , there should be provision for late fee
or extension for filing request for examination. The increase in fee should
come with accountability in services and a definite time frame should be
provided for examination of the Application. Similarly an onus should be cast
on Examiner to respond to any response to examination report within a fixed
time or the response should be deemed to be appropriate and the Application
should be granted within a definite time frame. This increase in fee works only
for Govt. as Patents are Granted usually in their 6-8<sup>th</sup> years and
without getting any exclusive rights over the Patent, the Patentee is to pay
annuity for such period. There should be a provision for extension of term of
Patent where the Patent was not examined timely (within 6-12 months) of filing
request for examination. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">The above draft
amendment in Rules does not take into consideration the additional Govt. fee
suggested under earlier draft Patent Amendment Rules 2010 where for some of the
services (for which no fee is due as of now) e.g. filing of sequence listing of
nucleotides and/ or amino acids. The fifth schedule that was proposed to be
added under earlier draft Patent Amendment Rules 2010, there is no indication
of fee for same here. Similarly in view of these draft amendments some of the
provisions of draft Patent amendments Rules 2011 would be redundant and
proposed amendments under those draft rules 2011 would be brought afresh especially
concerning the formatting part of documents. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">The draft rules
propose to add 10% surcharge for filing forms/ documents under physical mode.
This is adding salt to injury. The e-filing platform is redundant as it
supports only two banks namely <b>SBI </b>and<b> Axis bank</b>, therefore it
cast a negative obligations for Applicant or its Agents/ Attorneys to have an
account with said banks and only if they are capable of using the internet
banking facility of those banks, they can file the Application or forms, where
fee is payable. No. of banks have not been increased since last many years and
this surcharge is nothing but to give monopolistic advantage to those two banks
and Patent office. Even the income tax department has come to accept payment by
no. of banks. In this age of plastic money there is no provision as to make
payment by credit or debit cards. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">USPTO is far
more ahead when it comes of supporting e-filing system. They don’t require
digital signature for filing documents, all they require is clean scanned copy
of duly signed document. They accept payment by credit cards as well as
Attorneys hold account with USPTO and all they have to do is provide a
confirmation in writing (by electronic mode) to charge their account for due
amount. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Levying such surcharge
when the system supports bank accounts of only two banks is restrictive and
arbitrary. The patent office should allow payment of fee through all banks that
have been allowed license by the RBI and should not pick and choose and
discriminate against any bank and their customers. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b><u><span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">My
suggestions are as follows: <o:p></o:p></span></u></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">-</span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: x-small;"> </span><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
<!--[endif]--></span><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Increase in fee should corresponds to answer-ability and accountability in Patent Prosecution which can be achieved in
following manner</span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo2; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">(A)<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 7pt;">
</span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Patent Examination time frame to be brought to
within 6 months from date of filing of Examination<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo2; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">(B)<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 7pt;">
</span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Ensuring automatic publication of applications
after 18 months, so that grant is not delayed for want of publication<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo2; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">(C)<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 7pt;">
</span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Allowing late filing of request for examination,
with subject to monthly increasing extension fee (to ensure timely compliance
and at the same time, not to take away rights of Inventor/ Applicant for
missing a deadline)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo2; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">(D)<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 7pt;">
</span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Adjusting the term of Patent where there is delay
in examination of application within a stipulated time frame (within 6 months
from filing request for examination)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo2; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">(E)<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 7pt;">
</span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">After filing of response to examination report,
there should be a definite timeline within which the Examiner should respond
otherwise the objection should be deemed to have been withdrawn. 12 months
deadline is maximum period available to Applicant, not to patent office.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">-<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 7pt;">
</span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Surcharge for filing documents physically should
be done away with till more banks are made part of e-payment gateway, The
surcharge should be levied only after increasing the no. of banks. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-list: l2 level1 lfo3; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">(A)<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 7pt;">
</span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">The no. of banks through which payment could be
made should be enhanced, all leading private and nationalized banks should be
made part of payment portal<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-list: l2 level1 lfo3; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">(B)<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 7pt;">
</span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Even payment should be allowed by Credit/ Debit
cards<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">-<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 7pt;">
</span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">If E filing is coming into picture, the patent
office based jurisdiction or application no. should be done away with. The
examination report can be send by email to the Applicant/ Patent Attorney or by
post by centralized Examination unit. If after considering the response, the
Examination unit is still not convinced, they should mark case to any office of
the Applicant/ Attorney choice and the Examiner of concerned unit/field therein
should be allowed to discuss the invention/ objections with the Applicant/
Attorney and even hearing could be held with the Controller of said Patent
office. This will bring uniformity in Patent examination, and time frame of
examination would become identical across all Patent offices. This process is
being followed for Trademark matters where examination is carried out at Mumbai
TM Registry but afterwards reply to examination report and hearing etc. the
Trademark Office is same where application was filed (cases are allotted from
Mumbai TM Registry). <o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
Sudhir Kumarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01116694886109710344noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2749826925380590727.post-81334085424446986272013-06-14T10:30:00.000+05:302013-06-16T17:00:25.816+05:30India proposes to increase Patent fee by 100% under Draft Patent Amendment Rules 2013 <div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">Draft
Patent Amendment Rules 2013 propose to increase the current Official fee of
various Patent services by 100%. No plausible reason has been provided for such
steep increase in official fee when the Indian Patent offices are lagging in
delivery of services. It takes 4-5 years for a Patent to be examined in India
and by each passing year the pendency is increasing. This move apparently
appears to discourage the Applicants from filing and/or maintaining patents in
India and gradually reduce the pendency.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">The
above draft amendment in Rules does not take into consideration the additional
Govt. fee suggested under earlier draft Patent Amendment Rules 2010 where for
some of the services (for which no fee is due as of now) e.g. filing of
sequence listing of nucleotides and/ or amino acids. The fifth schedule that
was proposed to be added under earlier draft Patent Amendment Rules 2010, there
is no indication of fee for same here. As there would be contradiction in fee
applicable, it appears that the said draft amendments of 2010 have lost
significance and proposed amendments under those draft rules 2010 would be
brought afresh, especially concerning the official fee. Similarly in view of
these draft amendments some of the provisions of draft Patent amendments Rules
2011 would be redundant and proposed amendments under those draft rules 2011
would be brought afresh especially concerning the formatting part of documents.
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">The
draft rules propose to add 10% surcharge for filing forms/ documents under physical
mode. This is adding salt to injury. The e-filing platform is redundant as it supports
only two banks namely SBI and Axis bank, therefore it cast a negative
obligations for Applicant or its Agents/ Attorneys to have an account with said
banks and only if they are capable of using the internet banking facility of
those banks, they can file the Application or forms, where fee is payable. No.
of banks have not been increased since last many years and this surcharge is
nothing but to give monopolistic advantage to those two banks and Patent
office. Even the income tax department has come to accept payment by no. of
banks. In this age of plastic money there is no provision as to make payment by
credit or debit cards. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">USPTO
is far more ahead when it comes of supporting e-filing system. They don’t require
digital signature for filing documents, all they require is clean scanned copy
of duly signed document. They accept payment by credit cards as well as
Attorneys hold account with USPTO and all they have to do is provide a
confirmation in writing (by electronic mode) to charge their account for due
amount. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">Levying
such surcharge when the system supports bank accounts of only two banks is
restrictive and arbitrary. The patent office should allow payment of fee
through all banks that have been allowed license by the RBI and should not pick
and choose and discriminate against any bank and their customers. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
Sudhir Kumarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01116694886109710344noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2749826925380590727.post-4353675412455641132013-05-29T12:39:00.001+05:302013-05-29T12:39:38.646+05:30Coca Cola Company Gets domain cokestudio.inDelhi High Court restrained the defendant by a permanent injunction from using the trade marks COKE and/or COKE STUDIO of the COCA Cola Company as a domain name or part of the domain name, as a trade mark or part of a trade mark, a trade name or corporate name or as part of a trade or corporate name, as a metatag or otherwise on the internet or the world wide web, or in any other manner whatsoever so as to infringe the registered trade marks of the Coca Cola Company or pass off their business as and for the business of Coca Cola Company.
Delhi high Court also issued direction to the National Internet Exchange of India c/o ISPAI (Internet Service Providers Association of India) and also to the Registrar of domain name M/s A to Z Domains Solutions Pvt. Ltd. to transfer the domain name cokestudio.in to the Coca Cola Company. Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2749826925380590727.post-44035550906447746372013-05-28T17:24:00.000+05:302013-05-28T17:24:23.670+05:30A composite suit for infringement of a registered design and a passing off action would not lie<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; font-family: Georgia, serif;">Full bench of Delhi High Court on a reference
held that:<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; font-family: Georgia, serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; font-family: Georgia, serif;">(i) A plaintiff could institute a suit for
infringement of a design against a defendant, who was also a holder of a
registered design (subsequent registrant). The expression "any
person" found in Section 22 of the Designs Act would not exclude a
subsequent registrant as, no such words of limitation are found in said Section.</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; font-family: Georgia, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; font-family: Georgia, serif;">(ii) A plaintiff is entitled to institute an
action of passing off in respect of a design used by him as a trade mark
provided the action contains the necessary ingredients to maintain such a
proceeding. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; font-family: Georgia, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; font-family: Georgia, serif;">While Section 2(d) of the Designs Act excludes
from the definition of a design, any trademark which is defined as such in
clause (v) of sub-Section (1) of Section 2 of the 1958 Act or property mark, as
defined in Section 479 of the IPC, or any artistic work as defined in clause
(c) of Section 2 of the Copyright Act - the use of the design as a trademark
post its registration, is not stipulated as a ground for cancellation under
Section 19 of the Designs Act. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; font-family: Georgia, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; font-family: Georgia, serif;">(iii) A composite suit for infringement of a
registered design and a passing off action would not lie. The Court could,
however, try the suits together, if the two suits are filed in close proximity
and/or it is of the view that there are aspects which are common to the two
suits. The discretion of the court in this matter would necessarily be
paramount.</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
</div>
Sudhir Kumarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01116694886109710344noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2749826925380590727.post-88530670143800959862013-05-28T17:21:00.000+05:302013-05-28T17:21:49.527+05:30Passing off action can be instituted in case of Registered Design<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; font-family: Georgia, serif;">Full bench of Delhi High Court on a reference
held that:<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; font-family: Georgia, serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; font-family: Georgia, serif;">(i) A plaintiff could institute a suit for
infringement of a design against a defendant, who was also a holder of a
registered design (subsequent registrant). The expression "any
person" found in Section 22 of the Designs Act would not exclude a
subsequent registrant as, no such words of limitation are found in said Section.</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; font-family: Georgia, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; font-family: Georgia, serif;">(ii) A plaintiff is entitled to institute an
action of passing off in respect of a design used by him as a trade mark
provided the action contains the necessary ingredients to maintain such a
proceeding. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; font-family: Georgia, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; font-family: Georgia, serif;">While Section 2(d) of the Designs Act excludes
from the definition of a design, any trademark which is defined as such in
clause (v) of sub-Section (1) of Section 2 of the 1958 Act or property mark, as
defined in Section 479 of the IPC, or any artistic work as defined in clause
(c) of Section 2 of the Copyright Act - the use of the design as a trademark
post its registration, is not stipulated as a ground for cancellation under
Section 19 of the Designs Act. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; font-family: Georgia, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; font-family: Georgia, serif;">(iii) A composite suit for infringement of a
registered design and a passing off action would not lie. The Court could,
however, try the suits together, if the two suits are filed in close proximity
and/or it is of the view that there are aspects which are common to the two
suits. The discretion of the court in this matter would necessarily be
paramount.</span><o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
Sudhir Kumarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01116694886109710344noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2749826925380590727.post-91443049074254583252013-05-28T17:17:00.000+05:302013-05-28T17:17:42.364+05:30Previous Registrant of Design can file Infringement suit against subsequent Registrant <div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; font-family: Georgia, serif;">Full bench of Delhi High Court on a reference
held that:<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; font-family: Georgia, serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; font-family: Georgia, serif;">(i) A plaintiff could institute a suit for
infringement of a design against a defendant, who was also a holder of a
registered design (subsequent registrant). The expression "any
person" found in Section 22 of the Designs Act would not exclude a
subsequent registrant as, no such words of limitation are found in said Section.</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; font-family: Georgia, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; font-family: Georgia, serif;">(ii) A plaintiff is entitled to institute an
action of passing off in respect of a design used by him as a trade mark
provided the action contains the necessary ingredients to maintain such a
proceeding. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; font-family: Georgia, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; font-family: Georgia, serif;">While Section 2(d) of the Designs Act excludes
from the definition of a design, any trademark which is defined as such in
clause (v) of sub-Section (1) of Section 2 of the 1958 Act or property mark, as
defined in Section 479 of the IPC, or any artistic work as defined in clause
(c) of Section 2 of the Copyright Act - the use of the design as a trademark
post its registration, is not stipulated as a ground for cancellation under
Section 19 of the Designs Act. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; font-family: Georgia, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; font-family: Georgia, serif;">(iii) A composite suit for infringement of a
registered design and a passing off action would not lie. The Court could,
however, try the suits together, if the two suits are filed in close proximity
and/or it is of the view that there are aspects which are common to the two
suits. The discretion of the court in this matter would necessarily be
paramount.</span><o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
Sudhir Kumarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01116694886109710344noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2749826925380590727.post-29891940232254781792013-05-14T13:13:00.000+05:302013-05-25T14:44:11.702+05:30Nothing FAIR In FRAND (Ericsson- Micromax Patent Litigation)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt;">Ericsson filed patent infringement litigation against Micromax
Informatics Ltd. and Mercury Electronics Ltd. for infringing its patents.
Essentially these patents relate to use of speech codec (combination of speech
coder and speech decoder) for coding the voice signal (in a compressed form) from
the caller end and transmitting it via a radio link as coded/ compressed speech
frames to the receiver end where it is decoded. Typically in a discontinuous
transmission no coded speech frames are send while speaker is inactive. Here
transmitter at regular interval sends speech parameter suitable for generation
of comfort noise in the decoder.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt;">Ericsson states in its patents that speech coders and decoders are
conventionally provided in radio transmitters and radio receivers, respectively
and cooperate to permit speech (voice) communications between a given
transmitter and receiver over a radio link. A mobile phone is a conventional radio
communication device comprising a Radio transmitter having a speech coder (for
sending coded voice frames) and a radio receiver having a speech decoder.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt;">Now various Patents that appear to have been asserted are
discussed herein below:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<b><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt;">Patent no. 203716 (</span></b><b><span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt;">IN/PCT/2001/00551/MUM</span>)</b><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt;">: </span><span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt;">A method and apparatus for preserving perceptually relevant non-speech
information in an audio signal<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt;">This intervention relates to method for first determining whether
audio signal is considered to be speech or noise formation (well known) and then
determining whether the audio signal includes non-speech information that is
perceptually relevant to a listener and selectively overriding first
determination of speech or noise in response to second.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt;">The method (First IC) herein only determines and overrides
determination carried under first step. It may either treat the non-speech
information as to noise and non-relevant to listener or it may consider such
non-speech information as relevant to listener. In both instances the claims
are only determining and how they are determining it is not claimed at all. The
first determination is prior art and consequent the second determination is
nothing but an obvious determination, the moment there is determination as to
audio signal as to speech or noise, the determination of relevancy begin then
and there itself. Relevancy of such non-speech information is a subjective term
and may vary from individual to individual. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt;">The apparatus IC similarly refers to an apparatus that performs
above method. Conventionally a mobile phone has all those components that are
referred to in such an apparatus. Non tangible component such as audio signal
are included therein in the apparatus. The Apparatus as such lacks novelty and
is obvious for same reasons as the method claim. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt;">The LPD in relation of above Patent was issued on January 8, 2007. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<b><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt;">Patent no. 213723 (</span></b><b><span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt;">IN/PCT/2001/00552/MUM</span>)</b><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt;">: Method and apparatus for generating comfort
noise in a speech decoder<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt;">This invention from the title appears to relate to invention for
generating comfort noise, but in effect all the claims of this Patent are
identical to claims granted in above Patent. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt;">The LPD in relation of above Patent was issued on February 1, 2008.</span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt;">The International filing date is shown as November 12, 1999 in
E-register of Patents, it is shown as November 8, 1999 in the LPD issued by
Patent office. </span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt;">The Corresponding PCT Application no. is PCT/SE/1999/002073 (with International
filing dated as November 12, 1999) and its national phase details on WIPO identify
both Patent Application no. i.e. <span style="background: white; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">IN/PCT/2001/00551/MUM</span> as well as IN/PCT/2001/00552/MUM</span>.
Apart from India the corresponding PCT national phase applications was filed
twice only in South Africa as this is the country that lacks substantial examination
system, but India does have substantial examination system, yet it granted
identical claims in both Applications. The PCT claims are identical to claims
granted in both Applications in India as available in respect of above Patent
from Indian Patent office website. All these claims are silent about comfort
noise generation as asserted by Ericsson.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt;">It raises serious questions as to why identical Patents are granted
to Ericsson in this matter, and raises serious questions about nature of
Examination carried out by the Examiner concerned and Patent office. </span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt;"> <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt;">The Patent No. 213723 is
very vital for Ericsson in the above litigation as it was the major claim
asserted by Ericsson in their initial communication to Micromax alleging infringement.
Ericsson had claimed that mapping of the above Patent (that time they did not
identify the Patent no. but only the Patent Application no.) claims to the AMR
speech codec and claimed that Micromax model X332 is capable to supporting AMR
speech and can set up AMR speech class successfully. The claims identified in
the said communication refer to different set of claims then what are made
available by Patent office on their website or what was there on PCT
Application when filed. Later on other Patents were also asserted but without
any detailed mapping like the above Patent. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt;">The technology is
stated to consume comparatively lesser bandwidth/space and allows the service
provider to serve more customers at one point of time. This technology can also
be used to cut off the noise from the caller side so that when decoded at
receive side, the voice signal is clear and with least background noise. It
also suggest in one of the embodiment of invention, that some selective
voice frames (dividing voice signal to frames/ sub frames), determining the
noise frames and selectively avoiding transfer of such voice frames (to save
lesser bandwidth and space and allowing telecom company to have more
user at a time) and generating matching voice frames at the receiver end.</span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt;">. As the patent claims though claiming method
and apparatus are essentially system based claims suggesting a particular
method of performing the invention employing various components/ apparatus and
not all of the apparatus may belong to the Ericsson. All these claims disclose
is need and how this need can be fulfilled (receiving, coding and decoding),
can be assumed by person skilled in art (I would say semi-skilled in art). It
needs to be checked whether they have claimed how their coder and decoder
function and if there is any novelty in such coder and decoder, considering Section
3(k) of the Indian Patents Act. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt;">Their invention allow the telecom company to find out which one of
the subscriber is using the technology and accordingly the telecom company
would prefer those using the technology so that it can accommodate more subscribers
at a time (those not using the technology would be dumped or asked to wait till
the no. of active subscribers reduces).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt;">Do we need to look at into who is the beneficiary of these
inventions? First thing that comes into mind is telecom service provides and
they are not included in this litigation (as they are already managing the
telecom services of these service providers). An invention that requires
involvement of at least two mobiles (subscribers) both equipped with coder and
decoders and at least one telecom tower, can an infringement action lie against
mobile company alone. The system and methodology is incomplete till all
participants are involved. If an action can be performed collectively, then the
liability should be collective in nature. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt;">Second, if Micromax happen to be honest and bonafide purchaser of
Chip/ circuit board and it is within the express knowledge of the Ericsson that
their technology (essential part is use of coding and decoding algorithms) is
being manufactured and sold by said company (I believe it is also made one of
the defendant in the suit). But Ericsson chose to ignore the small company as
the royalty they would be getting there would be minimal compared to if they
catch the mobile company (as cost of mobile would be higher than the chip/
circuit board). <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt;">The single bench of the Delhi High Court passed an ex parte
interim order against Micromax and authorized seizure of documents from
Micromax’s office regarding the sales and import of the mobile phones using
said technology. Micromax preferred an appeal but the Divisional bench directed
them to approach Single bench and approach only if they are not heard within 30
days as per the provisional of Law (CPC). Constrained that their sale would be effected
during the interregnum period, Micromax entered into an interim arrangement
with the Ericsson. It appears that royalty rates are agreed between 1.25% to 2%
of the sale price. The single bench referred the matter for meditation and
Justice A.P. Shah (Retd.) was appointed as a mediator for proceedings.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt;">Micromax should go against Ericsson for
these 8 Patents and assertion of infringement. First of all, when they are
rightful purchaser of the chip from a third party and had Ericsson sued that
company alone their 1-2% royalty rates would be insignificant (as the cost of
chip is comparatively low), so they come after the bigger guy to seek bigger
royalty. This issue needs to be examined, is this suit bad for non-joinder for
necessary party as telecom service provider is not made party here by Ericsson
(question is can they make them parties randomly as it is in subscriber’s hand
which telecom company they choose) and secondly can they assert patent
infringement against Micromax just because some of their mobile have those
chips which when used in a mobile together with communication system of service
provider (at both end) makes a system that is actually claimed by Ericsson. In
totality their so called system cannot work unless the signals are coded and
decoded and it requires the chip with same technology at both ends (with
hardware requirements of the service provider). <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">If this litigation is
carried forward by Micromax, this could be a landmark judgment in evaluating
system claims.</span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
Sudhir Kumarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01116694886109710344noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2749826925380590727.post-17762734703312763022013-04-10T09:47:00.000+05:302013-04-10T09:47:01.011+05:30INDIA ALL SET TO JOIN MADRID SYSTEM FROM JULY 8, 2013<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div align="center" style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">On April 8, 2013, India
has become signatory to Madrid Protocol </span><span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: Helvetica;">for
International Registration of Marks at the World Intellectual Property
Organisation</span><span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">. Currently there are 88 other member countries to Madrid
System (Madrid Protocol and Madrid Agreement) f<span style="background: white;">or
the international registration of trademarks. The system is administered by the
International Bureau of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO),
which maintains the International Register of marks</span>. The system will
come into force in India in 3 months i.e. July 8, 2013.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Advantages of Madrid
system is that it allows filing a single application, in one language to be
filed with the trademark office of the home country to obtain protection in several
countries. It guarantees on the period within which potential grounds of
refusal to protect a mark can be raised by the offices of the designated
countries. It allows a single request to record changes (transfers, changes of
name or address, etc.) which may affect the registration as a whole or in part.
A single request for renewal can be made. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><b>Prerequisites for filing
an International Application: </b><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<ul>
<li><span style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Existence of a registered
or pending mark for same goods and service with “Office of origin” from where
international application is to be filed.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Applicant must be person
who has a real and effective industrial or commercial establishment or a
domicile in, or who is a national of, one of the countries party to the
Protocol.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Basic fee of 653 Swiss
francs for black and white mark or 903 Swiss francs where the mark is in color</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Name of the Countries
where protection is sought must be listed in the international application. Additional
countries can be designated at any time, provided they are party to the Protocol
at the time of the designation. Such subsequent designations are useful where
new countries accede to the Protocol or simply where the holder’s interest in a
country develops after the international registration has been made.</span></li>
<li><em><span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; font-style: normal; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">Either</span></em><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">a</span><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">standard designation fee</span><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">of
73 Swiss francs or an</span><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">individual designation fee</span><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">whose
amount is fixed by the country concerned (but may not be higher than the amount
that would be payable for registering the mark directly with the office of the
country concerned, for example in respect of India the amount fixed by
Trademark Registry cannot exceed INR 3500) for each designated country;</span></li>
</ul>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">The Office of
origin may charge a handling fee for forwarding the international application
to the International Bureau. <o:p></o:p></span><span style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua', serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 18px;">The fees are to be paid direct to the International Bureau although, in some cases, the Office of origin may collect and forward them.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">A supplementary fee</span><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">of 73 Swiss francs is
payable for each class of goods and services beyond the third class. This supplementary fee is payable only if
there are one or more countries designated with standard designation fee. Accordingly
if </span><em><span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">all</span></em><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">the countries designated
are ones in respect of which an individual designation fee is payable, no such supplementary
fee is payable.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">An international application
can be filed in any one or more language amongst English, French or Spanish as the
Office of origin may restrict.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">It is also possible to
claim priority in an International Application from a first national or
regional application, by filing the International Application within six months
of the filing of that first application.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">The Office of origin then
forwards the international application to the International Bureau of WIPO. The
office of origin has to supply the International Application to WIPO with all
essential details within 2 months of filing. The Office of Origin has to certify
that the mark in the international application is the same as in the basic
application or registration, that the applicant is the same person as the owner
of the basic application or registration and that the goods and services listed
in the international application are covered by those listed in the basic
application or registration. The International registration bears the date on
which the international application was filed with the Office of origin.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<a href="" name="P36_2658"></a><a href="" name="P41_3126"></a><a href="" name="P45_3551"></a><a href="" name="P50_3764"></a><a href="" name="P55_3997"></a><a href="" name="P61_4580"></a><a href="" name="P78_5723"></a><span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">The
International Bureau checks that all the filing requirements are met and that
the goods and services are correctly classified. If so, the mark is recorded in
the International Register. The International Bureau then notifies the
international registration to the Offices of the designated countries. The
International Bureau does not examine whether the mark as such qualifies for
protection, or whether an identical or similar mark has already been
registered; that is to be examined by the respective Offices of the designated
countries.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<a href="" name="P85_6310"></a><a href="" name="P90_6675"></a><span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">From the date of the international registration, the
protection of the mark in each of the designated countries is the same</span><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">as if the mark had been the subject of an
application filed direct with the Office of that country</span><span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">.
If no refusal is notified within the prescribed time limit, the protection of
the mark in each designated country is the same</span><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">as if the mark had been registered</span><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">by
the Office of that country.<a href="" name="P95_7168"></a> The Office of a designated
country has the right to refuse protection of a mark in the territory of that
country. Refusal may be made on any of the grounds on which an application for
registration filed direct with that Office might be refused. Refusal is
notified to the International Bureau and recorded in the International
Register.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Normally, any refusal must
be issued within 12 months from the date on which the Office concerned was
notified of such designation. By making a declaration, a country may extend this
time to 18 months. Similarly, by making a declaration, a refusal based on
opposition may be issued after expiry of 18 months period, but in that case the
country must notify the International Bureau about possibility of such opposition
within 18 months. It allows holder of an international registration to know
whether his mark has been accepted for protection in each of the designated
countries, or whether protection has been refused in one country or whether
there is still a possibility of refusal on the basis of an opposition in a
particular country.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<a href="" name="P104_8442"></a><span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">The
holder has the same right to contest the refusal with the Office that issued it
as if the mark had been deposited direct with that Office. It is advisable to
hire services of Local Attorneys within such jurisdiction to attend to the
objections/ refusal, who may guide the holder as to local provisions and
practices to counter such objections/ refusals. If the refusal relates to only few
of the goods and services listed in the international registration, and the
refusal is not contested and/or contest is not successful, the mark stands
protected for the remaining goods or services, without any action being needed
on the part of the holder. In India typically objections in relation to one
class is not only based on identical-ness or similarity of goods or services,
but mainly because of existence of another identical or deceptively similar
mark in same class, there objection has to construed as objection to such
entire class. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<a href="" name="P109_8904"></a><span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">The
international registration shall be dependent on the application or
registration with the Office of origin (the “basic application” or “basic
registration”) for the first five years. After the end of the five-year period,
the international registration becomes independent of the basic application or
basic registration. It is the period within which the basic application is
subject to “central attack”. If, during the first five years following the date
of the international registration, the basic application is refused or
withdrawn, or the basic registration is canceled, the international
registration must also be canceled. This is also the case if the basic
registration is refused after the end of this five-year period as a result of
an action begun within that period. If the refusal or withdrawal of the basic
application or cancellation of the basic registration is for only some of the
goods or services, the cancellation of the international registration will
likewise be partial and limited to those goods or services.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<a href="" name="P116_9964"></a><span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Duration
of an international registration is ten years from date of filing or priority.
It is further renewable for periods of ten years each, on payment of requisite
fees to the International Bureau.<a href="" name="P121_10186"></a><a href="" name="P125_10627"></a><a href="" name="P142_11372"></a><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
</div>
Sudhir Kumarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01116694886109710344noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2749826925380590727.post-18217657515485762282013-04-07T14:46:00.000+05:302013-04-16T11:13:01.529+05:30Novartis Patent for Beta Crystalline form of Imatinib Mesylate rejected by Supreme Court of India <div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua', serif;">Supreme Court of India
while hearing the Appeal ( as a matter of exception this appeal was admitted
and heard, though all appeal against Order of IPAB are to be heard by High
Court first) preferred by Novartis AG against the order of Intellectual Property
Appellate Tribunal (IPAB) rejected the product Patent rights for Beta
Crystalline form of Imatinib Mesylate for failing in both test of invention
(under Section 2(1)(j) & 2(1)(ja) as well as patentablity (under Section
3(d)). The Court consequently allowed the counter-appeal filed by two of the
respondents i.e. Natco Pharma Ltd. and Cancer Patients Aid Association.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua', serif;">There is
no separate finding on the counter-appeals preferred by
Natco Pharma Ltd. and Cancer Patients Aid Association therefore it can be assumed
that Novartis AG still retains the process Patent rights for manufacturing Beta
Crystalline form of Imatinib Mesylate. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua', serif;">It would be essential to
go into the brief history of the Patent Application filed by Novartis AG for
Beta Crystalline form of Imatinib Mesylate and its prosecution in India: <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.5in;">
<span style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua', serif;">1. On July 17, 1998 Novartis AG filed
Patent Application in India i.e 1602/MAS/1998, claiming priority from
Swiss Patent Application dated July 18, 1997 for invention titled "Crystal
modification of N- phenyl-2-pyrimidineamine derivative, process for
its manufacturer and its use. The said Patent Application was opposed
by way of Pre-Grant Opposition under Section 25(1) of Indian Patents Act
by Cancer Patients Aid Association, Natco Pharma Ltd., Cipla Ltd, Ranbaxy
Laboratories Ltd., Hetero Drugs Ltd. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.5in;">
<span style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua', serif;">2. Vide order dated January 25, 2006 the
Assistant Controller of Patents rejected the Patent Application for
following grounds</span><span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua","serif";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 1.0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua","serif";">(i) Anticipated by Zimmermann
Patent (US Patent no. 5, 521,184, continuation in part of US Patent
Application serial no. 08/042,232 dated September 9, 1993) and article
published on May 1996 in “Nature Medicine” and Patent extension certificate
issued by USPTO that mentions Imatinib Mesylate (Gleevac) as product. Also on
the satisfactory proved by Natco pharma that salt normally exists in beta
crystalline form which is most thermodynamically stable product. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 1.0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua","serif";">(ii)
Obvious for reasons of prior publication as mentioned above<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 1.0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua","serif";">(iii)
Non Patentable under of Section 3(d) of Indian Patents Act, claims new form of
a known substance without any significant improvement of efficacy. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 1.0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua","serif";">(iv)
Claiming wrong priority as Switzerland was not a conventional country on
date of making of application <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.5in;">
<span style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua', serif;">3. Novartis AG filed Writ petitions against
the said order of Assistant Controller of Patents in Chennai High Court as at
that time the IPAB was not established, vide order dated February 23, 2007 the
High Court converted said writ petitions to appeal.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.5in;">
<span style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua', serif;">4. Simultaneously Novartis AG itself
and through its POA holder in India filed two writ petitions
challenging the provision of Section 3 (d) of the Indian Patent Act, as being
unconstitutional and against the TRIPS obligation of India<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.5in;">
<span style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua', serif;">5. During pendency of writ
petitions on April 3, 2007 the Govt. of India brought provisions as to appeal
to IPAB with effect from April 2, 2007 and consequently the 5 appeals were
transferred by High Court to IPAB vide order dated April 4, 2007.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.5in;">
<span style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua', serif;">6. The Technical member (Patents) to the
IPAB previously hold post of the Controller General of Patents, therefore
Novartis AG filed Petitions for ceasing the Technical member (Patents) from
hearing the appeals. By Order dated July 20, 2007 the petitions were dismissed
relying on doctrine of necessity.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.5in;">
<span style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua', serif;">7. Novartis AG challenged the order by a
writ petition before the Chennai High Court and the High Court directed IPAB to
constitute a special bench of Chairman, Vice Chairman to hear the appeals and
for seeking assistance of Scientific advisers, if they found fit. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.5in;">
<span style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua', serif;">8. Natco Pharma filed a SLP before Supreme
Court against said order for appointment of new Technical Member to hear
instant appeals because of involvement of high technology in the matter as well
as for statutory requirement of presence of technical member in the Board
having special qualification. Supreme Court vide order dated 1, 2008 directed
reconstitution of IPAB including Dr. P.C. Chakraborti, Assistant
Controller as Technical Member and to hear appeals on daily basis from November
3, 2008.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.5in;">
<span style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua', serif;">9. IPAB vide Judgment dated June 26, 2009
allowed only the process claims for manufacture of Beta crystalline form. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.5in;">
<span style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua', serif;">10. Against the impugned judgment by IPAB,
Novartis AG approached the Supreme Court directly and after hearing all the
parties, a very detailed, well-reasoned order was passed by Supreme Court of
India on April 1, 2013. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua","serif";">While adjudicating on the issue
Supreme Court considered interplay between qualifying criteria of invention and
criteria of patentability of an invention. It had to consider if the product
qualifies as “invention” within the meaning of clauses (j) and (ja) of section
2(1), can its patentability still be questioned and denied on the ground that
section 3(d). <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Few
historic date concerning the development of product Imatinib, Imatinib Myselate
and Beta crystalline form of Imatinib Myselate are as follows: <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 2.0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -2.0in;">
<span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">April 28, 1994 Application for derivatives of N-Phenyl-2
pyrimidine-amine including Imatinib filed before USPTO by Jurg Zimmermann<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 2.0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -2.0in;">
<span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt 2in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -2in;">
<span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">January 1, 1995 On
March 26, 1999 </span><span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT; mso-fareast-font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT;">Parliament
passed the Patents (Amendment) Act 1999 (Act No. 17 of 1999) which amended the
provisions of the Patents Act 1970 retrospectively, with effect from January 1,
1995, the date when the TRIPS Agreement came into force. By the Amendment Act
of 1999, section 5 of the Parent Act was amended to provide for making “a claim
for patent of an invention for </span><span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-fareast-font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT;">a substance itself intended
for use or capable of being used, as medicine or drug.</span><span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT; mso-fareast-font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT;"> The Amendment Act
further incorporated in the Parent Act, Chapter IVA, which contained provisions
for grant of exclusive marketing rights in respect of pharmaceutical substances
for which a claim for patent was made under section 5 of the Act. The Amendment
Act of 1999 thus complied with Article 70(8) and (9) of the TRIPS Agreement.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt 2in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -2in;">
<span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">January 1996 </span><span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-ItalicMT; mso-bidi-font-style: italic; mso-fareast-font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT;">Cancer Research</span><span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT; mso-fareast-font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT;">
published an article under the title “Inhibition of the Abl Protein-Tyrosine
Kinase in Vitro and in Vivo by a 2- Phenylaminopyrimidine Derivative” authored
by several people, including Jurg Zimmermann. There was detailed discussion
about the antitumoral properties of Imatinib and its methanesulfonate salt,
i.e., Imatinib Mesylate. </span><span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt 2in; text-indent: -2in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt 2in; text-indent: -2in;">
<span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">May
28, 1996 Patent
granted by USPTO (5, 521, 184) referred herein after as Zimmerman Patent<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 2.0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -2.0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 2.0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -2.0in;">
<span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">July 18, 1997 Application filed in Switzerland by
Novartis AG, for grant of Imatinib Mesylate Patent to Beta Crystalline Form<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 2.0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -2.0in;">
<span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 2.0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -2.0in;">
<span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">April 9, 1998 Novartis AG filed for Investigational New
Drug Application (IND #55,666) for Gleevac before
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) USA<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 2.0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -2.0in;">
<span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 2.0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -2.0in;">
<span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">July 17, 1998 Application filed in India by Novartis AG,
for grant of Imatinib Mesylate Patent to Beta Crystalline Form (1602/MAS/1998)
claiming priority from Swiss Patent Application <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 2.0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -2.0in;">
<span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 2.0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -2.0in;">
<span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">November 30, 1998 Switzerland notified as convention
country <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 2.0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -2.0in;">
<span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 2.0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -2.0in;">
<span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">January 18, 2000 Novartis AG made application for Patent for Beta
Crystalline Form of Imatinib Mesylate in USA<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 2.0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -2.0in;">
<span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 2.0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -2.0in;">
<span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">February 27, 2001 Novartis AG filed for Original
New Drug Application (NDA #21-335) for Imatinib Mesylate before Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) USA. It declared that active ingredient of the drug is Imatinib
Mesylate. The drug substance, active ingredient, drug product (composition/
formulation) and method of use were declared to be covered by US Patent no. 5,
521, 184. It was declared that said patent covers composition, formulation
and/or method of use of Imatinib Mesylate. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 2.0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -2.0in;">
<span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 2.0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -2.0in;">
<span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">May 10, 2001 FDA approval granted to drug “Gleevac
(Imatinib Mesyalte) 50 mg and 100mg capsules.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 2.0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -2.0in;">
<span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 2.0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -2.0in;">
<span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">July 3, 2001 Patent Term extension application made
for US Patent no. 5, 521, 184 and term extended to further 586 days from
original expiry date of May 28, 2013<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 2.0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -2.0in;">
<span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 2.0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -2.0in;">
<span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">March 27, 2002 Novartis AG, made application for grant of
Exclusive Marketing Rights (EMR) to Indian Patent Office<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 2.0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -2.0in;">
<span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 2.0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -2.0in;">
<span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">November 10, 2003 EMR granted to Novartis AG, by
Indian Patent office<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 2.0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -2.0in;">
<span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 2.0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -2.0in;">
<span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">November 23, 2003 US Appellate Court reversed rejection
of Beta Crystalline Form of Imatinib Mesylate by the USPTO<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 2.0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -2.0in;">
<span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">January 1, 2005 Provisions related to Product Patent introduced
w.e.f. January 1, 2005 in India<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 2.0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -2.0in;">
<span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">May 17, 2005 Patent for Beta Crystalline Form of Imatinib
Mesylate Granted in USA<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 2.0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -2.0in;">
<span style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua', serif;">January
25, 2006 The Assistant
Controller of Patents rejected the Patent Application for </span><span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Beta Crystalline Form (1602/MAS/1998) </span><span style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua', serif;">of Novartis filed in
India on basis of pre Grant oppositions<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 2.0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -2.0in;">
<span style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua', serif;">February
23, 2007 Writ Petitions
filed against the Assistant Controller’s order converted into Appeals<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 2.0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -2.0in;">
<span style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua', serif;">April 3, 2007 Govt. of India brought
provisions as to appeal to IPAB with effect from April 2, 2007 <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 2.0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -2.0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 2.0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -2.0in;">
<span style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua', serif;">April 4, 2007 Appeals of Novartis AG
were transferred by High Court to IPAB.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 2.0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -2.0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 2.0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -2.0in;">
<span style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua', serif;">June 26, 2009 IPAB allowed only the
process claims for manufacture of Beta crystalline form and rejected the product
and use claims for beta crystalline form<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 2.0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -2.0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 2.0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -2.0in;">
<span style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua', serif;">April 1, 2013 Supreme Court rejected
the appeal of Novartis AG against the judgment of the IPAB<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
Sudhir Kumarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01116694886109710344noreply@blogger.com0