In a further step to achieve complete transparency in the Trade Marks Registry, Office of the Controller General of Patents, Design and Trade Marks, India has made available to the public complete details of pending Trade Mark Applications, Registered Trade Marks including the Prosecution History, Examination Report, Copy of the Application, e-Register of Trade Marks, Copy of the Trade Mark Certificate, Opposition details etc. The details can be seen by logging on https://www.ipindiaonline.gov.in/eregister/eregister.aspx
Further, the Trade Mark Rules, 2002 have been amended and Trade Mark (Amended) Rules, 2010 have come into force with effect from May 20, 2010. The major change is amendment in Fourth Schedule of the Trade Mark Rules i.e. adoption of all 45 international classes. Earlier international classes 43, 44 and 45 were merged in class 42 in India, but from May 20, 2010 separate application has to be filed for services covered under International class 43, 44, 45. Another change in insertion of proviso to Rule 62(3), that provides for issuance of copy/ duplicate registration certificate without any additional cost, if the Registrar is satisfied on a claim of Registered Proprietor supported by evidence that registration certificate has not been received by him. But further proviso specifies that no such copy/ duplicate registration certificate shall be issued where such request is received after expiry of time limit for renewal or registration or restoration of the registered trade mark.
Delhi trade mark registry has also geared up for expediting the examination process and total time frame for registration and has directed for supplying user affidavit in support of user along with filing for fresh applications and also for pending applications that are yet to be examined.
Monday, July 12, 2010
PATENT PROSECUTION DETAILS MADE PUBLIC
The office of the Controller General of Patents, Design and Trade Marks, India has now made available to the public the Prosecution History, Complete Specification and Examination Reports of published patent application and all details including e-Register in case of granted patents. The URL of IPAIRS is: http://ipindia.nic.in/ipirs1/patentsearch.htm
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS OF THE REGULATIONS UNDER THE PCT
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS OF THE REGULATIONS UNDER THE PCT
Matters for consultation prior to submission to the
PCT Assembly at its 41st (24th extraordinary) session
Geneva, September 20 to 29, 2010
FOR COMMENT BY JULY 6, 2010
1. The PCT Working Group, at its third session held from June 14 to 18, 2010, agreed on a number of proposed amendments of the Regulations under the PCT with a view to their submission to the Assembly for consideration at its next session, to be held in September 2010 (see document PCT/WG/3/8 and the Working Group’s report, document PCT/WG/3/14, paragraphs 182 to 189).
2. The Working Group also agreed that proposed decisions relating to entry into force and transitional arrangements should be the subject of further consultation via the PCT Working Group’s electronic forum 2010 (see document PCT/WG/3/14, paragraph 189). This paper sets out the Secretariat’s proposals for those decisions.
3. Comments are invited by July 6, 2010 (preferably submitted by e-mail to pct.wg@wipo.int), following which the documents for submission to the Assembly will be finalized.
Proposed decisions relating to entry into force and transitional arrangements
4. The Secretariat proposes to recommend to the Assembly that it adopt the following decisions relating to entry into force and transitional arrangements:
“1. The amendments of Rules 12.2, 48.2, 53.9, 55.3, 62.1, 62.2, 66.9, 70.2, 70.16 and 92.2 set out in Annex I [of document PCT/A/41/2)] shall enter into force on July 1, 2011, and shall apply to international applications whose international filing date is on or after July 1, 2011.
“2. The amendments of Rule 49.5 set out in Annex I [of document PCT/A/41/2)] shall enter into force on July 1, 2011, and shall apply to international applications in respect of which the applicant has performed the acts referred to in Article 22 or Article 39 on or after July 1, 2011, and in respect of which an amendment under Article 19 or 34 was made on or after July 1, 2009.”
Matters for consultation prior to submission to the
PCT Assembly at its 41st (24th extraordinary) session
Geneva, September 20 to 29, 2010
FOR COMMENT BY JULY 6, 2010
1. The PCT Working Group, at its third session held from June 14 to 18, 2010, agreed on a number of proposed amendments of the Regulations under the PCT with a view to their submission to the Assembly for consideration at its next session, to be held in September 2010 (see document PCT/WG/3/8 and the Working Group’s report, document PCT/WG/3/14, paragraphs 182 to 189).
2. The Working Group also agreed that proposed decisions relating to entry into force and transitional arrangements should be the subject of further consultation via the PCT Working Group’s electronic forum 2010 (see document PCT/WG/3/14, paragraph 189). This paper sets out the Secretariat’s proposals for those decisions.
3. Comments are invited by July 6, 2010 (preferably submitted by e-mail to pct.wg@wipo.int), following which the documents for submission to the Assembly will be finalized.
Proposed decisions relating to entry into force and transitional arrangements
4. The Secretariat proposes to recommend to the Assembly that it adopt the following decisions relating to entry into force and transitional arrangements:
“1. The amendments of Rules 12.2, 48.2, 53.9, 55.3, 62.1, 62.2, 66.9, 70.2, 70.16 and 92.2 set out in Annex I [of document PCT/A/41/2)] shall enter into force on July 1, 2011, and shall apply to international applications whose international filing date is on or after July 1, 2011.
“2. The amendments of Rule 49.5 set out in Annex I [of document PCT/A/41/2)] shall enter into force on July 1, 2011, and shall apply to international applications in respect of which the applicant has performed the acts referred to in Article 22 or Article 39 on or after July 1, 2011, and in respect of which an amendment under Article 19 or 34 was made on or after July 1, 2009.”
Saturday, April 10, 2010
Supreme Court gave liberty to approach appropriate High Court to the whistle blower who challanged appointment of NABARD Chairman
The Supreme Court gave liberty to approach appropriate High Court to the whistle blower who challenged appointment of NABARD Chairman. As the writ of Quo Warranto was filed in Uttrakhand High Court at Nainital, while the selection and appointment as well as head offices of NABARD as well as RBI are located in Mumbai or New Delhi, the Court was of opinion that Uttrakhand Court was lacking jurisdiction in the matter. The Uttrakhand High Court in its interim order has restrained the NABARD Chairman from functioning the office.
It is to be noted that as per the law, the central Government has to consult the RBI before appointing the Chairman and in the instant case all norms of procedure and basic qualification and experience criteria were relaxed to accommodate the incumbent Chairman who is still has not resigned from his parent cadre IAS (MAHA). In the past all IAS resigned from their parent cadre before being made Chairman of NABARD but the present chairman has not resigned from the parent cadre.
Furthermore, the circular of Department of personal and Training as to procedure for Search Committee or Search and Selection committee was not followed in letter and spirit while appointing the Chairman. It is pre requisite that an Advertisement has to be made and at least 4 weeks time has to be given to potential candidates for applying, but here the appointment was made within a week without any advertisement.
As per the documents made available, there was initially an advertisement by RBI for the post, to which some 120 candidates applied (not the present chairman) and finally 4 were interviewed and none were found suitable. The minutes of this discussion were also forwarded to Present Chairman. Afterwards the criteria was relaxed but was not at all advertised, and the selection committee appointed the present chairman who is not having any formal qualification in Finance and Management and his experience is just 16 years as compared to 25 years experience required originally for appointment. The stand of UOI that Dy/ Governor of RBI was present in the selection committee (same was denied in Affidavit by RBI before Uttaranchal High Court) amounts to consultation raises a serious question whether concurrence can amount to consultation to higher statutory post, where some element of formality as to statutory acceptance may be required.
Last but not the least, it was noted that SLP by Chairman was filed in Supreme Court on 4th or May 2009 but the affidavit was of 5th of May and was purported to be executed in Delhi, that too when the Chairman was not in New Delhi on both the days. How mighty and powerful people can bend the procedure is something that shakes the faith of common man.
Lets hope the activism of whistle blower continues further and he immediately files writ in Appropriate High Court before the exercise becomes infructous as Chairman, NABARD is to retire by December 3, 2010.
It is to be noted that as per the law, the central Government has to consult the RBI before appointing the Chairman and in the instant case all norms of procedure and basic qualification and experience criteria were relaxed to accommodate the incumbent Chairman who is still has not resigned from his parent cadre IAS (MAHA). In the past all IAS resigned from their parent cadre before being made Chairman of NABARD but the present chairman has not resigned from the parent cadre.
Furthermore, the circular of Department of personal and Training as to procedure for Search Committee or Search and Selection committee was not followed in letter and spirit while appointing the Chairman. It is pre requisite that an Advertisement has to be made and at least 4 weeks time has to be given to potential candidates for applying, but here the appointment was made within a week without any advertisement.
As per the documents made available, there was initially an advertisement by RBI for the post, to which some 120 candidates applied (not the present chairman) and finally 4 were interviewed and none were found suitable. The minutes of this discussion were also forwarded to Present Chairman. Afterwards the criteria was relaxed but was not at all advertised, and the selection committee appointed the present chairman who is not having any formal qualification in Finance and Management and his experience is just 16 years as compared to 25 years experience required originally for appointment. The stand of UOI that Dy/ Governor of RBI was present in the selection committee (same was denied in Affidavit by RBI before Uttaranchal High Court) amounts to consultation raises a serious question whether concurrence can amount to consultation to higher statutory post, where some element of formality as to statutory acceptance may be required.
Last but not the least, it was noted that SLP by Chairman was filed in Supreme Court on 4th or May 2009 but the affidavit was of 5th of May and was purported to be executed in Delhi, that too when the Chairman was not in New Delhi on both the days. How mighty and powerful people can bend the procedure is something that shakes the faith of common man.
Lets hope the activism of whistle blower continues further and he immediately files writ in Appropriate High Court before the exercise becomes infructous as Chairman, NABARD is to retire by December 3, 2010.
Saturday, January 2, 2010
Taiwan Intellectual Property Office revises Patent & Design Fee w.e.f. January 1, 2010
Taiwan Intellectual Property Office has revised Patent Fees with effect from January 1, 2010. Now, in respect of invention patent applications the official fee towards substantive examination has been reduced by NTD 1,000 (from 8,000 to 7,000 NTD). But it shall be same only for up to 10 claims. For each additional claim an additional official fee of NTD 800 shall be charged. It is to be noted that deadline to seek substantive examination is 3 years from date of filing. Further as per the provision if any amendment in number of claims or even withdrawal of application is made before issuance of First Examination report, the excess official fee if any shall be refunded or demanded, depending upon number of claims, as the case maybe.
The renewal fees/ annuity have also been revised for Patents as well as designs. Now for Invention Patents, the renewal fee/ annuity in respect of 7th to 9th year has been reduced by NTD 1,000 and in respect of 10th year onwards the renewal fee/ annuity has been reduced by NTD 2,000. In respect of Utility model patents the renewal fee/ annuity in respect of the 4th to 9th year has been reduced by NTD 1,000 and in respect of 10th year onwards the renewal fee/ annuity has been reduced by NTD 10,000.
In respect of Design Patents, the renewal fee/ annuity has been reduced in respect of 4th to 6th year by NTD 1,500; further in respect of 7th to 9th year the renewal fee/ annuity has been reduced by NTD 4,000 and in respect of 10th year onwards the renewal fee/ annuity has been reduced by NTD 13,000.
The renewal fees/ annuity have also been revised for Patents as well as designs. Now for Invention Patents, the renewal fee/ annuity in respect of 7th to 9th year has been reduced by NTD 1,000 and in respect of 10th year onwards the renewal fee/ annuity has been reduced by NTD 2,000. In respect of Utility model patents the renewal fee/ annuity in respect of the 4th to 9th year has been reduced by NTD 1,000 and in respect of 10th year onwards the renewal fee/ annuity has been reduced by NTD 10,000.
In respect of Design Patents, the renewal fee/ annuity has been reduced in respect of 4th to 6th year by NTD 1,500; further in respect of 7th to 9th year the renewal fee/ annuity has been reduced by NTD 4,000 and in respect of 10th year onwards the renewal fee/ annuity has been reduced by NTD 13,000.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)