22 July 2019

Sticky

What NOT to DO While Applying for a Trademark

This post was first published on 22nd June, 2012. 1. Have a business? Applying for a trademark is a sheer waste of time. You must already be busy with routine chores of the business. Thinking of adopting a mark and going through the entire process of getting it registered is just tiresome and unnecessary. Business will boom if it has to. 2. If you are thinking of a name for your mark, trying to adopt a descriptive name as your trademark will be a good idea, i.e if you are selling oranges then the trademark you should adopt is ORANGE. 3. Have you...

22 July 2019

0 Cmnts

Sticky

Smoking Without Smoke

Posted by BananaIP Reporter

in Intellectual Property, Patents

This post was first published on 9th April, 2011. Smoking has become one of the biggest problems haunting youngsters today. Many of us know the famous scene from a Tamil movie starring Rajinikanth where Rajinikanth takes on the challenge of flipping his cigarette into the air and catching it with his mouth and repeats this ten times. Though, this kind of scenes get applauded by the audience in the theatre but when it comes to real life, smoking is considered to be one of the biggest curse of mankind. Smoking is considered to be more dangerous than drugs as it affects not...

22 July 2019

0 Cmnts

Sticky

Patentability of Yoga- An Analysis

Posted by BananaIP Reporter

in Intellectual Property, Patents, Traditional Knowledge

This post was first published on 22nd March, 2012. We are all aware that what is already existing in the public domain falls outside the scope of patentability. This is because it is already known and hence the aspect of novelty, which is the primary requirement to qualify for a patent is absent. Moreover, what is already there in the public domain cannot be taken back, because patents grant exclusivity to the inventor. Patenting of traditional knowledge is nothing new, and as far as India is concerned it has had bitter experiences with turmeric, neem and basmati. The need for documentation...

22 July 2019

0 Cmnts

Sticky

Trademark Litigation: ‘Advantage’ of Settlement

Posted by BananaIP Reporter

in Intellectual Property, Patents, Trademarks

The image depicts Cipla's range of veterinary products marked 'Advantage'. Another company has a similar mark 'Advantix' for the similar products. This post talks about how the trademark issue was settled. Click on the image to read the full post.

This post was originally published on 18th December, 2011. Bayer and Cipla have recently settled trade mark litigation with respect to Advantage and Advantix trade marks. These trade marks were registered by Bayer at the USPTO and are being used for veterinary products. Cipla has been marketing one of its pet products under the trade mark, DA Double Advantage with the aid of an online supplier called Archipelago. Aggrieved by Cipla's actions, Bayer filed a suit in a US court asking for a preliminary injunction against use of the trade mark. The parties have now settled the dispute out of court. As...

21 July 2019

0 Cmnts

Sticky

Anticipation – Mere Presence of Elements Insufficient; Arrangement of Elements Imperative

Posted by BananaIP Reporter

in Intellectual Property, Patents

This post was first published on July 15, 2014.

How is the novelty of an invention established? Another question with a similar connotation is – How does one determine if an invention is anticipated? Simple. Let’s see if something exactly alike exists. Apparently, the district court of the District of Arizona didn’t think so.

We’ll look at a case that will put to rest a lot of doubts surrounding the anticipation of inventions. The case, Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. Verisign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2008), decided in October 20, 2008, is where the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals clarified the test for anticipation under 35 U.S.C. §102(a).

The patents in contention mainly dealt with subject matter pertaining to systems and methods for online credit card transactions and for addressing security concerns related to these transactions. There were two main issues that were addressed by the inventor – 1. The requirement of prospective customers to send their confidential credit card information to an unknown merchant over the Internet; and

2. Banks that had issued customers’ credit cards imposed stringent requirements on merchants.

20 July 2019

0 Cmnts

Sticky

An In-Depth Look at the Trademark Registration Process – Part III

Posted by BananaIP Reporter

in Trademarks

The image reads 'Trademark Registration and Protection' with a heap of Trademark signs in the backdrop. This post talks about the process of trademark registration. Click on the image to read the full post.

This post was first published on July 07, 2014.

In furtherance to the earlier post, related to trademark classification and search, we will now discuss the trademark filing process.

The procedure for registration of trademarks is contained in Section 18 to 26 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Rules 25 to 62 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2002. A trademark application should be filed in the office of Trade Marks Registry within whose territorial limits the principal place of business of the applicant is situated. In case of applicants who do not have a physical place of their business in India, the application should be filed in the office within whose jurisdiction the applicant’s address of service is located. State-wise jurisdictions for filing a trademark application are mentioned below:

20 July 2019

0 Cmnts

Sticky

The Non-Obviousness Requirement and its Evolution – Graham vs. John Deere

Posted by BananaIP Reporter

in Intellectual Property, Patents

This post was first published on 16th July, 2014.

Today’s special is the case that has set a high precedent in US Patent Law practice, acquiring the status of the highest cited case in subsequent cases decided by several courts, especially the CAFC. Graham vs. John Deere Co. is cited extensively since it clarifies the judicial standing on the requirement of non-obviousness of an invention. William T Graham (Graham) sued John Deere Co. (Deere) for patent infringement.

Details: Graham invented a new shock absorber to add to tractors, essentially a device designed to absorb shock from the shanks of chisel plows as they plowed through rocky soil and thus prevented damage to the plow. Graham obtained a patent (US Patent 2,493,811) on this device.

Shortly thereafter, Graham made an improvement on this device and applied and obtained a patent (US Patent 2,627,798) for the improvement. Only 2 differences existed between the two patents, them being: the stirrup and the bolted connection of the shank to the hinge plate did not appear in 2,493,811 and the position of the shank was reversed, being placed in 2,493,811 above the hinge plate, sandwiched between it and the upper plate.

20 July 2019

0 Cmnts

Sticky

Common Reasons for Delay in Grant of Patent

Posted by BananaIP Reporter

in Intellectual Property, Patents

This post was first posted on 20th July, 2o14. A Patent gives its owner a monopolistic right and protection against unauthorized use of anything under its protection. This is the reason that a patent only gets granted once it passes several levels of stringent scrutiny. This phase is called the examination of the patent application. Examination of the application determines whether the patent application is worthy of a patent grant and thus, unless the application fulfills all patentabilty criteria, it does not receive a grant. For a patent application to be examined, a specific request has to be filed within a stipulated deadline, in accordance with the laws...

20 July 2019

0 Cmnts

Sticky

Patents May be Relatively New to Indians, but Inventions are Not

Posted by BananaIP Reporter

in Intellectual Property, Patents

The image depicts a sack containing cotton seeds.

This post was first published on 10th March, 2014. It gives the SiNApSE blog Team great pleasure to bring forth to our readers a 1971 US patent in which Mr. C. T. Dwarakanath from CFTRI, Mysore, was an inventor. Mr. Dwarakanath was a co-inventor in the patent entitled, "Process for reduction of aflatoxin content of oilseed meals by ozonization", bearing number 3,592,641. The invention was conceived and reduced to practice during one of his visits to Louisiana, USA on a project for the agricultural department during the years 1965-66. The patent was in fact assigned to the US Government, Department of...

20 July 2019

0 Cmnts

Sticky

Were the brothers (W)right?

Posted by BananaIP Reporter

in Intellectual Property, Patents

The image depicts the Wright Brothers walking together.

This post was first published on 20th March, 2014. Last week, my post was about the role of communication technology in making different regions of the world “excess able” from “access able”. It is important to bear in mind the role played by transportation systems in nullifying the effects of physical distance. Though different transportation means such as roadways, airways and waterways are available, when it comes to covering long distances in short time periods, aviation a.k.a. air transportation is one of the most convenient modes of transportation. The Wright brothers began efforts to invent a motor powered aircraft in the year 1899....

Author: BananaIP Reporter

SOME OF OUR CLIENTS