+91-80-26860424 / 34

Call Us Today

LinkedIn

Search
 

Intellectual Property News and Analysis – Intellepedia

Grounds for Refusal of Trademark Registration – Part 1

This image depicts the 'Trademark' and 'Registered' symbols. This post is a part of a series on what marks are permissible as trademarks. Click on the image to read the full post.

This post was first published on 2nd July, 2014.   A trademark means a mark capable of being represented graphically, capable of distinguishing goods or services of one person from those of others. Hence for a mark to be registered as a trademark under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, it has to satisfy three requirements which include: It should be a mark It should be capable of being represented graphically It should be capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one person from those of others Apart from these requirements, a mark should not fall under any grounds for refusal of registration...

Continue reading

Pop King’s Patent – The Lean Against Gravity

This post was first published on 23rd March, 2011. Michael Jackson will always be remembered as the King of pop and will always remain the greatest entertainer of all time. He thrilled everybody with his superb innovative dancing skills and inspired people to innovate their own unique style. He rollicked with his Moonwalk in Smooth Criminal. The moonwalk was earlier known as backslide, but it was Michael Jackson who made it famous after performing it in his song “Billie Jean”. People started considering him a superstar even before his first mega hit “Thriller” was released in 1982. He was honoured by...

Continue reading

Revised Draft Guidelines for Examination of Patent Applications in the Pharma Industry

This image depicts Tablets and Capsules of various colors. This image is relevant as the topic is about Final Guidelines for Examination of Pharmaceuticals Published. Click on the image for more information

This post was first published on 22nd August, 2014.   The Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks (CGPDTM) published the revised draft guidelines for the examination of patent applications in the field of Pharmaceuticals on August 12, 2014. The main intention of said guidelines was to bring in a uniform practice for the examination of patent applications relating to the Pharmaceutical field. Earlier in the month of February, the CGPDTM had published the draft guidelines with regard to this and had requested for comments and suggestions. The Indian Patent Office had also published the comments received which contained the views of various...

Continue reading

What NOT to DO While Applying for a Trademark

The image depicts the REGISTERED logo

  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...

Continue reading

Smoking Without Smoke

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...

Continue reading

Patentability of Yoga- An Analysis

The image depicts a man in a yoga pose.

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...

Continue reading

Trademark Litigation: ‘Advantage’ of Settlement

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...

Continue reading

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

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.

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

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:

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

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.

Speak with an IP Expert Today
close slider
css.php