+91-80-26860424 / 34

Call Us Today

LinkedIn

Search
 

Intellectual Property Tag

BananaIP Counsels > Posts tagged "Intellectual Property" (Page 15)

Salient Features of the Copyright Amendment Bill 2012 and its Impact on Entertainment Industry

This Image depicts a still by Akshay Kumar and Trisha from the Movie 'Khatta Meetha'. This Image is relevant as the article deals with the Copyright Amendment Act,2012 and its impact on Entertainment Industry. Click on this Image for more Information.

This post was first published on May 30, 2012. As we have previously reported, both the Houses of the Parliament passed the Copyright Amendment Bill 2012 in quick succession with overwhelming support from the opposition. The Bill is now awaiting the President’s assent and a gazette notification to become a law. The Bill has undergone many changes based on the recommendations of the Standing Committee and offers a scheme of provisions different from its previous version (the Bill 2010) in many respects. Here is an attempt to analyse the new Copyright Amendment Bill 2012 with its possible impact on the entertainment industry....

Continue reading

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

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 10, 2014.

 

Now that we have had a look at the trademark filing process in the previous post, we will move on to discuss the trademark examination process.

The process followed in the trademark registration process may be seen in the flow chart below (please click on image to view clearly):

Patentability of Biotech Inventions in Europe

This post was first published on 22nd January, 2011. Patentable Subject Matter The discussion with respect to patentability of biotech inventions in Europe has been limited to the European Patent Convention (EPC). As per the European Patent Convention, any invention is patentable unless it falls within the list of excluded inventions. According to Article 52 of EPC, any invention irrespective of the technology to which it belongs can be considered as patentable subject matter so long as it is new, inventive and has an industrial applicability and does not fall within the list of excluded inventions provided in Article 53 of the...

Continue reading

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

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

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