Chat with us, powered by LiveChat

+91-80-26860424 / 34

Call Us Today

LinkedIn

Search
 

Intellectual Property Tag

BananaIP Counsels > Posts tagged "Intellectual Property" (Page 5)

Part III: Descriptive Marks

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 8th September, 2014.   In continuation to the earlier post where we covered the US approach towards protection of descriptive marks, in the current post, we will be analyzing the circumstances in which descriptive marks can be protected in the EU. The EU position towards descriptive marks is clearly stated under Article 7(1)(c) of the Council Regulation (EC) No. 207/2009, which is couched in the similar language as that of the provision in the Indian Trademarks Act 1999, talking about the same. As per this provision, signs which consist exclusively of signs or indications which may serve, in trade,...

Continue reading

Invention that Revolutionized the Industrial Revolution!

This image depicts the Steam Engine invented by James Watt. This image is relevant as the post is about the invention which has brought the Industrial Revolution. Click on the image for more information

This post was first published on 13th October, 2014.   Most of us have learned about the Industrial Revolution that took place in the 18th and 19th centuries, that ultimately resulted in the transition to the new manufacturing processes found even today. While I was reading about the industrial revolution, the question that flashed in my mind was, "Is there any invention that fueled the revolution?". Well, surprisingly (or not), the answer is a Yes! It's nothing but the Steam Engine. Let me tell the interesting story of the Steam Engine and its world famous inventor for our Readers who have a special...

Continue reading

Patentability of Higher Life Forms

This image depicts the logo of Onco. This image is relevant as The case was about a patent application filed by the Harvard College for a transgenic mouse. Click on the image for more information

This post was first published on 5th September, 2014.   Today we will be discussing a case where the patent grant was rejected by the Canadian Patent Office as higher life forms are patent ineligible subject matter under the Act. Canada (Commissioner of Patents) (Appellants) vs. President & Fellows of Harvard College (Respondents) Case: The case was about a patent application filed by the Harvard College for a transgenic mouse. In the transgenic mouse, the genome was genetically altered with the insertion of an oncogene. The oncogene was inserted into fertilized mouse eggs which were then implanted into a female host. The off-springs produced with all of...

Continue reading

Can There be a Patent for a Method of Patent Trolling?

This image depicts a Monkey standing with a stick and trying to describe what Patent Troll is with the basic definitions written in the Background. This image is relevant as USPTO has granted a Patent for a method of Patent Trolling. Click on the image for more information

This post was first published on 11th October, 2014.   How about committing the crime of killing all the criminals so as to prevent crime? Sounds outrageous, doesn't it? Well, then how about patenting the patent troll in order to prevent patent trolling? The USPTO is proof enough for granting some of the weirdest and craziest patents. But this one seems to be the cherry on the icing on the cake. Halliburton Energy Services Inc. has made an Application No. 11/741429 before the USPTO titled Patent Acquisition and Assertion by a (Non-Inventor) First Party against Second Party. Here is how the invention actually works....

Continue reading

Crossing the Rubicon: A Fork in the Road – Go Right or Left?

This post was first published on 24th July, 2014.   Case Analysis of Dr. Aloys Wobben and another vs. Yogesh Mehra and others. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6718 OF 2013 Facts: Dr. Aloys Wobben (Appellant) owns approximately 2,700 patents in more than 60 countries of which 100 patents are in India in the field of wind turbine generators and wind energy converters. Appellant was carrying out the manufacturing process in India through a joint venture partnership with the Yogesh Mehra and Ajay Mehra (Enercon India Limited) (Respondents). Intellectual Property licence agreements to use the technical know-how of the inventions, was granted to Enercon India Ltd. by the Appellant and...

Continue reading

Delhi HC Interprets the Timeline for Pre-Grant Representation of a Patent

The image depicts the text 'Delhi High Court'

This post was first published on 24th April, 2012. The relevant paragraphs of the case are reproduced below, a case brief will follow soon: 60. It must be understood that prior to the amendment in Section 25 in the year 2005, even a pre-grant opposition could be filed only by any person „interested‟. It is only after the amendment in 2005 that any person can now file the pre-grant opposition. The Act, therefore, makes a distinction between an opposer at the stage of pre-grant opposition, who could be „any‟ person, and the opposer at the post-grant stage, who could only be a...

Continue reading

Personality Rights in India – Part I

This Image depicts the word art of 'Personality'. This Image is relevant as the article deals with the Persoanlity Rights in India. Click on this Image for more Information.

This post was first published on 23rd June, 2014.   Intellectual Property (IP) has been continuously evolving. It is now not restricted to just categories like Patents, Trademark, Designs and Copyrights. Judicial activism has widened the scope of IP to cater to new forms of protection, one such addition is "Personality Rights". Personality Rights are made up of two kinds of rights: the Right to publicity and the Right to privacy. The Right to publicity which is usually attributed to celebrities or famous people is of great importance to the entertainment and media field. Right to Publicity means the right to control commercial exploitation of one's successful personality and prevent...

Continue reading

How Wise is it to TRIP Over Food?

This image depicts tomatoes in a zip-lock bag. This post talks about the importance of food protection under the TRIPS agreement. Click on the image to read the full post.

This post was first published on September 8th, 2014.

 

Every country tries its best to ensure that there is no dearth of food. Ensuring that food is of good quality is also important. As much as I’d love to go on talking about food, I will refrain from talking about food per se and concentrate on the legal obligations related to food. This post will concentrate on the relationship between IP and food which is governed by successful research efforts that result in a new plant variety or a plant with new and improved characteristics which qualify for Intellectual Property protection under various national laws and under TRIPS.

The effects of increased use of new biotechnology on the right to food cannot be discussed in isolation, but must also take into account the tendency that biotechnology applications are protected by plants or plant breeders right. Art. 27 of TRIPS gives member states the freedom to exclude from patentability plants and animals other than micro-organisms, and essentially biological processes for the production of plants or animals other than non-biological and microbiological processes. However, member states have to provide for the protection of plant varieties either by patents or by an effective sui generis system or by any combination thereof. India enacted the Protection of Plant Variety and Farmers Right Act, 2001.

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
css.php
Speak with an IP Expert Today
close slider