tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-338477902012-02-15T23:16:19.042-08:00A blog to discuss the changing lanscape of Intellectual PropertyVaibhav Vuttshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15961732115623832555noreply@blogger.comBlogger361100tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33847790.post-62796525315687251252007-09-26T03:58:00.000-07:002007-09-26T04:00:04.548-07:00

Sony Corporation seems to be having a nightmare of sorts in protecting its brand SONY from third person violation. If the fact that SONY for “nail polishes” was not held to violate the rights of “SONY” of Sony Electronics (see AIR 1985 Bombay 327) was used as a precedent by another Indian trader to defend the mark SONY for “frames for spectacle and goggles” from Sony Corporation (see 1989 IPLR 92

Vaibhav Vuttshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15961732115623832555noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33847790.post-29309220793568414852007-08-27T04:47:00.000-07:002008-12-10T04:17:03.081-08:00

Before proceeding to stating anything regarding patent licenses in India, it is important to note that the though the Indian Patents Act speaks about licenses for “granted” patents and is silent about patents that have not yet been granted but are being assigned or licensed or undergoing some change ion ownership, it is to harmoniously and I believe correctly to be interpreted from Section 11A (7

Vaibhav Vuttshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15961732115623832555noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33847790.post-20796104033085542282007-08-22T05:12:00.000-07:002008-12-10T04:17:04.235-08:00

I am just trying to compile all the cases that speak about well known trade marks and trans-border reputation I am just commencing the process and will give it shape over a period of time N.R. Dongre v. Whirlpool Corporation reported in 1996 (16) PTC 583Milmet Oftho Industries and Ors. Vs. Allergan Inc. 2004(28)PTC585(SC).Austin Nichols & Co. & Anr V. Arvind Behl & Anr 2006 (32) PTC 133(Del)

Vaibhav Vuttshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15961732115623832555noreply@blogger.com33tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33847790.post-34019276999238352452007-08-22T02:36:00.000-07:002007-08-22T02:40:18.596-07:00

The Indian Intellectual Property Office (IPO) has commenced e-filings of patent and trade mark applications. The IPO organised a training session on August 20, 2007 to teach patent and trade mark attorneys and agents of using the e-filing method. Some of the salient points regarding e-filing are mentioned herein below:1. To operate the e-filing system, the agent/attorney is required to have a

Vaibhav Vuttshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15961732115623832555noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33847790.post-70282425300237499602007-08-13T06:26:00.000-07:002007-08-13T06:27:45.477-07:00

There is a really nice article in Economic Times dated August 13, 2007. It is something which is so true and most of us have lost sight of in the Novartis Glivec matter. It is about healthcare and infrastructure that is in woeful condition in India. While the activists have been rallying about the fact that patents are bad for the healthcare and patients in India, nobody has ever made a hue and

Vaibhav Vuttshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15961732115623832555noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33847790.post-44460309649025978682007-08-08T03:48:00.000-07:002008-12-10T04:17:04.630-08:00

The much awaited judgment in the Novartis’s case of challenging the constitutional validity of Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act, 1970 was quite an anti-climax. There were hopes that the Chennai High Court would render a landmark and ground breaking judgment. This was more of a hype and several persons had already predicted that Chennai High Court will not be adjudicating on the

Vaibhav Vuttshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15961732115623832555noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33847790.post-59737961632575637532007-08-06T03:44:00.000-07:002008-12-10T04:17:04.807-08:00

The High Court has passed an order dismissing the petition. A closer look at the order seems to suggest that the Court has said that the court cannot decide whether the Act is in accordance with TRIPs. What has the court decided or has the court decided anything?? I cannot say by reading from the few articles that have been released as well as by NDTV article reproduced below, if the court

Vaibhav Vuttshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15961732115623832555noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33847790.post-90664722283285791782007-08-05T23:52:00.000-07:002008-12-10T04:17:04.872-08:00

There is now a row about Chadrasekharan being part of the IPAB, when it was he who has passed the order against Novartis in the opposition proceeding and is now listening to his own appeal. The IPAB has rejected the claims of Novartis and have allowed Chadrasekhran to be a part of the PAB for Novartis appeal. Novartis has filed a writ with IPAB challenging this situation. This how the situation

Vaibhav Vuttshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15961732115623832555noreply@blogger.com236tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33847790.post-568008104127263192007-08-01T06:09:00.000-07:002008-12-10T04:17:05.040-08:00

This article is interesting because it talks about harmonising intellectual property rights with competition laws. At present there are certain provisions that cater to intellectual property rights, but to the best of my knowledge, the Competition Act does not talk about balancing intellectual property rights with fair competition especially with regards to mergers and acquisitions.If this frame

Vaibhav Vuttshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15961732115623832555noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33847790.post-23593436176275989972007-08-01T04:40:00.000-07:002008-12-10T04:17:05.292-08:00

It seems that the meeting which I described in my posting titled “IPO-an electronic revelation” have culminated into something finally. The article reproduced below appeared in the Economics Times stating that facility for e-filing of patent and trade mark applications are now finally here.It is good news for the applicants and not so good news for the attorneys since the attorneys would be

Vaibhav Vuttshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15961732115623832555noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33847790.post-47215548448458989312007-08-01T04:14:00.000-07:002008-12-10T04:17:05.602-08:00

The Delhi High Court passed an interesting order pertaining to damages on July 13, 2007 in Disney Enterprises, Inc. & Anr. v. Jitendra Aggarwal & Ors.C. S. (OS) No. 175 of 2006 before the High Court of Delhi. The defendants wanted the matter settled by stating that they would not be able to pay Rs. 20, 00, 000 as damages but were willing to have an injunction against them and a token damage of Rs

Vaibhav Vuttshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15961732115623832555noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33847790.post-89275401179987458762007-06-04T05:22:00.000-07:002007-06-04T05:23:56.089-07:00

My favourite topic of extensions to notice of opposition continues! Though, this time there are no conjectures and “we should” and “we should not” scenarios, rather a good decision by the Trade Marks Registry which should go a long way in settling the debate of extensions. Recently in the case BM Birla Heart Research Centre v. Shree Rajmoti Industries, Gujarat 2007 (34) PTC 288 (Reg), the Joint

Vaibhav Vuttshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15961732115623832555noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33847790.post-6478681338951942822007-05-14T05:22:00.000-07:002008-12-10T04:17:05.826-08:00

The current Trade Marks Act of 1999 came into force on September 15, 2003. Amongst the several changes that this Act brought about, one of the prominent features addressed was the necessity to cut down the length of opposition and rectification proceedings, at least to the extent of finishing the pleadings within a stipulated time frame. The old Act like the new Act prescribed statutory time

Vaibhav Vuttshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15961732115623832555noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33847790.post-42167066045503778892007-05-14T03:43:00.000-07:002007-05-14T03:44:38.871-07:00

Hi I am Rajesh and I specialise in patent laws. I woudl be contributing henceforth on this blog

rajeshhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17126218659506431826noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33847790.post-83341225840202756732007-05-14T03:27:00.000-07:002007-05-14T03:29:47.787-07:00

In case of patents, if the invention that is being searched has already been anticipated in the world, then potential patent for similar invention (unless of course one is able to prove novelty and non-obvious) is more or les compromised. Since the search requires taking into account searching all kinds of records around the world, the enormity of the task is hard to ignore. Here again, it is

Vaibhav Vuttshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15961732115623832555noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33847790.post-77101403701745360882007-04-05T23:46:00.000-07:002007-04-06T09:50:42.611-07:00

According to PCT Article 24(1)(iii), if the applicant fails to perform the acts referred to in PCT Article 22 or Article 39 (1) within the applicable time limit (i.e. either within 30 or 31 months) the international application will cease to have effect in any designated State with the same consequences as the withdrawal of any national application in that State.Article 22 or Article 39 (1)

devil aKa prataphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15948701599721417388noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33847790.post-28404879509717566822007-02-22T05:40:00.000-08:002007-02-22T05:43:13.019-08:00

Two separate pre-grant oppositions under Section 25(1) of the Patents Act, 1999(“Act”) were filed before the Opposition Board, Chennai (“Board”) respectively by Natco Pharmaceuticals and Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited both on May 26, 2005 to the patent application No. 1602/MAS/1998 of M/s. Novartis AG for an invention titled “Crystal Modification of A.N.-Phenyt-2-Pyrimidineamine derivative,

Vaibhav Vuttshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15961732115623832555noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33847790.post-64146763847620289502007-02-11T02:12:00.000-08:002007-02-07T06:44:51.506-08:00

The Nimbus Prasar Bharathi controversy continues. I cannot help but feel bad for Nimbus. To fight against the government is not the easiest of things. The Government after listensing to the cries from Prasar Bharati that seven minutes delay will not work for them, promptly promulgated the ordinance that makes it mandatory for private sports channels to share live feed of any international sports

Vaibhav Vuttshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15961732115623832555noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33847790.post-74336256233470407062007-02-07T06:35:00.000-08:002007-02-07T06:38:41.132-08:00

There is good news for patent attorneys in India- the Indian Patent Office (IPO) is going electronic!Sounds good right! There have been series of meeting that have been talking place between patent agents and attorneys in the Delhi Patent Office. There must be such meetings in other three Patent Offices at Chennai, Kolkata and Mumbai as well, but I am not sure so I will not commit or comment.The

Vaibhav Vuttshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15961732115623832555noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33847790.post-24634110956546626612007-02-03T10:54:00.000-08:002007-02-03T10:56:10.447-08:00

My first reaction on reading the Mashelkar Committee’s “Report of the Technical Expert Group on Patent Law Issues, December 2006” was –“WOW!!” The report is extremely concise, to the point and more importantly an honest report on the issues of patentability of New Chemical Entities (NCE) and micro organism. Briefly, the reason for the Report was that when the Patents (Amendment) Bill, 2005 was

Vaibhav Vuttshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15961732115623832555noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33847790.post-70974981191548753932007-01-29T07:07:00.000-08:002007-01-29T07:10:36.886-08:00

It seems that Indian cricket always believes in the philosophy that change is good and adheres to this adage under all circumstances. If it is not about the Indian team performing, then it is not about who will be the chief of BCCI or the return of old warhorses like Saurav Ganguly. The latest controversy to hit Indian cricket is not on-field or off-field but ethereal, if I may use the term in

Vaibhav Vuttshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15961732115623832555noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33847790.post-1162134869640431192006-10-29T07:14:00.000-08:002006-10-29T07:14:29.740-08:00

Frankly, I didn’t quite believe it myself. But last month when I received a patent certificate for a patent application that I filed in April last year, my cynical approach and skepticism of the patent office and its functioning, beat a humble retreat.Consider this, I filed a non-conventional patent application in the last week of April 2005. My client was in a mad rush to launch his product in

Vaibhav Vuttshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15961732115623832555noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33847790.post-1159813814734390942006-10-02T11:23:00.001-07:002006-10-02T11:30:14.750-07:00

In an interesting decision by the Delhi High Court several issues pertaining to the overlap between Copyright Law and Design laws were laid to rest in the matter between Microfibres Inc Vs. Girdhar and Co. and Ors. CS (OS) No. 1480/2002 Decided On 13.01.2006 {also 128(2006)DLT238, 2006(32)PTC157(Del)}In this case the plaintiff, a US based company involved in the manufacturing, marketing, selling

Vaibhav Vuttshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15961732115623832555noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33847790.post-1159536744106688402006-09-29T06:30:00.000-07:002006-09-29T06:32:24.123-07:00

The trademark DARJEELING NOUVEAU in relation to “tea” falling in class 30 has been refused registration by the US Patent and Trademark Office's Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (Board).The opposition primarily involved the presence of DARJEELING in the mark DARJEELING NOUVEAU applied by The Republic of Tea Inc. Tea Board of India filed the opposition on May 1, 2000. It is an interesting case

Vaibhav Vuttshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15961732115623832555noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33847790.post-1159362851251311342006-09-27T06:12:00.000-07:002006-09-27T06:14:11.266-07:00

It appears Japanese electronics companies are in the bid to defend their territory from their Asian cousins are suing their cousins.One such situation is where Pioneer Corporation, Japan has sued its Asian cousin Korean based electronic giant Samsung and its subsidiaries with U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in relation to patent infringement after apparently the talks

Vaibhav Vuttshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15961732115623832555noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33847790.post-1159180481209553222006-09-25T03:33:00.000-07:002006-09-25T03:34:41.226-07:00

The question that is discussed in this article is if there is a typographical and / or a clerical error in a notice of opposition or a counter statement filed with Trade Marks Registry, then can such a typographical and / or a clerical error result in the notice of opposition or counter statement being dismissed. Briefly is also discussed the effect of amendment in a notice of opposition or a

Vaibhav Vuttshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15961732115623832555noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33847790.post-1158680534491974862006-09-19T08:41:00.000-07:002006-09-19T08:42:14.503-07:00

In another victory for Scotch Whisky Association (SWA) Indian Trade Marks Registry refused registration for the mark FORT WILLIAM (Label) for whisky.In this interesting case the applicant claimed that it had use for the mark FORT WILLIAM for a long time and FORT WILLIAM was a historical landmark in Kolkata, therefore SWA cannot have any claim over the word FORT WILLIAM as being evocative of

Vaibhav Vuttshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15961732115623832555noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33847790.post-1157975135868379862006-09-11T04:43:00.000-07:002006-09-11T04:45:35.880-07:00

In the past during the time when Trade and Merchandise Marks 1956 was in force, an opponent or / and an applicant could lead evidence as and when they desired. In other words the Registrar of Trade marks never imposed any condition to the grant of extension. The Result- the time period of deciding the opposition period was anywhere between 4 to 5 years and this is a conservative estimate.With the

Vaibhav Vuttshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15961732115623832555noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33847790.post-1157706161162299892006-09-08T02:00:00.000-07:002006-09-08T02:02:41.190-07:00

An interesting article on date exclusivity pulished in September 2006 issue of Business World by Gina S. Krishnan. Read on Patently ContentiousShould India allow data exclusivity, or just stick to data protection?GINA S. KRISHNANInterest groups are into their last round of hectic lobbying before the Satwant Reddy panel set up by the government decides on 6 September whether India should adopt

Vaibhav Vuttshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15961732115623832555noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33847790.post-1157703928187073482006-09-08T01:18:00.000-07:002006-09-08T01:25:28.200-07:00

This interesting article which appeared in Economic Time on 30th August 2006 deals with a licensing issues. Though on the face of it, the issue seems more of breach of trust, but it seems that T-Series is also raised the issue of challenging some of the patents of Phillips. Read On!!- MUMBAI: Consumer electronics heavyweight, Royal Philips Electronics of Netherlands, and Indian music major

Vaibhav Vuttshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15961732115623832555noreply@blogger.com27tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33847790.post-1157701321269906862006-09-08T00:40:00.000-07:002006-09-08T00:50:20.023-07:00

In the past, as per Foreign Exchange Management (Current Account Transactions) Rules, 2000, there was a requirement of RBI’s prior approval for remittances towards purchase of trademark and franchise.With effect from 10th July 2006 in a Notification issued by the Foreign Exchange Department of the RBI it has been stated that no approval is required from now on for remittances for the use and

Vaibhav Vuttshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15961732115623832555noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33847790.post-1157564265015411772006-09-06T10:22:00.000-07:002006-09-07T02:55:21.003-07:00

This is a very interseting article I got from the online edition of the newsletter of K& S Partners. Thought i should blog it. So read on-Can the first user of a mark internationally supersede the first user in India?This was the main issue that fell for consideration before the High Court of Delhi in Austin Nichols & Co. and Anr. Vs. Arvind Behl&Anr. (unreported – decided on November 29, 2005).

Vaibhav Vuttshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15961732115623832555noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33847790.post-1157529582391885832006-09-06T00:47:00.000-07:002006-09-06T00:59:42.403-07:00

This is another Scotch Whisky victory and this time a big one. Terms such as SCOTCH, SCOT, SCOT, SCOTTISH have bneen declared as Geographical Indications by the Courts. As i say Read On!!- NEW DELHI: In a development that could jolt the burgeoning liquor industry, the Delhi High Court has held that the Indian whisky manufacturer cannot use the word “scot” or “scotch” in compliance with the WTO

Vaibhav Vuttshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15961732115623832555noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33847790.post-1157528821159437872006-09-06T00:41:00.000-07:002006-09-06T00:47:01.176-07:00

The below article is an indicator that there is bound to be growth in IP in India. what we have done till now is nothing compared to what is in store for us!! Read on- BANGALORE: The United States on Wednesday May 17, 2006 urged India to join hands with it for Intellectual Property Rights protection. "A thriving, diversified economy must protect its IPR. India and US which are partners in

Vaibhav Vuttshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15961732115623832555noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33847790.post-1157440134270773952006-09-05T00:04:00.000-07:002006-09-05T00:08:54.273-07:00

This is an interesting IP development, especially for India. Read on- Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd has announced that a Norwegian court today handed down a favourable decision for the Company in its case against Pfizer, involving two patents on atorvastatin in Norway. Atorvastatin is a cholesterol-lowering drug which is marketed by Pfizer as Lipitor®.The Oslo City Court sided with the Company by

Vaibhav Vuttshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15961732115623832555noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33847790.post-1157385201171260802006-09-04T08:49:00.000-07:002006-09-04T08:53:21.183-07:00

Recently in May 2006 Mr. MC Gupta, Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks, Kolkata passed a order refusing registration to the mark RARE BLEND in relation to “alcoholic beverages”. The action was brought by Scotch Whisky Association (SWA) that had filed a trademark opposition against the registration of the mark RARE BLEND for alcoholic beverages.To briefly tell you about SWA, take note that SWA

Vaibhav Vuttshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15961732115623832555noreply@blogger.com0