With Chennai having been for some time the centre of considerable IP interests, as the seat for the Trademark and Patent Office catering to the Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Pondicherry and Lakshwadeep Islands, as also the IP Appellate Board and the Geographical Indication Registry Headquarters, this move will no doubt be welcomed by many. The spark behind IPASI had been ignited on January 26, 2011, when almost 40 Chennai-based IP practitioners had brainstormed together to fulfill the need for such a body, which was formally registered on some days ago on April 20, 2011.
IPASI primarily aims to promote understanding, unity and development amongst all IP practitioners and stakeholders by way of efforts like building strong relations with the judiciary, academic community and industry. Any participant in the field of IP, including practitioners, academia including professors, students with Honorary Membership by invitation to designated Senior Counsels, Judges and Retired persons of the Trade Marks Registry/Patent Offices are welcomed by the association.
Following is a list of the office-bearers of IPASI:
Members of the Managing Committee and other Committees
1.President: Mr. Perumbulaval Radhakrishnan
2.Secretary: Mr. M. S. Bharath
3.Joint Secretary: Ms. Swapna Sundar
4.Treasurer: Dr. Sudhir Ravindran
5.Executive Members: Mr. A. Prabhakar Reddy, Mr. Jacob Kurian, Mr. T. Srinivasan, Mr. Manoj Pillai, and Mr. Rohan George
6.Policy and Government Affairs Committee: Mr. A.A. Mohan, Mr. Satish Parasaran and Mr. T.K Ramkumar
7.Membership Committee: Mr. Ramji, Mr. Chandhrasekhar and Mr. Satish Kumar
8.Finance and Fund Raising Committee: Mr. Rajesh Ramanathan , Mr. Prem Kumar and Ms. Elizabeth Puthran
9.Events Committee: Mr. K. Harishankar, Ms. Gowri Tirumurti and Mr. Arivazhagan
10. Communication Committee: Ms. Nirmalatha, Mr. Premchander and Mr. A. Lakshminarayan.
The Spicy IP team wishes IPASI luck in all its future endeavors.
Could someone please clarify one issue for me? When an Applicant initially files an application for registration of his mark containing his own address and at a later stage the applicant engages a lawyer by filing the TM 48 and the TM 48 in turn has a clause saying for future official correspondences the address for service is that of the lawyer is it valid? or does the applicant have to file a TM 16 containing the details of change of service address?
You have to file both
TM 48 for authorising the lawyer and TM 16 for amending the TM1. Both serve different purpose. TM 48 provides authority and is substantive whereas TM 16 is procedural.