The topical highlight for the week was undoubtedly the raging issue of discrepancy in the viva scores in the Patent Agent Exam 2016. Through this timely post, Pankhuri brought our attention to the gross disparity in the viva scores of candidates who had tallied almost the same scores in the written examination. In the course of this post, she also pointed out the gulf in the average viva scores observed across different examination centres. Pankhuri notes that while the need to have such a subjective parameter for selection is suspect in itself, the high weightage given to it (20%) despite multiple court orders mean that the controversy is far from coming to a close.
The thematic highlight of this week was the post by Inika on the issue of use of trademarked keywords to misdirect internet traffic. Her post was written against the background of the recent controversy between an Indian company, Flintobox, and Amazon. Flintobox had sent a legal notice to Amazon complaining “deceitful diversion” of users, who searched for the terms ‘Flintobox’ and/or ‘Flinto box’, to unrelated products on their websites. She examines the validity of the complaint by looking into the terms of the Google adword policy as well as Amazon’s automated keyword system. Inika sums up her analysis by noting that the use of ‘flinto box’ by Amazon has the likelihood to cause confusion on part of the public and may qualify to be a fit case for trademark infringement.
Our week commenced with a guest post by Ms. Noopur Goel, who brought to us the latest amendments (11th edition) effected to the “Nice Classification” (NCL). NCL is an international classification established by way of the Nice Agreement, 1957 for goods and services for which trademark application has been filed. As per this classification, similarly placed goods and services are clubbed together under different categories with each category having its own unique heading. The post notes that the amendment will apply to those trademark applications filed from January 1, 2017 onwards. As it is an important tool in attracting foreign investments, several countries have already adopted the 11th edition of NCL and many already on the verge of incorporating them.
Up next was the post by Ritvik on a decision rendered by the Delhi HC ordering the return of a plaint for want of cause of action. The factual matrix of the case was that the Plaintiff had sought to invoke the jurisdiction of the Delhi HC against the Defendant for alleged infringement of their trademark “Officer’s Choice”. The relief sought by the Plaintiff was disallowed since there was only a reasonable apprehension of breach within the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi HC and the place where the actual breach took place was within the jurisdiction of Andhra Pradesh HC. Ritvik goes on to observe that although the Learned Judge arrived at the right conclusion by finding that the plaint does not disclose a quia timet action, the reasoning used to arrive at it might be a little dubious.
The week came to a close with an incisive guest post by Mr. Essenese Obhan, who examines the validity of the ‘No Objection Certificate’ (NOC) requirement that is imposed on breeders who desire to develop new plant varieties under the Protection of Plant Variety and Farmers Right Act, 2001 (PPVFR Act). He examines the issue in the light of the difficulties faced by breeders in India in developing Bt plant varieties, who have to enter into exploitative agreements with Monsanto for obtaining an NOC in return. Mr. Obhan, through the course of his post, attempts to locate the source of power for the PPVFR Authority to insist on the requirement of an NOC. By perusing the various provisions quoted by the Authority in defence of their demand for NOC, he arrives at the conclusion that none of these statutory provisions explicitly or implicitly allow for imposition of such a requirement. Mr. Obhan concludes his post by listing the various adverse consequences that follow the demand for an NOC each time a breeder desires to develop a new variety.
International Developments
- US issues updated Antitrust Guidelines for Licensing of IP
- Gwen Stefani and Pharrell Williams sued over copyright infringement for “Spark the Fire”
- Cholesterol drug withdrawn in patent dispute
- USPTO announces new Patent and Trademark Advisory Committee members
- Myanmar IP law delays causing anxiety
- Eli Lilly defeats Teva appeal over Alimta cancer drug
- China issues plan to develop intellectual property
