Avatar

Aparajita Lath

Aparajita graduated from the WB National University of Juridical Sciences, Kolkata. She was formerly an editor of the NUJS Law Review. She is a lawyer based in Bangalore. All views expressed by her on the blog are her personal views.

Copyright Innovation Others Patent Trademark

Latest on IP Think Tank: Stale questions and answers at the Rajya Sabha

by
Leave a Comment

As Voltaire said “Judge a man by his questions rather than by his answers”. This an effective yardstick atleast for judging our Parliamentarians who are vested with a lot of power to question and scrutinize. But are they really asking the right questions? The national Think Tank to draft an IPR policy for India, which was recently appointed by the Government of India, has been mired in controversy. As Swaraj reported here and here, the appointment of this think tank…


Read More »
Patent

Irregularity in patent restoration matters?

by
Leave a Comment

This post deals with a challenge to a patent restoration application that was allowed in contravention of Section 60 of the Patent Act. The Petitioner, the winning party in this case, was represented by Anand and Anand. In 2009, the Controller of patents issued a renewal certificate to respondent No. 2 for restoring its patent no. 186320. The petitioner, Sanat Products challenged this renewal by way of a writ petition in 2010. The petitioner argued that the respondent’s patent could…


Read More »
Patent

Pre grant opposition: Combination Antibiotics

by
Leave a Comment

Venus Remedies Ltd. (the applicant) filed an application for an invention titled “Parenteral Composition Comprising Ceftriaxone and Vancomycin for Bacterial Resistance and Process of Preparation Thereof” (Decision). This invention is directed to overcome resistance caused by Methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacterial strains (bacterial resistance to antibiotics). The application was opposed in a pre grant opposition by (Akums Drugs & Pharmaceuticals) on the grounds of lack of inventive step as required under Section 2(1)(j), 2(1)(ja) and 2(1)(l) and also on the…


Read More »
Patent

Patent Office Decision: Pre-grant Opposition on Traditional Knowledge

by
Leave a Comment

The Development Center for Biotechnology  (a Taiwanese Company) filed a patent application on 16th November 2007 for an invention titled as “A Pharmaceutical Composition And Process Thereof For The Preparation Of Plant Extracts For Treating Skin Disorders And Enhancing Healing Of Wounds” (provisionally numbered as 1556/KOL/2007) (PRE GRANT 1556 KOL 2007. Decision by the Deputy Controller of Patent: T. V. Madhusudhan). The invention relates to the processing, extraction, composition and use of extracts of a plant Plectranthus amboinicus (about Plectranthus amboinicus).  Claims…


Read More »
Copyright Trademark

Pudin Hara Advertisement Dispute: A Fiery Duel-Time to Cool It?

by
Leave a Comment

The present case (here) deals with a trademark and copyright infringement dispute related to an advertisement campaign. Unlike traditional trademark cases, where the mark in issue is used on the product and literally ‘in the course of trade’, the marks in this case are used only in the advertisement and not on the product itself. With the development of communication and technology, the law of trademarks now recognizes slogans, visual images forming part of television advertisements that may lead the…


Read More »
Patent

Breaking News: Delhi HC: Non Compliance with Section 8 not an automatic route for revocation of patent

by
3 Comments

Yesterday, the Delhi High Court in Sukesh Behl V. Koninklijke Phillips Electronics (Division Bench. Maj. Behl Vs Philips-DB1-DHC 7.11.2014) passed a significant decision with regard to Section 8 of the Patent Act 1970. It ruled that a patentee’s non compliance with Section 8 of the Patent Act will not lead to an automatic revocation of its patent under Section 64(1)(m). As per the decision, it is necessary to check whether the omission to disclose information under Section 8 was deliberate/intentional or…


Read More »
Others

SpicyIP Tidbit: WIPO Launches Free Multilingual Terminology Database

by
Leave a Comment

One of the most important aspects of a patent system is touted to be the disclosure and subsequent usage/sharing of scientific and technological information that would help technological progress. The WIPO’s Pearl initiative is a step towards realizing this aim of patent law.  As stated “WIPO’s multilingual terminology portal gives access to scientific and technical terms derived from patent documents.  It helps promote accurate and consistent use of terms across different languages, and makes it easier to search and share…


Read More »
Trademark

Maintainability of Multiple Trademark Suits: Babu Chuna case

by
Leave a Comment

The Gujarat HC while entertaining a writ petition in Radhe Krishna Products vs Parshottambhai Dharamshibhai Lunagriya, ruled on certain aspects of the Civil Procedure Code with regard to filing multiple passing off cases with regard to a particular trademark. The holding of this case is that if a person claims to have rights over the use of a particular mark (in this case the mark ‘Babu’), he is entitled to file separate suits, in different courts, for each mark the…


Read More »
Uncategorized

B Braun v PolyMed: Indian Poly Medicure wins medical device patent battle at EPO

by
Leave a Comment

As reported by the Economic Times, Poly Medicure (an Indian company that manufactures medical devices) has won a five year long patent battle against B Braun (German medical devices and pharma giant). The patent litigation revolved around B Braun’s patents that cover certain features of intravenous (IV) safety catheters. The EPO revoked two of Braun’s patents after which Braun appealed to the Board of Appeals. However, the appeal was dismissed and the patents of B Braun stand revoked. B Braun…


Read More »
Trademark

Delhi HC: Collector’s Choice deceptively similar to Officer’s Choice

by
2 Comments

The plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the trademark ‘Officer’s Choice’. The mark has been used by the plaintiff since 1988 and the plaintiff obtained registration in 2007. In 2013, the plaintiff found out that the defendant had started selling whisky under the trademark ‘Collector’s Choice’. In order to restrain the defendant from infringing its mark, the plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction. (see order here). The court upheld the plaintiff’s arguments and extended the ex parte interim injunction till…


Read More »
  1. Pages:
  3. 1
  4. 2
  5. 3
  6. 4
  7. 5
  8. 6
  9. 7
  10. 8
  11. 9
  12. 10
  13. ...
  14. 15