Trademark

Trade Mark Rules, 2017 (Salient Features)


I write to bring to your notice the coming into force of the Trade Mark rules, 2017. It overrules Trade Mark rules, 2002. Let us look at a few of the salient features. Number of Forms have been brought down from 74 to 8 One can clearly understand the manner in which this has been carried about by comparing Schedule 2 of the 2002 rules and the 2017 rules. The 2017 rules opted for formats that could be used for multiple types of…


Read More »
Trademark

Part VI: Choco Wars: Cadbury Strikes Back (Kit Kat shape)


In this part, I am going to deal with Question 2: “(2)   Where a shape consists of three essential features, one of which results from the nature of the goods themselves and two of which are necessary to obtain a technical result, is registration of that shape as a trade mark precluded by Article 3(1)(e)(i) and/or (ii) of Directive 2008/95 …?” But first, a quick analysis of the “Essential Elements” process. Relevant Provision Directive 2008/95 Article 3 “1. The following shall not be…


Read More »
Trademark

Part V: Choco Wars: Cadbury Strikes Back (Kit Kat shape)


(Gruff Voiceover) Previously on SpicyIP’s Choco Wars: Nestle had successfully prevented Cadbury from registering the colour Pantone 2685C. *In the courtroom, Cadbury’s CEO glares at his Nestle Counterpart* *Screen goes blank* In this piece, I shall explain how Cadbury thwarted Nestle’s attempt to register the following shape: Yes, indeed. Nestle tried to register the shape of Kit Kat as a trade mark. So, without much ado, let us get straight to the facts. What we call “Kit Kat” today, was…


Read More »
Trademark

Part IV: Trade Mark Concepts #Shapes #Hauck


In this piece we will be dealing with some of the questions that came up in the Hauck case. The facts, once again, are pretty straightforward. Hauck wanted to register the following shape as a trade mark. Stokke opposed it on grounds of the shape being invalid. Went through a series of courts before reaching the Court of Justice. Note that the majority of the analysis comes from the opinion of the Advocate General (AG). The court constantly keeps referring to…


Read More »
Trademark

Part III: Trade Mark Concepts #Shapes #Lego


In Part II, we had dealt with the case of Koninlijke Philips v. Remington. Here, we shall deal with new problems that came up in the Lego case. The basic question is pretty straightforward: Is the shape mark produced below a valid trade mark? The Relevant Provision Council Regulation (EC) No. 40/94 of 20 December 1993 “… The following shall not be registered: … (e)       signs which consist exclusively of: (i)   …; or (ii)  the shape of goods which…


Read More »
Trademark

Part II: Trade Mark Concepts #Shapes #Philips


In Part I, we went through a basic introduction to shape trade marks. Now, let us look at at the issues raised in the case of Koninklijke Philips v. Remington.  As a result of these being European cases, our focus should be much more on the theoretical aspects, as opposed to the facts or the court’s holding. Therefore, I have endeavoured to make these posts theoretically intensive, rather than factual. Philips tried to register a 3D shape (produced below) as a trade…


Read More »
Trademark

Part I: Trade Mark Concepts #Shapes #Introduction


This month, I shall be discussing a series of European cases that deal with trade marking shapes and the associated functionality principles. This piece contains absolutely no analysis, and is only intended to lay the groundwork for the rest of the series. Before you decide to abandon going through this series on account of the European origin, allow me to remind you that the Indian statute, in this context, is very similar to its European counterparts. As a consequence of…


Read More »
Others

SpicyIP Weekly Review (February 19-25)


Thematic Highlight Apart from bringing to your notice the BHC interim injunction against Thomson press from producing copies of a translated version of the Bhagavad Gita, Inika reviews similar copyright issues over translated works and then deals with the following broader concerns: i.  When can a translation gain a copyright of its own? ii. Translations of works in the open domain iii. Translations of works for which copyright still subsists. iv. Conditions for getting permission from Copyright Board for translations. Topical…


Read More »
Others

SpicyIP Weekly Review (January 22-28)


The thematic highlight for the week is Mr. Rajiv’s overview of the legal issues that Qualcomm is facing in various jurisdictions, by virtue of its alleged anti-competetive practices, overpriced licenses and non-compliance with FRAND terms. While discussing four cases in which Qualcomm ran into legal trouble for the above mentioned reasons, he deals with the following broad areas: i. A brief breakdown of Qualcomm’s general manner of functioning. ii. Qualcomm’s Anti-competitive practices. iii. Manner of determining jurisdiction while imposing regulations….


Read More »
Others

SpicyIP Weekly Review (December 11-17)


Our first thematic highlight is Ritvik’s fascinating piece dealing with the jamboree of artificial persons, robots and copyright. His primary discussion points were the following: i. Whether artificial persons (e.g. a company) have copyright related moral rights? ii. Views regarding copyright ownership over robot created works. iii. He concludes with his take on who should own the copyright over such works. Another thematic highlight of the week is Vasundhara’s lucid, yet insightful analysis of whether India’s patent regime follows a ‘first…


Read More »