Draft Amendments to Trade Mark Rules

/ By / Trademark

A couple of critical draft amendments have been proposed to the Trade Mark Rules, 2002, including a 40 per cent increase in the official fees for filing a trademark application, and removing the provising to request for a trademark search from the Registry. (Image from here). The Intellectual Property Website (IPO) has now put up the Gazette of India notification on the Draft Amendments to the Trade Mark Rules 2002, as published on 7 September 2010, a copy of which […]

Draft Amendments to Trade Mark Rules Read More »

Guest Post: Vernor v. Autodesk Inc: Thumbs Up for Software License Agreements (SLAs)!

/ By / Uncategorized

Sai Vinod a 3rd year student at NUJS has sent in this very interesting guest post on the recent Autodesk judgment by the 9th Circuit Court. Guest Post: Vernor v. Autodesk Inc: Thumbs Up for Software License Agreements (SLAs)! In a dispute concerning the first sale doctrine in the context of software licensing agreements, the Ninth Circuit has overruled the decision of the District Court for Western District of Washington on which we have earlier blogged over here. The copy

Guest Post: Vernor v. Autodesk Inc: Thumbs Up for Software License Agreements (SLAs)! Read More »

SpicyIP Tidbit: DIPP invites applications for ‘Examiners’ posts; 25-10-10 deadline for applications

/ By / Uncategorized

After a significant debate on this blog on the shortage of examiners at the Patent Office, the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion, Ministry of Industry and Commerce has released an elegantly well drafted 46 pages notification inviting applications for the posts of Examiners at the Patent Office. (No surprise they took two years to come out with this – 46 pages!!!) In its notification the DIPP has announced a sector-specific intake and has announced the vacancies for each sector

SpicyIP Tidbit: DIPP invites applications for ‘Examiners’ posts; 25-10-10 deadline for applications Read More »

Is it lawful for Examiners to grant Patents under the Patents Act, 1970?

/ By / Patent

Earlier this year on the 3rd of August the Bombay High Court disposed a writ petition filed by one Bharat Bhogilal Patel, inventor who had been granted two patents by the Patent Office, Mumbai for the following inventions: (i) ‘A process of manufacturing engraved, design articles on metal or non-metal’ and (ii) ‘An improved engraving and marking machine with laser technology’. Apparently Mr. Patel had approached the Customs Commissioner to have his patent rights enforced under the IPR Enforcement Rules,

Is it lawful for Examiners to grant Patents under the Patents Act, 1970? Read More »

The problem with the "access to medicine" debate

/ By / Uncategorized

There is, and has rightly been a long and drawn out debate on the price barriers faced by poorer consumers. And for good reason too.  Access to medicines is a phrase that’s come to be thrown around quite often, almost driving it into rhetoric – with people not stopping anymore to think about what it represents. It has come to be used any time there is talk of high priced medicines. And, although it’s most commonly associated with AIDS medicines,

The problem with the "access to medicine" debate Read More »

From a ‘Bark" to a "Bite": The Potency of Section 8

/ By / Uncategorized

Section 8 of the Indian patents act requires that patent applicants disclose all information pertaining to foreign counterparts of the Indian application in issue (i.e. if the Indian application has corresponding US and EU applications covering the same or substantially the same invention, then information pertaining to such applications must be provided to the IPO). This provision comes a close second to section 3(d) in terms of its potential to cause sleepless nights for patentees. And has been the subject

From a ‘Bark" to a "Bite": The Potency of Section 8 Read More »

Local pharma in patent rush

/ By / Uncategorized

The DNA news report titled “Pot-kettle? Local pharma in patent rush” criticises domestic pharma companies such as Cipla, Natco and Wockhardt which file oppositions against trivial patenting and simultaneously file patent claims for molecular tweaks. It quotes Amit Sengupta, general secretary of All India Peoples Science Network on its argument that Indian pharma firms have become aggressive on claiming patents. The trend is set to rise in future. The domestic market is expected to be worth $20 billion in five

Local pharma in patent rush Read More »

SpicyIP Tidbit: Delhi High Court Denies Grant of Interim Injunction to Bristol Myers Squibb

/ By / Uncategorized

Earlier this year in March, we had blogged on the dispute between Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS) and Ranbaxy, where the Delhi High Court refused to grant an ex parte interim injunction against Ranbaxy. Instead, the Court issued notice to Ranbaxy and subsequently arguments on the application for interim injunction were heard. Yesterday, the Economic Times reported that the Court has rejected BMS’s application for interim injunction against Ranbaxy’s generic version of the drug Baraclude (Entecavir), which is used to treat

SpicyIP Tidbit: Delhi High Court Denies Grant of Interim Injunction to Bristol Myers Squibb Read More »

Of trademarks and photocopy evidence

/ By / Trademark

One would not ordinarily expect a discussion on the evidentiary value of photocopied documents to reach the highest court of a country. As it turns out, this just happened in the world of trademarks, where the Supreme Court of India, in a sound judgement, returned a trademark infringement case to a lower court to accept the original versions of the photocopies as additional evidence and decide accordingly. (Image from here) [Warning — Long Post] The curtain-raiser Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd.

Of trademarks and photocopy evidence Read More »

Spicy IP Tid-bit: Ministry of Commerce & Industry invites suggestions on Draft IPAB Rules

/ By / Uncategorized

The Ministry of Commerce and Industry has some time back come up with a new notification regarding having completed a preliminary draft of the Patents (Appeals and Applications to the Intellectual Property Appellate Board) Rules, 2010. The notification (DIPP Notification No. GSR690(E), dated August 18, 2010) is aimed to inform all the stakeholders involved and all members of the public that the said draft shall be considered after 45 days have elapsed since the date of Gazette notification. In course

Spicy IP Tid-bit: Ministry of Commerce & Industry invites suggestions on Draft IPAB Rules Read More »

Scroll to Top