By Sarita Rout
The Chancery Division of the Community Trade Mark Court recently decided [see end note 1] against Victoria's Secret UK Ltd. [hereinafter referred to as the 'defendant'] in an infringement action brought by Thomas Pink Ltd. [hereinafter referred to as the 'claimant'] in respect of its registered trade marks in European Union and a series of two marks in United Kingdom [hereinaft...
By Vindhya S. Mani
The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court by its recent order [see end note 1] dated 15th July, 2014 upheld the order of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) [see end note 2] dated 4th March, 2013 granting a compulsory license to Natco Pharmaceuticals (Natco) under Section 84 of the Patents Act, 1970 (the Act). The compulsory license was granted to Natco to ma...
By Vindhya S. Mani
A license agreement or an assignment deed is an agreement between a right holder and the licensee and/or assignee wherein the right holder permits the licensee and/or assignee to use rights owned by the right holder in exchange for a consideration, whether in the form of a one-time settlement or a periodic royalty. Generally an agreement may be in writing or oral but Sectio...
By Jaya Pandeya
Interpretation of Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970 (the Act) that imposes an absolute bar on patentability of business methods, mathematical methods, algorithms and computer programs per se continues to remain a contentious issue for applicants and IP professionals in India.
The Manual of Patent Office Practice and Procedure (MPPP) [see end note 1] provid...
By Prashant Reddy & Adarsh Ramanujan
On February 28, 2014 the Indian Patent Office (IPO) notified the Patents (Amendment) Rules, 2014 (“Rules”). These Rules are based on the earlier draft Patents (Amendment) Rules, 2013 which were published on May 6, 2013. The amended rules have come into effect from February 28, 2014.
When the draft rules had proposed a substantial fee hike ...
By Vindhya S. Mani
The Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) by its recent orders [see end note 1] dated 20th January, 2014 and 23rd January, 2014, set aside the orders of Assistant Controller rejecting the patent applications for a "sterile pharmaceutical composition" [see end note 2] and a "crystalline polymorph of a bisulfate salt of a thrombin receptor antagonist" [see end note 3] ...
By Jasneet Kaur
A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in a recent decision dated 10-12-2013 held that the television commercial which compares the product ‘Pepsodent Germicheck’ with ‘Colgate ST’ is not per se disparaging. However, the print advertisement published by the respondent (Hindustan Unilever Limited or ‘HUL’) involving the same comparison was held as prima facie disparag...
By Vindhya Srinivasamani & Adarsh Ramanujan
Brazil was the fourth country in the world to enact a patent law (in 1809) and it was also a founding member of the Paris Convention in 1882. Therefore, while Brazil is not new to a patent regime unlike other developing nations, there has been a recent legislative review that may lead to major patent law reforms. The Parliamentary Committee ...
By Vindhya Srinivasamani & Subhash Bhutoria
Deciding an appeal [ see end note 1 ], the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court has set aside the Single Judge's decision [ see end note 2 ], which recognized the popular "Hot News" doctrine and quasi-proprietary rights in the information emanating from cricketing events and held that the publication of scores and ball-by-ball update ...
By Nidhi Verma
According to the Indian Patents Act, 1970 (‘the Act’), a product patent gives an exclusive right to the patentee to prevent third parties, who do not have his consent, from making, using, offering for sale, selling, or importing the patented product into India till the product patent is valid. Further, a process patent gives the patentee an ...
By Siddharth Sharma & Ranjan Matthew
Why the need? – A rational perspective
Primarily, in order to understand the reasoning behind why a patentee or a licensee thereof is required to furnish information regarding the working of patents in India, it may be pertinent to study the Statutory provisions envisioned under Section 83 of the Patents Act, 1970 hereafter referred to...
By Piyush Sharma & Pulkit Doger
In accordance with the Indian Patents Act, 1970 (‘the Act’), Section 3 lists what are not considered to be inventions and therefore, non-patentable. Section 3(k) reads as follows:
"3. The following are not inventions within the meaning of this Act,
(k) a mathematical or business method or a computer programme per se or algorit...
© Copyright 1985-2017 Lakshmikumaran & Sridharan, All Rights Reserved.