How Domain Names AND Trademarks Are Being Juxtaposed -> WRONGLY!

 

One is territorial, and another is universal; yet, when it comes to the UDRP, the effect of Cybersquatting is treated as a universal phenomenon even in the case of the cctld domains, and let’s say for the gtld’s too; knowing the trademarks themselves are territorial. Thus, the juxtaposition complexity and dilemmas!

The Awards can be clerically corrected or amended, not fundamentally. Herein my Theory came into picture where I discussed in my earlier blogs the problems in case of the PCT FERs and the Trademarks’ objections! Therein too at the procedural level, you can’t have two contradictory terms, wherein I opined how ICANN & WIPO could be wrong on their parts in the policies and regulations.

The Dilemma Of Prima Facie!

 

Patents ain’t Prima Facie! Trademarks, Copyrights, G.I., Designs Are! Domain Names? Explicitly Nope! Implicitly Yes (because of different cctlds and gtlds, and without even its registration, where the context of domain names even arose?).

The only thing what prima facie grants you is the exclusive Infringement Provision in the latter four cases to the rights holder. And in my earlier blogs, I opined that why structure of the Patents as per TRIPS, PCT, is a bit Flawed. Read that blog! Because, if you’ve something territorial, then it should also be applicable to what’s included in the FERs/SERs.

Why I Always Contended To Equate Geographical Indications Similar To That Of Copyrights (Minus Timelines Of Rights Bestowed & Requirement For Registration)!

 

Because, alike in BERNE for Copyrights; and as Article 22 of TRIPS also provides G.I. protection to the member nations of the Agreement, but now, delete the expiry timelines, as one is perpetual, whilst the other not; and albeit one can seek protection of G.I. even in other nations, alas, needs to be registered therein with the address of service. But, as per my theory, this part should be removed and circumvented aka the provisions of filing of the application in other countries wherein the address of service is needed; as this requirement I was always opposed to, which dilutes the provisions of the G.I. definition itself, making it equivalent to the simple Trademarks (note: a trademark cannot be registered if it represents a geographical indication). Rather, I wanted it to become equivalent to like BERNE’s Copyright! Universally applicable, BUT further, not making its registration prima facie evidence of validity, rather, making its registration Mandatory, wherein it is manufactured, produced, originated from.

The Convergence Of Biodiversity AND Patents! And My Dilemma Hiding Behind Hyperion Tree!

Two Facts! The Biodiversity approval can be standalone, or, can float in parallel to the Patent. Correct? Whilst the Patent approval can’t work in separate (if in case biological resource is involved), and until and unless, the approval from the Biodiversity Authority is further obtained. Correct?  Thus, the two converge, when filing of any Patent is initiated and then, the approval of the Biodiversity is required to be obtained, but, never the other way around, as the latter is independent to that. Correct? But here my dilemma ripens.

The Reason Why Certificate Of Inventorship Doesn’t Serve ONE Specific Purpose!

 

In one of my earlier blogs (Link: https://www.jpranavc.in/2024/06/certificate-of-inventorship-needs.html ) and before the certificate of inventorship was introduced, and even before that, I wrote another blog, the need of such prospective certificates’, the embedded link of which is included in the above blog only, are indispensable. But in that blog, I cited that the purpose of the Certificate of Inventorship shouldn’t only be restricted to issuance of the Certificate naming the inventors; the names again, could also be accessed vide Declaration of Inventorship. The real question in any invention is -> exactly what any inventor mentioned in Declaration of Inventorship executed or contributed in that particular invention. And this is important. Why? The reason as given below:

The Copyright Societies BUT Who’s Who? And The Dilemmas Even Skeletor & Orko Would Be Contemplating Today!

 

Whilst the thumb rule is: 1 Society == 1 Domain! For example, for sound recording, one! For performance, one! Yet, the provision of acting as an Agent without being a registered copyright society under the ambit of Assignee / Licensee to further license under the ambit of non-exclusivity is also a fact! Yet, furthermore, making it mandatory for the Sound Recordings and Cinematographic Parts be only licensed via Societies; thus, the question ensues, who’s who and who is truly eligible to do what? Who can decide the tariffs when it is also arbitrarily been done? Maybe, we are walking in the Circles! The agent can challenge the Society, the Society can challenge back the authenticity of former’s Non-Registration! Yet, both are Correct in their counterarguments, but also lost in the interpretations! Furthermore, in the case of organizing Events, what should be applied -> Respondeat Superior, OR, Ignorantia Juris Non Excusat, OR, Caveat Emptor?

Please Don’t Juxtapose Piracy Over Copyright Infringement By Making Latter A Cognizable Offense!

 

We are unnecessarily confusing Copyright Infringement with Piracy, by making the former equivalent to a cognizable offense, which to me, would not only kill creativity, that in any case was already absent, but, would further stretch doing the things which could’ve already been resolved vide civil injunctions, penalties, or by removing/withdrawing of the infringed content.

I’ve always written in my blogs that don’t pull the thread of the kite so hard that either it doesn’t fly, or, the thread is only severed. Let the kite be loosely held, and yes, be held! Don’t severe it! Don’t pull it! And at the same time, ne’er let that thread also go away from your hands.

Should Oppositions in T.M.s Be Replaced With Likes Of S.19 Everywhere? And My Dilemma That’s Still Trying To Build Like Bob The Builder!

 

This is another of mine proposed Theory, just alike others (of course all Protected)!

So, here’s the new theory goes! You’ve this provision in every IP Office, in case of Trademarks, the Registrar bearing the power to recall its decision of acceptance i.e. withdrawing the acceptance of any trademark before the registration itself! Correct?

There’s Still A Glitch In the Domain Names Implementation!

 

Shouldn’t the cctld be restricted for country specific ‘residents’ only everywhere, like in the cases of .us, .eu, .jp, .fr etc. usually? As many of the other cctld’s are not covered with the same security features & measures! And the reason is -> why would someone else would need another country’s cctld, while operating from somewhere else? Of course, I know the contention is that what about MNCs who’ve global presence, then, their rights in TMs would become obsolete or been jeopardized! NOPE! The said provision is already present as one has to provide the address of service first or the reason before registering them!

What Should Be The Role Of ICANN In Terms Of Paid Privacy Features? And The Dilemma That Recently Met With -> Kaiju Eel!

 

Shouldn’t the paid privacy feature be the prerogative of the ICANN only, and not of the Registrars’? Would it be correct for the Registrars asking the Registrants the Privacy Fees for the Domain Name Privacy Protection Features? In the 90s, the domain names were free, and it was understandable, as Not many had the access of the Internet, and not many were using Custom Domains, and not many Domain names were generated; and as the options on the table were many! And this is also true that the Concept of privacy didn’t come until late, maybe after the DMCA act, for the protection of the online data of the Individuals (which thanks to the likes of AI Companies  today, who butchered Berne & DMCA), and then, the part of the Cybersquatting cases rose, in terms for the protection of the Trademarks it was needed. But herein the dilemmas crossed the paths with Kaiju Eel!

Issue With Any Trademark Accepted With A Disclaimer! And My Dilemma Riding On-> Thomas The Train!

 

Restricting to any Demography is understandable in the Disclaimer Clause! BUT, I never understood, especially, when any trademark is considered as whole, why then restricted disclaimer clause is attributed for certain words in it, especially in the Device Mark itself? This creates an issue later, even at the time of adjudging the opposition or rectification. For the reason, that, now one is allowed to use the Mark with the Disclaimer; YET, one is not allowed to have the exclusive user rights over it, even as a whole! You can’t oppose or rectify it, YET, you can oppose or rectify it!

Why Any Web Portal Copyrights’ MUST Contain the Source Code With It! And My Dilemma Resting On The Kryton Planet!

 

You can’t Copyright a Domain name. As well as you can’t Copyright any Title alone! Period! Usually, for them, one opts for Trademarks, or the earlier existence of such itself, makes a stronger case!

And when it comes to the Websites, it is a well-known fact that one needs to dismantle every element of it, and then, that individual elements can be copyrighted. But, now my dilemma awakens from hibernation!

Look:

The Paintings, Copyrights, & Resale U/S 53A! And The Dilemma Hiding Behind Narnia’s Wardrobe!

 

Problem with Section 53A is-> is it fulfilling the purpose, for which it was even introduced?

Take this example! If you’re a Collector of expensive and valuable watches, and if in case you want to resell it, would you be asked to pay upto 10% percent value of those watches, to the Companies, let’s say to Omega? Nope! That’s not the case! Because you’re the Owner, albeit NOT the Copyright Holder, subject to Contract, if any executed!

Why Object Code Copyright Doesn’t Make Any Sense! Even Under Rule Of Doubt! My Recently Excavated Dilemma From Below Seabed!

 

What is incomprehensible, should it be considered as Copyrightable? Nope! Until one can run the same on any Medium to make it Comprehensible to make sure it isn’t incomprehensible! Correct? But if that is done, then the whole context & concept of Rule Of Doubt disappears! Correct? So, what is the point of Rule of Doubt only? It is either AYE AYE SIRE, OR, GOODBYE SIRE in Copyrights! Shouldn’t it be like that way only? In IP, nothing is accepted on the basis of contingency! In IP, nothing is accepted in abstract nor in the idea form. Then until the object code itself is not reversed to its source code form, what’s the point of having the object code only, and that too further with the Rule of Doubt contingency? It’s like registering gibberish, without knowing what is there inside, and the person owning the same enjoying the rights, to the extent when anyone discovers it was mere gibberish! This dilemma of mine just got excavated!

The Customs, &, My Dilemma Climbing the K2 Peak!

 

This is just my personal opinion!

Let the entire Trademark database be connected to the Customs Database. So instead of individual registrations for the generation of Specific Registration numbers, let the custom’s intelligence portal be prompted with the similar IP at the time of any trade or transaction, and then, an automatic suspension of goods would be issued, giving either or both the parties (means one who is the true owner, and the one whose goods being put on hold), a chance to reply within the period of 48 hours, if in case either of the party wants to carry forward such an action. But there’re three main issues that would be huge problem:

1.     Who would indemnify initially to the officials?

2.     Who would bear the cost for this entire process initially?

3.     Who would pay for the holding & disposal?

The Hon’ble Courts / Tribunals Should Introduce Page Limitations In Drafts + Exhibits Filed!

 

If anyone thinks that: verbose == intelligence; then that’s the most wrong interpretation in the modern times!

It has become a trend that the more number of pages added, then the more it would look smarter, credible, reliable, and, intelligent; which is absolutely Not the case.

The Biological Diversity Saga, & My Another Dilemma Hiding In The Labyrinth!

 

Whether you file for the IP or not, the whole context and concept of the biological diversity should be to make sure that before the biological material is used by anyone, the approval should be present beforehand. But this part is missing, and I’ll prove that in the herein below points.

Rule 26(2) of The PCT Regulations VS Security Protocol! My Massive Dilemma Recently Unfolded In The Labyrinth!

 

I know no one raised this issue earlier, as I raised some time back, but didn’t find any answer, nor received a direct email response when I shared the same concern.

Rule 26(2) of the PCT Regulations clearly mentions that minimum of Two Months period would be given for any Applicant to correct the defects, if been issued under the ambit of Rule 26(1) of the PCT Regulations. But what is my concern?

The Raga Of DAGAR Brothers VS Rahman Copyright Infringement Case!

 

AHA! I wrote earlier about the difference between what constitutes public domain works, and the works in public domain which are protected by the Copyrights. When these LLM training companies started misleading the public in general that the works they are using are being considered under the ambit of public domain works, I vehemently opposed this concept in my earlier blogs, and wrote and distinguished further the difference between public domain, and, the works available in the public domain; as after all, copyrighted works are also available in the public domain too, which many of the companies wanted to prove as public domain works. Notice the difference! 

The Copyright & The Ghibli Art

 

There’s a grey area that I have been discussing in the field of Copyrights for long in my blogs, when it comes to the style, vibes, themes and the idea as well! Technically, can styles or vibes be copyrighted, as one must have read the case of an influencer who filed an infringement petition on the grounds of some other influencer copying her vibes (aka aesthetics too minus performance rights). This I discussed in one of my previous blogs. As such case is not maintainable, for the reasons I discussed therein.

The Grey Area B/W Provisional Priority VS Anticipation!

 

Dear Diary,

I’ve no idea whether this part was looked by someone else, but, the other day, I had this dilemma, as, can the concept of Self-Anticipation, which is similar to the concept of Self-Plagiarism, be also applicable w.r.t. to the Provisional Filing Priority? But how am I going to prove that?

The Future Of WIPO In A Post DE-Globalized World!

 

I’m wondering, as in the First wave de-globalization has been triggered, what would be the status of WIPO, i.e. Hague, UDRP (Other Domain Name Redressal Arbitration Boards), Madrid, PCT; and if in case the First Wave is successful, policies/rules of WIPO would hardly be followed then; again, if in case the First Wave becomes successful, and most probably, it would indeed become. Firstly, the Fee part would have substantial implications, especially in case of PCT; wherein, the option of 90% reduction for the NPs won’t be accepted by others. But the biggest issue is, what is the guarantee that WIPO commandments post DE-Globalization would be accepted by all? I presume, China would revolt, and why not, the most affected are the South Asian and South East Asian nations, and some part of the EU, UK! And if WIPO becomes another WHO, then who is going to do the Quality work in the less money? And let me tell you one thing! Not everyone can understand or follow or apply WIPO’s policies and rules; forget about the quality part of the service! It is complicated! And cannot be practically implemented by everyone! The currency conversion issue would again raise many more concerns henceforth.

So, what would become the modus operandi of future? Is it the Conventional style protection for the IP rights, i.e. within 6 Months / 12 Months, for designs, patents, trademarks, from the country of origin?

The more surprising part is, the World accepted such fragile economic structures, and were sailing on the goodwill of mere one or two nations! How?

Let’s come down to the IP part. I feel FOUR things would happen, if in case WIPO ends up just alike WHO:

The Dichotomy Of S. 3(d) && S. 3(e), AND, My Dilemma Awaiting For The Train To Rescue!

 

Dear Diary,

It’s now decade and a half, and my dilemmas w.r.t. the dichotomy of Section (d) and (e) has still not been resolved! As in my immediate previous blog, I explained the universal dilemmas w.r.t. Section 3(k) involved when it comes to Algorithms and Software Programs, and I shared some of  my previous blogs too published in 2012 and 2014; similarly, I had this dilemma w.r.t. the word composition as well, and that further included the MARKUSH analysis, its structures, compounds, that’s been claimed novel, which further defines a common core principle, yet been diversified with several different substitutes over it! Not only that, when it comes to Chemical or Pharmaceuticals related compositions, I’m a bit skeptical, of the definitions included under S. 3(e) and 3(d), especially, for the word compositions of known compounds! As explained in my previous blogs too, to overcome them, three words are required: 

The CRI Guidelines, Section 3(k), Software Non-Patentability, AND, My Dilemma Hiding In The Labyrinth!

 

You may be a supporter of OSS, Open Platforms, Trade Secrets, Licenses, or Patents; perspectives differ. When it comes to Algorithms, this is true that they should’ve been covered everywhere under the ambit of Copyrights only, and never under Patents, as Algorithms are after all LITERARY STEPS or Methods written in literary wordings with no technical advancement ‘per se’, but merely an instruction to perform a technical action, which in its original format directly cannot be industrially implemented. I’ve no idea why some contend(ed) to include it under the ambit of Patents. And when the Algorithms are being converted into Coding and implemented as Software, then too, Algorithms, should be covered under Copyrights only, for the reason that once they being coded, their characteristics, language, and way of implementation, format changes. So, when something absolutely gets transmuted from one form or another, then it cannot be considered as original (again, ‘per se’). BUT, there’s massive issue in including Algorithms under the ambit of Copyrights as well. Do you think, an N-Bit encryption, should’ve the term of LIFE + 60 YEARS, further, in the absence of Compulsory License/March In Rights, as stated under the ambit of Patents, for instance S. 84.

Looking Trademarks & Domain Names Once, From The Perspective Of Copyrights!

 

This I’ve discussed, in few of my previous blogs, wherein if the concept and requirement of Compulsory License is unneeded; then what is the point of both having the period of expiry (albeit putting in the suspension mode is much better in case of failure to renewal sine-die, rather, putting it out in open) both in case of trademarks, as well as, in case of domain names; because again, what’s been done herein, let’s say if and when the period of Copyright expires, what if it gets registered in someone else’s name, then would that be justified? NOPE! Example, if the rights of Homer, or, Sarojini Naidu in copyright expired, but now gets registered in the name of someone else! Justified?

Looking Patents Once, From The Lens Of Trademarks!

 

This is one of my dilemmas of dilemmas’ in the labyrinth of regulations.

Now, you would ask this question to me, that how come I can jumble up these terms and definitions Patents & Trademarks? But again, I’ve captioned in the subject line that, looking only once the Patents from the lens of Trademarks, and not beyond. And what does this mean?

Tale this example. Your trademarks are accepted on the grounds if you’re able to obviate the objections cited in the examination reports. Sometimes there’re similar cited marks, which you need to obviate, and sometimes objections like Section 9, in which case, occasionally, no similar marks are cited. Yet, even under the stringent provisions like Section 9, there’s a sub provision which states: provided that the trademark shall not be refused if it has acquired a distinctive character as a result of use. Remember the term use.

A.I. Hallucination, AND, Submission Of Case Precedence!

 

There’re few incidents wherein A.I. hallucinations resulted in the action against those in the legal sector who submitted wrong case precedence that never even existed. The onus was put on AI stating that it is the AI that hallucinated by the ones who quoted the case precedent, albeit latter were being penalized due to the Natural Person clause.

My Dilemma, Change In Name Of Trademarks, As Subsequent Proprietor/Owner!

 

What defines transmission, assignment, transfer, or change in name per se; should that matter at the time of recordal of the subsequent name, when the entire due process had already been followed, of course, except in the case of when consent or approval is supposed to be taken for the recordal of transmission, assignment, transfer; especially when it comes to the collective or certification marks?

But where’s the dilemma in it? Indeed there’s, as it lies in the labyrinth of the process, as precisely summarized herein below!

The Specific Gap Between Madrid Filing + The Amendments!

 

Forget for a moment about five years’ time period wherein if changes made at the office of origin would also affect the international registration. My concern is different. The problem comes where, let’s say, amendments are filed at the office of origin, and then, in a short span of time, a new Madrid Application is filed, and as those changes would take time to reflect or processed; so until then, should the Madrid be forwarded or not? This is my dilemma, of the delay in the Madrid filing procedures, if at the office of origin, basic registration is pending for amendments.

My Dilemma: Why Need NEW AI Acts When Already Have IP/IT Acts?

 

When the new EU AI Act came, and when I hear from Politicians to Bureaucrats speaking about the necessity for the new AI Acts and Rules; are they referring to mere self-regulating AI guidelines, or, explicitly asking for new AI Acts, my dilemma gets lost in the labyrinth of sub- dilemmas, as, do you require so many acts and rules, when already mountain of them are present, covering the specifics even of the functionality of AI?

A Matter Of Concern That Must Be Discussed……!

 

Q.1. If the cost of DeepSeek is mere under $10M, then for what Big AI Companies were seeking, investing, justifying, Billions of Dollars in the name of AI, and then to be used, where?

Q.2. It is also in the open (no matter what percentage of it is true), that the AI Giants used the shadow libraries, archives, data scraping, web harvesting (examples: Z-Lib, LIBGEN, Anna’s Archive, Book 3 Dataset, Bibliotik, The Eye, PiLiMi Project etc. etc. (do correct me if I’m wrong)) to train their modules and models; then in/for what, Billions of Dollars were used for, as they didn’t pay to anyone whose DATA they used to train their models, rather, wrongly kept calling it public domain data, which I REFUTED in my blog (Link: https://www.jpranavc.in/2024/11/seems-words-public-domain-and-public.html), as they were misguiding? Thus, for what and where Billions of Dollars vanished, or, was that even justified?

Q3. Mr. Musk rightly asked the same question in case of Wikipedia, that when its Entire DATA can be stored in a Pen Drive, then for what, they require Millions & Billions of Dollars, for their questionable Business!

Q4. Can my theory of Critics Laundering Program now also be corroborated, if this can lead to those missing transactions?

All this must be discussed, as it is a matter of concern w.r.t. INTERNET!☹

© Pranav Chaturvedi 2025

Lodha VS Lodha: The Trademark SAGA

 

Please read my earlier blogs first regarding when it comes to names and surnames, who qualifies for the ownership on that trademark. The links are as given below: https://www.jpranavc.in/2023/11/the-trade-mark-case-involving-trump-too.html AND https://www.jpranavc.in/2021/10/rights-on-name-surname.html

Now, the recent case between Lodha VS Lodha ain’t different, with the exception that, now, same family members are involved. And if someone remembers, a decade back too, a similar case in the real industry came involving the trademark of Hiranandani, again, in a family dispute.

When Democracy Became Algocracy!

 

The ‘democracy’ was already replaced by ‘algocracy’ with the spread of plague of social media platforms! So, sometime back, and when I was on twitter (now deleted), this is what I wrote to Twitter’s Jack’al:

and even before that, kept writing about the authentication of the accounts on the internet, even VIA domain name registration details; with of course a caveat that the personal information would be protected & won’t be shared or sold! As I was/am always against Ghost/Pseudoname Writing! So was/am against Ghost Tweeting/Blogging! Furthermore, most of the shady conversations are being made on the Online Video Games (MMORPG) CHAT platforms, or, TOR, or Dark Web! Means, are there any incidents when on open platforms, people discussing about Coup or Dissent or Surveillance or Terrorism or Protests? Let me get illuminated by someone with examples of the intelligent ones!

The Definition Of Data Principal……!

 

This is in continuation of my previous blog the link of which as follows, but, kindly read my herein below blog first -> Link: https://www.jpranavc.in/2025/01/why-data-principal-was-even-defined-in.html

Just read the definition of Data Principal in the DPDP Act, 2023, against which the Rules have been issued in 2024. My only problem is with the definition of Data Principal, which states:

Why DATA Principal Was Even Defined In DPDP? My Dilemma!

 

I’m sure after reading this blog, you would think, I’m raising unwarranted, unwanted, out of the context, issues & definitions. But I’m writing this blog for the reason, I came across to few platforms, where, the definition of the Data Principal has been expanded to include the ‘person’ as well, as I’ll explain in the below paragraphs with examples, how, on the face value or façade, has confused certain aspects of this definition itself. Again, my blogs don’t mere recite the case precedence, or, acts or rules, but try to take the road not taken. Else, everything is in the reference textbooks or online.

Opinion: Resolving IP Infringement Cases Without Putting Burden On COURTS, OR, POCKETS!

 

Let us accept a fact. Seeking remedy in law is expensive, alike hospitals. And sometimes, you don’t want any solution because, either it would take years, or, you basically can’t afford it. It is like seeking a treatment. If you can afford, you would approach any Private Hospital. If you can’t, you won’t, and accept FATE, which could’ve been altered!

Now my proposal is, and you may call it maybe influenced from Arbitration, or otherwise! But first take this elementary example. If you find your IP online used by someone else, and if you can afford to approach any Attorney, or, a Law Firm to take any further action, viz. perpetual or interim injunction or ex-parte order or a decree against the infringer; you would! But if you can’t, you would just share with your friends or foes this grievance, and, move on. Correct?

So, My Proposal:

Should There Be Any Limitation Timeline For Copyright Infringement?

 

Let’s separate trademarks, designs, G.I., Patents, and Domain Name Disputes for a moment first, when it come to the infringement proceedings, from the Copyrights (especially in case of sound recordings, musical notes, and cinematography). For the reason that, what is neither compulsory for any industrial applicability, nor for any USER to be proven, nor for any annual or once a decade RENEWAL, nor been asked to submit for the User before Sixth year, nor been whose proprietorship Expires either within 20/10+5/10(recurrence) years, nor if the renewal fees is not PAID. As per my opinion, limitation acts shouldn’t then be applicable for the Copyrights (especially in case of sound recordings, musical notes, and cinematography).

Mulheres VS Million Years Ago Plagiarism Saga, BERNE’s Resurrection, IP, Timeline Dilemmas! (Edited)

 

I saw the side-by-side comparison of the song Mulheres VS Million Years Ago. It seems, the latter is replica of the former. Watch the comparison by yourself, the musical notes and the rhythm:  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjszPUsjWbA&embeds_referring_euri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.reuters.com%2F

The important question: acquiescence, laches, delay, condonation, waiver!

Opinion: IP, Outer Space, AND Why WIPO’s Madrid/PCT Can Ne’er Work W.R.T. This!?

 

There are contradictory terms w.r.t. Outer Space Treaty, TRIPS, and the jurisdiction involving where IP Rights can be covered; within or beyond Karman Line!

Albeit examples are present, like T. 35 U.S.C. S. 105 mentions that, any invention made used sold in outer space object under jurisdiction and control of US shall be considered to be made within the US, along with some caveat of International Agreements. Whilst in other cases, it is either, on whose registry an object is launched, retains jurisdiction, control, rights; unless, subject to international agreements (Article VIII)!

Dilemma: What About INNER Space Treaty On Intelligent Species Another W.R.T. IP Rights?

 

What if Man’s entry into Discovering of Space vide signing Outer Space Treaties + Different Agreements whether on Moon, No Nuke Tests in Outer Space/Under Water, Space Communication, Space Objects Registration etc.; could also leads to the Man’s entry into Inventing of the Species Another herein, right in this World only? And then, under what Rights it would be covered? Trade Secrets OR Patents?  

The purpose of Space exploration is mainly for two purposes. To discover Resources, or, to find Aliens! I’m skeptical that, in both the cases, once Rare/Super materials, or, Intelligent Species, or their technologies are discovered; such Treaties would even been followed!

Copyrighting VIBES?

 

This blog is restricted to Words -> ‘Copyrighting VIBES.’ No more! No less!

What exactly is a VIBE?

In Personal context, an Emotional State! An experience of something being exuded by any other Person. In the Material context, maybe Surroundings, let’s say specifically, a decorated room, that gives a feel! But what if in both the cases, should they be live, or, could also be experienced vide Picture, communicated Digitally? Or the Word VIBES, itself is wrongly used, and should be replaced with Themes? And if yes, can common banal themes, further, when you’re not even the creator or originator of individual items (let’s say the Dress or Shoes you’re wearing in any Picture, or, a Sofa of beige colour in the Picture), be considered as a Copyright material? NOT likely!

Transshipment, In-Transit, Customs, IPR, Dilemmas!

 

Take this example.

Suppose, Subject A sends goods (let’s presume generic pharma products) to Subject C. But Subject A can transport its goods VIA Subject B (transshipment/in-transit/en-route) only. But Subject B confiscate the goods sent buy Subject A on the complaint filed by the local companies under the jurisdiction of Subject B, on the grounds that, the goods In-Transit contains infringed products. Subject A contends, that the goods were lawfully produced in their vicinity under their local laws and no off-patent/trademarked products exists at the location of Subject A, and also, where the goods are being sent to i.e. at the destination of Subject C. Subject C confirms the same. But Subject B contends that as the same products being IP protected under the vicinity of Subject B, the goods in-transit can be confiscated.

Who is correct? Subject A, or, Subject B, or, Subject C, or, both Subject B and Subject C, or, alone Subject B?

The Trademark Infringement Case B/W Indigo AND Mahindra

 

As if my proposed (hypothetical) case scenario came true!

If you read one of my earlier blog (Link: https://www.jpranavc.in/2024/11/maybe-theres-no-necessity-for-concept.html), wherein, I drew a comparison what if a day comes when X7 from BMW X7 being taken away by anyone, and as trademarks shall be considered as whole under Section 17, wherein the Classes of goods should also differ, and even if same, then Nandini VS Nandhini would be invoked, as all goods and services in one class can’t be claimed; unless already acquired Well-Known status; thus, such infringement won’t create an issue!

Why Patent of Addition Is ‘Un’required!

 

Take this example.

On a more elaborative context, aren’t improvements or modifications made on the main invention itself eligible for new invention? We aren’t taking an analogy per se of associated nor of the setories marks, but, the term being same as of the main invention, and, been filed at the time or after the main invention filed.

I coined the definition of Patents long back as -> Discovery++; that means, one step ahead of discovering anything; as there is no such thing called absolute invention. Had that been the case, then the Pharmaceutical Companies, wouldn’t have got so many Patents in their names (an example of that is vide Markush Claim).

The Customs, The IP, The Dilemmas!

 

Can infringement action w.r.t. entire IP be taken at Customs office only? Answer is both Yes & No!

In case of Copyrights, S. 53 is restricted to the Importation of infringing copies of goods.             

In case of Trademarks, S. 29(6)(c) cites infringement, when import/export are involved.

Patents, as in the amendments of the IPR Enforcement Rules 2007/18: the Patent Act, and Patent as defined in Patent, were omitted in 2018 notification; Yet, mentioned in Section 11(2)(n) of the Customs Act (as per my knowledge and belief).

Can DATA Be Processed Ethically?

 

Who decides what is the price of the DATA itself? Emily Dickenson poetries didn’t sell in her lifetime, and there are several other Authors & Painters who became famous posthumously, including Vincent Van Gogh, whose works were understood only by the later generations to come; so, by harvesting the DATA available in the public free of cost, without the users permission or remuneration, aren’t AI companies suppressing both moral, authorship, and monetary rights of the owners?

Seems The Words ‘Public Domain’ AND ‘Public’ Confused Everyone W.R.T. Copyrights!

 

First understand the meaning of Publication:

What is publication? By making the work available to the public via issuing of copies, communicating to the public, could be physical distribution / lending, in electronic form, transmission, broadcasting, or vide any other medium. If you publish without license, then this is NOT considered as publication. For Copyrights, either the Work would be Published, or, Unpublished. If Published, you need to mention its first date of publication and the territory where it was first published, and the name of the Publisher, who could the Author himself/herself (self-publisher). And if the work is unpublished, then no date of first publication is needed.

The work when published, may not be available in public as such, albeit, in which case you see for translation/publishing rights/compulsory licenses etc. are acquired by the prospective publisher from the owner/author itself, or, vide making petition to the Registrar of copyrights. Is it Copyright free? Nope! Until the term of the copyright is expired, or the author/owner has renounced its rights, or, certain government works, or, dedicated works. Albeit the legal term of copyright takes decades to expire!

Make Ghostwriting ILLEGAL Across World!

In one of my previous blogs, I proposed that the Certificate of Inventorship is NOT enough! Not only that certificate should include the details of the contribution made by every Inventor, but the same procedure be applied for whilst filling the Declaration of Inventorship. Of course, and it is absolutely acceptable and correct when the Inventors are bound by Employer-Employee agreements, Contracts, which rightfully prohibits them to claim for the same invention. BUT, in the invention, one should know exactly what the contribution of each cited individual is. No more. No less!

The same analogy I’m using with respect for Ghostwriting; albeit now, expanding its scope, making even any contract made with the Ghostwriter, void or void-ab-initio. Or make a provision that the Author of the Book who took the help of any Ghostwriter, must mention in the Book, as who exactly has written the Book.

Data Collection + Data Reproduction == Copyright Infringement!

 

This is utterly amusing that, some of the AI companies, are now issuing such bizarre statements, that the Data which is available in the Public domain, is presumed to be open for everyone, and in one case, even one of the billionaire founder made a statement that when, if in any case your Data is not making money in the public domain, so it is better to be used by the AI companies for their training module, rather, the owner being objecting to it! And such bizarre statements have been echoed by many in the mainstream too. I won’t publish the specific names.

Maybe There’s No Necessity For The Concept Of Trademark As A WHOLE!

 

Take this hypothetical example first. Let us consider BMW X7 as a DEVICE Mark. Now as BMW is well-known, no one would imitate it. But presume, someone starts using X7 for their products or services falling either in same or different classes. Could that be considered as an infringement/passing off? Let us say, the individual using X7 for its products or services now files for another DEVICE mark, say, X7 XYZ, and it’s been granted with a DISCLAIMER that mark to be used on ‘AS IS’ basis, considered as Whole, and no rights be given to any descriptive feature.

The Case Involving Ukraine’s Trademark On Russia

 

In one of my previous blog, before even the Hon’ble S.C. of U.S. judgement, I wrote that the Applicant who filed for Trademark viz. ‘Trump Too Small’, WON’T win, and that too, a year back! This was ratified months later. Here’s the link given below: https://www.jpranavc.in/2023/11/the-trade-mark-case-involving-trump-too.html

Now, the EU Court has correctly denounced Ukraine the Trademark: ‘Russian Warship, Go F**k Yourself’, which became famous after the soldier’s encounter with the Russian Navy’s demand of surrender of Snake Island in Black Sea.

Can NATURE Be Granted Personhood?

 

In 2017, Whanganui River was granted the personhood in New Zealand. That means, a River with a legal person status.

If you remember Naruto Monkey’s case involving a Selfie, when PETA wanted animals to become Copyright holders too, i.e., bestowing them legal entity status under the IP Act. Albeit, the courts disagreed, as a monkey cannot claim for copyright violation in parallel to a legal entity. Whilst contrary to this, in India, hon’ble courts have equated animals in parallel to legal entities/persons. But does that mean they can become co-Applicant for the Copyright Application too? That’s the grey area.

AI VS Judiciary VS Reasoning

 

If the Judiciary can use the AI for its services, be it at the intermediary stage maybe, then how come Courts can question about the AI’s ‘Reasoning’ part itself, when defining the definition of the Natural Person? Even under the Law, once a person stops applying the reasoning, then in the decision-making process, for example, Contract signing, WILLs, Assignments, Decrees etc., the person’s signatory execution doesn’t count. Correct? Issue is, in many courts around World, AI is even used to pass the Decrees in the matters where even small causes matters are involved, and not mere ticketing. And let’s say, even where the basic ticketing is involved, then too, before the AI systems, humans were doing it; and then they were being replaced by the AI, that provide the same, logic and reason, that any human used to provide! In any case, the AI systems are more robust, as no level of corruption is involved. Means, on the ethical point of view, the AI system is better at the administrative level too, compared to what it used to be. Correct? Now the major question ensues:

What Is Useful, May Not Be……

 

This is true that what is useful, may not necessarily be an invention. Rather, most of the invented products are not even useful. A company would show their portfolio of Intellectual Property, in which, they’ve piled up patented products, trademarks that are meant to be Proposed to be Used only. Yet, most of that stock never end up in the Market, nor become innovation.

When IPRP == IPER, OR, Should It Be?

 

The lucid the law, lucid its implementation. And minimal the terms, the better the understandings. In the end, if the Demand is not filed, then ISA/WO becomes IPRP published before the regional entry. And if the Demand is filed, then the IPRP becomes IPER == IPRP –> II, aka Chapter II, issued by the IPEA. Thus, would it be wrong to call IPER as mere IPRP (interchangeably) without using the term Chapter – II or I, and by mere adding/subtracting the term, IPRP with Demand? Thus, when the Demand is filed, it’s also IPRP, and when the Demand is not filed, then too it’s IPRP. Rather using the terms IPEA -> IPER -> IPRP-Chapter -  II; or ISA/WO -> IPRP - Chapter-I; would it be improper to use IPRP without Demand, or IPRP with Demand. In any case, the ISR/WO probably converts to IPRP without demand, or, IPER by IPEA is converted to IPRP-CH-II with Demand.

This Is Amusing……

This is amusing! I read this article (Philosopher finds glitch in worldwide patent laws). But, if you go through my blogs on my blog portal, then not only I’ve found flaws in the Worldwide Patent Laws, but also in the Madrid Procedures, BERNE Convention, w.r.t. Examination Reports issued under the ISA (IPRP, SISA, ISR, or Local FERs), and how they’re in contradiction with the examination reports issued in the Trademark Applications at local laws; and on what grounds the Natural Person / Co-Inventor should include AI and Robots, with respect to Reason and Logic, and many others, and wherein why the AI Systems generating sub-AI Systems should be included under the list of Providers/Deployers/Operators too; First.

Just because I don’t send my writings in any of the formal journals, newspapers; nor I’m a part of academia, corporate or media; and restrict this data further to my own blogs only and furthermore include it in my IP books that I publish separately:

NOBEL VS AI

In my previous blogs, I discussed the cusp where AI can, or, ought to have been considered as an Inventor, if not an Applicant, or atleast a Joint Applicant or one of the inventor signing the declaration of inventorship.

Further, I discussed and tried to distinguish w.r.t. computer generated literary works, that in those circumstances, the author ought to have been included under the copyright act universally, restricted to literary and dramatic works only, and NOT the artistic works. I gave the reason, example and analogy of Computer vs. Typewriter whilst including under definition of Section 2(d)(vi) of the copyrights act; the definition which is globally accepted and is as per the BERNE CONVENTION too.

The Specifications and ITS Many Dilemmas

 

In one my previous blogs I discussed that, even in u/s 10(4)(c) and 10(5) or u/r 13 of Patents, it’s not precisely mentioned how the structure of the Claims should be defined, except the non-mandatory guidelines of WIPO that’s been followed. And if further you read Article 6 of the PCT, it defines that Claims should be precise and concise. But in Rule 6.3 (c) of the Regulations, what exactly it mentions? It states that:

‘where the national law of the designated State does not require the manner of claiming provided for in paragraph (b), failure to use that manner of claiming shall have no effect in that State provided the manner of claiming actually used satisfies the national law of that State.’

The Dilemma of S. 2(d)(vi) in the Copyright

 

What it says; says every section and article around World that defines an Author, when it comes to the computer generated related work:

‘…..in relation to any literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work which is computer-generated, the person who causes the work to be created…..’

Now, I’m not invoking the Natural person concept in the current scenario. But if you closely look around the definition, it mentions that a computer-generated work, wherein the person who generates that work becomes the author, and not the person who has made that program. But herein the dilemma ensues.

Notice the difference herein, as this section ought to have been only applicable for the ‘literary and dramatic’ works; and NEVER for the ‘artistic’ works. How? Take these examples.

AI vs Provider vs TMs, And Dilemmas About Identities!

 

In the EU AI Act of 2024, in the definition of the Provider, it includes two specific terms: first is ‘…..legal person…..’ and another is ‘……puts the AI system into service under its own NAME or TRADEMARK….’. I would be restricting to the Trademark definition that further involves ‘legal person’ and as in my book also, I discussed the famous case of DABUS when deriving an analogy between AI as a Natural Person and the Machine itself.

Now, we are all familiar with the AI machines run by several companies, have their own names. Whether there’s DABUS, GEMINI, CoPilot, Optimus the Tesla Bot, OpenAI, and the list goes on and on.

The Dilemma OF Floating Domain Names After Non-Renewal

 

In my previous blog, I opined that the trademarks shouldn’t be removed or rectified in the register, if in case of non-use; unless of course, in case in the event of non-renewal. Further, I rather suggested a proposition that the trademarks shall be suspended if in case of non-user, rather being opened for the public at large to assert the rights on it (except in case of honest concurrent user); because, if there’s no need of compulsory license required in the case of trademarks, in the case of designs, or in the case of domain names; then the provision of compulsory USER doesn’t make any sense in case of trademarks, designs and domain names; whereas, if anyone remembers, domain names once used to be FREE; yet, it is understandable, that costs needs to be covered; yet, my proposition as defined below and in my previous blog, could be applicable.

The Working Of Patents VS Trademarks VS Copyrights; AND The Dilemmas, As Usual!

 

My blogs explore Dilemmas in IP & Domain Name Disputes; and any Opposition is always welcomed!

Under S. 146 (2) and R. 131 (1), one needs to file the Statement of Working of a Patent, once every Three Financial Years, albeit earlier it used to be annually. Which is of course justifiable, as in case in the event of non-working of Patents, and as the Inventions are genuinely considered and made for the benefit of the society, then either the patented invention can be revoked due to its non-working, or, the process of Compulsory License can be initiated u/s 84.