The Significance Of Geographical Indications VS Synthesized Goods!

 

Let’s say Climate Change, El-Nino, Factory Manufacturing etc. ends up eventually replicating products grown at Geographical Origination! For example, till a few decades back, sans pesticides, all your consumable products were implicitly organic! It was like, if it rained properly and right weather provided the support, then all the products grew in their original scent! If they didn’t, then in that year, no stocks!

But slowly, we became used to the consumable products full of pesticides, germicides, and, lab grown products, and it became the part of life! Now, the saffron can be grown anywhere, which is as good and healthy as grown at their landmark geographical places! So goes with myriad other products! This will become so common, that eventually, the organic will be the ones grown with the help of pesticides, which is happening even today. Thus, what is grown in labs will be as good as sold as grown in the fields of barley! The bigger question then comes: what would be the significance of the G.I. then? Would it become rare expensive products only for few? For instance, decades back, hand made goods were so Tuesday! Now, hand-made products are being sold as an expensive piece of like artifacts! Embroidery was common in every house once upon a time! Now, the clothes are being sold, the price which the workers even would’ve not realized that it would become uncommon! Because, eventually, even the G.I. products would be synthesized everywhere! Then how valuable would be the original GI products?

Thus, the real goldmine would be the location, where the authorized users and the registered proprietors are producing the GI related product or goods, wherein the climate furthermore allows them to produce the same! Those land prices would go up exponentially! Unlike the Stocks Markets which is mere a Gambling, would this become the Secret Art of Production & Manufacturing? Indeed! :)

© Pranav Chaturvedi

The Making Of MARKUSH!

 

Imagine, you win a particular case, and the entire structural proceedings is named after you. This happened almost a century back when Eugene Markush won US Application No. 611637, the case in which his claims of the alternate groups placed in the same core structural compound was accepted as Patent! Thus, what happens in a Markush Formula is, you’ve different subsequent, functional groups, or parts of it, chained or not, with variation in their placings, positions, or, frequencies. Yet, more than a decade back, I questioned the concept of Markush Patents! If I can recall, I had sent my article, and then I didn’t follow up with that too! Because this set of Claims come directly in conflict with the provisions of Refusal, for instance, under the ambit of Section 3(e) or 3(f), related to admixture or arrangement – rearrangement. Because, and correct me if I am wrong, Markush is nothing but arrangement – rearrangement of the different groups subsequently in the same compound formula as shown below! Correct? So how it is NOT different from mere mixture-admixture or mere arrangement – rearrangement?

The legal eagles’ say that COCA – COLA didn’t come for the Patent Prosecution because they know that the after the Expiry of 20 Years, their Formula would be opened to the Public, and that’s why they Kept it as a Trade-Secret! But my theory is they didn’t come forward because they knew that it was mere admixture – arrangement – re-arrangement, wherein later they cannot claim the Complexity on the likes of Markush principles, thus, ne’er came Forward. This is all Marketing Strategies to make the Trade-Secret look big, and honestly, who knows what has been mixed – admixed, Yet, this is my theory since the beginning. Ne’er Mind!

Coming back to the Markush again! Thus, you’ve this one Markus CORE! And then you’ve different Variations, Positions, Frequencies, and, Variables attached to it which sends my dilemma to a parallel universe.

Of course, more than me, A Chemistry Scholar would be able to explain you far better and in far better terms, conditions, and, examples, than what I’ve done hereinabove. YET, if we are taking the legal context of the same, then, am I missing any Point? Do let me know so that I can UPGRADE myself and correct this blog! :)

© Pranav Chaturvedi

Would It Be WIPO, OR, Fragmented International IP Prosecutions, And ITS Dilemmas!

 

I wrote earlier long back in one of my blogs about what would happen to WIPO if and when Nations start implementing their own Sectarian WIPOs! Be it Vide -> BRICS or QUAD or The AMERICAS’ (North & South) OR WESTERN Alliance OR E.U. OR SCO OR SAARC etc. That means, we will witness somehow different versions of WIPOs! That won’t restrict therein, because everyone would want their own prosecution timelines to be implemented!  But then, that should be started with the TRIPS, going back to the basics of Paris Convention, BERNE! And what if this doesn’t happen and we return back to the CONVENTION based Prosecutions only? Too tedious! But in that case, it will go back to the basics of overhauling ICANN, then layer by layer would come for WIPO and so on!

Why Not Merge Trademarks & Designs With A Caveat?

 

Now, the Trademarks have evolved from Word to Device, to, 3D + Sound + Color + Shape + Façade! The two requirements for the Trademarks are, the absence of functionality, class restricted, and, the ability to be industrially or otherwise been used. Isn’t this also similar in the case of the Design as well? The functionality is missing in Design, whereas being restricted to a particular Class as well! But yes, the Caveat that I’m speaking about  would be that, for the Design, it would be its ability to be filed as PROPOSED! As the provision of Proposed is available in the Trademarks as well, and in any case, if the Design has already been subjected to the industrial application or been disclosed prior to its registration, then its qualification to be filed as Design becomes void & can be Cancelled! Thus, when we have the 3D Shapes, the Façade, the Color Scheme already included in the Trademarks, then why not Merge the Design Act into the Trademarks as well?

Jason Arday’s Case, &, Why It Was / Is Needless To Give Up 'Life' W.R.T. Plagiarism!

 

Remember -> Capital Punishment is Not Subscribed for an Act of Plagiarism! And INDEED, one Must be Self-Aware, and Try to Create Anything Original, Fresh; and if in case found in a Complicit Situation, then, MUST Introspect, Re-Create, or, Leave to Start Afresh! BUT, Self-Harming with Capital Punishment is of course -> UNNEEDED, as what happened in the case of Jason Arday! Honestly, then what about AI Companies w.r.t. BERNE?

This Argument Lies In Grey Area! I Once Used It, & Albeit It Was Rejected For All The Correct Reasons, But Worth Discerning Upon As Why There’s A Problem With Some Of The WIPO Prosecution Timelines in “PCT” & Why I Admire “MADRID & HAGUE” Prosecutions ‘Structure’ More, In The Comparative Analysis!

 

Take This Scenario!

The time limit mentioned in the PCT/RO/132 of approx. 5 DAYS can indeed be extended, for the reason under Article 14(1)(b) wherein if the receiving office finds any defects, it shall invite the Applicant to correct them under Rule 26(1) of PCT Regulation, and, the Time Limit to Correct the Defects under Rule 26(1) of the Regulation shall be TWO MONTHS under Rule 26(2) of the Regulation from the date of invitation to correct, which further mentions that -> it may be extended by the receiving Office at any time before a decision is taken. Now, this will circumvent the necessity of the cooling period of six weeks wait time before going in the convention country, either directly or vide the PCT, wherein the time limit to process the said request is usually approx. 21 Days, for by passing the six weeks colling period, or, maybe for directly going into the convention country, as per the instructions given to the Applicant in PCT/RO/132 and PCT/RO/105.

The Conundrum of Chapter – I & Chapter – II! And Their Non-Biding Status Dilemma!

 

What Chapter – I’s ISA IPRP provides? An optional opportunity to amend merely the -> Claims! No more No less! And what Chapter – II’s IPER provides! An optioinal opportunity to amend Claims, Description, and, Drawings! Again, Non-Binding on the regional, elected, or designated offices, as well as Optional, the latter being more effectual than mandatory! And what does Supplementary Search provides? Another optional Non-Binding additional Report! Correct? Following the same mutatis-mutandis!

Hey GOOGLE -> You’re Wrong In Your Research Article -> Approach For AI. See Its Excerpt; And If I’m Wrong In My Approach In My Blog!

 

When I enter any gallery or a museum, then my bags are checked. At some places, I’ve to buy tickets. In some major art galleries or museums, I’m not allowed to take pictures, and in case I’m allowed, then I’m not authorized to sell, unless it’s the Public Data (provided by respective Governments) which is absolutely DIFFERENT from the Private Data. A User is Not bound to Opt-Out, Neither is liable to Fill any Form to Opt-Out from the Scrapers; to inform explicitly to not to use their DATA on the Internet. Copyrights are implicit rights, come into existence once formalized into writings, drawings etc.!  

If in case I’m starting a new Company, would I be allowed to enter the GOOGLE Premises in the Bay Area U.S., WITHOUT Prior Authorization from YOU? WITHOUT Prior Approval from your Security? Can I then say that by Not allowing me to take INSPIRATION from Your premises, You’re stifling the innovation, by Not letting ME to see how You WORK? As far as I know, this INSPIRATION problem you had with China (Huawei / SMIC), Japan (Sony), South Korea (Samsung), and, Taiwan (TSMC), back in the 80s-90s, when it came down to the Silicon Chip Manufacturing Units! Correct?

Thus, your this approach is WRONG!

Am I missing something?😊

© Pranav Chaturvedi