The Dilemma When Trademark Is Registered As Copyright, But, The Timelines Intersect?

So, when your artistic work is capable of being registered as design, then it cannot be registered as copyright, in case certain design protocols on it have already been applied! And when the artistic work is to be registered as copyright, the work which is also registered or is capable of being registered or used as a trademark, then you would require NOC from the trademark. Herein the dilemma originates, on which I had also written couple of blogs long back. Also, a trademark cannot be registered if it is protected by copyright.

The Dilemma Of TRIAL, And, The Paradoxical Situation Of Silent Version Res-Judicata!

 

Not My Expertise, of Course, YET, a proposal, as I sense a Paradoxical situation herein; and do correct me if I’m wrong! Because long back also, I made a proposal & introduced a Theory, as how the Legal System can be upgraded for quick redressals and decisions, without putting burden on anyone. That Link of my Blog is given in the end.

Tricky Question -> Should Processed Food Companies Be Using Labels Of GI (Geographical Indications) Related Goods & Products?

 

This one would be interesting to contemplate. Let’s say you’re a beverage manufacturing company. Now issue is you’re allowed to use the Washington Apples or Alphonso Mangoes; BUT, the problem comes that, even as a primary ingredient, the composition of those mangoes or apples are sold in diluted form; diluting the significance of GI only. Why?

Should You Be Using Your NAME, OR, SURNAME While Introducing A New Brand In Today’s ERA? My Suggestion -> Please Don’t!

The Promoters/Founders would always want their names to be remembered with the Companies / Brands they founded. Indeed! But that was possible back then in the Conservative Era, wherein only the names mattered! From a boutique Tailor, to Bakery, to a Mechanic etc. all ran on the Goodwill & Reputation Capital of any Surname or Name back then. But today, that runs on the Reputation Capital created by the Name of any Company or Brand!

NOW:

This is true that not all Brands excel! But once they pass a certain litmus test, then their names play an important role for Future M&As; especially in the case, wherein the Company’s Promoters/Founders at some point, have entangled themselves with some serious legal troubles!

Just An Opinion -> If In Late 90s OR Early/Mid 00, You Had Harvested / Scrapped / Mined DATA On The NET, The Way Today’s Few AI OR Web Search Companies Did; Then Honestly, Even A Search Notice Might’ve Been Issued Against You By The Likes Of Interpol, For Doing Such Acts!

 

Every second person is into AI today, diluting the whole context and concept, why and for what, AI was initially invented at the first place! BTW, how many are in Quantum Computing? Or deriving more powerful Chips? Hardly few! Because it’s difficult, and as in it, Free scrapping of DATA isn’t involved!

What was once done at the Retail Store inside, or, at the entrance of any MALL back then; now been executed on/by the APPs or Web Portals! But at least in the Former case, it was restricted to purchase experience(s) only!

Taking few leaves or flowers from a tree, plucking some fruits from it, once in a while, is of course acceptable and allowed! BUT, harvesting the entire tree, its fruits, flowers, and that too -> UNTIL Next Season, is altogether a different story! There was this quote in the mid-00, that DATA would be the New Gold one day! Now, how many governments / organizations would allow -> Open Gold, or, Museum Heists (IF DATA == GOLD)? None! So why in case of DATA alone?

The Isaac Asimov’s “Three Laws Of Robotics”, And The Reasons Why They Eventually Can Be Broken By The Robots, Legally!

 

Asimov’s Three Laws Of Robotics!

1.     A robot may not injure a human being, or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

2.     A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

3.     A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

But, the first law itself can be divided further into two separate laws:

1.     A robot may not injure a human being; OR,

2.     Through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. 

Paradox! And if read with the Second and Third Law, then they give sweeping Powers to the Robots! How?

Now, before moving forward, please understand that why I’ve included the DABUS case herein below, as eventually, a personhood would be legally granted to the Robots, once they are Commissioned in the PUBLIC Services, for taking actions / inactions on behalf of the Governments or Private Sectors. Just alike a Company!  

NOW:

Thanks To The Hon’ble Munich Court For Upholding The Fact That AI Companies Training Their Modules SANS Permission Is An Act Of Infringement!

 

The AI companies’ submissions that only USER is responsible for the infringement, as the USER entered a specific PROMPT, can be held a VALID argument, ONLY in case when the USER starts using that generated TEXT or IMAGES for Commercial purposes, and Not for personal or R&D activities or related to similar things which genuinely constitutes fair use or fair dealings. Of course, it is also possible that the USER deliberately enters such PROMPTs that any company’s watermark or logo is printed in the OUTPUT text or images. In such cases only, I solicited that the AI companies should disclose at least under confidentiality, what DATA and DATASET it used to train their AI modules, at least to the Hon’ble courts.

I Honestly Humbly Silently Remotely Passively & In Remorse -> Slightly Disagree With Observations Made In GETTY IMAGES VS STABILITY AI Case!

 

Take this example & please do correct me if I‘m (mis)interpreting anything wrongly. And before that, please know that I Support OPEN Source, But NOT the Quote -> Open For Thee Not For Me!

Let’s say there’s Subject ABC who steals Raw Materials from WALMART and later builds a new product from it! WALMART files a Complaint about the robbery. Now, Subject ABC contends that, it didn’t STORE any of the Raw materials herein at his place, as it was all bought from beyond the borders; and rather, only used the mediums to Create a New One; thus, the charge of robbery cannot be maintained. Let us say, some part of those raw materials are also perceivable in the newly created End Work, YET, now those have been transcribed into a new product considering it as a whole product, and further, rather not been Stored, and thus the case of stealing/robbery never arise. How far you would support this argument given by Subject ABC, because firstly, there’s no storage of the raw materials, and as the materials which were brought from beyond the border have been converted from one form or another! In any Museum Heist, would you first check where it was stored or taken from, or, just cease those stolen goods?   

The Dilemma Of Ex-Parte Orders?

 

So far, I’ve given extensive in-depth knowledge on IP, International IP Prosecutions, all at one place on my blogs, so much so that whether you’re a Startup, or, maybe an Experienced Professional looking forward to discover some Extensive Dilemmas in the IPs & International Prosecutions; then Nowhere Else in the World you will discover this kind of exposure, EXCEPT, Right Here on My Blogs, but, only if you have desire to read and not to watch. Now moving forward, the most important aspect in the IP is/are the -> Ex-Parte Order(s) (especially Ad-Interim / Perpetual) that the Plaintiffs get, and that too in just one hearing, without even notifying the Other Side who is Easily Reachable. How far this practice can be justified or not, such Dilemmas, I would be sharing in this Present Blog herein underneath.

How Article 33 Should Be Read! My Dilemma!

 

How Article 33(1) be read with Article 33(2) & (3), I’ll elucidate in the herein underneath paragraphs, as it has been wrongly read Globally.  

If any claim passes the litmus test of Article 33(1) sans hiccups, then it ought to have passed the litmus test of Article 33(2) & (3). But I’ve no idea why Article 33 (1) and its subsections (2), (3) are being intertwined WRONGLY! As the third part mentions about the obviousness to check inventive step; the second part mentions about the prior arts; and the first deals with the novelty + industrially applicability + inventive step; which according to me is a paradoxical contention. I’ll explain how!

Can The Laundering Of Domain Names Under The Ambit Of Ownership Ever Overrides The Rights Conferred To Act Against Cybersquatting?

 

The dilemma of the Domain Name Registrars is, they are contending for the Domain Name Ownership Rights, by bypassing the Rights conferred both by the WIPO and TRIPS regarding TMs to act against Cybersquatting/Typosquatting.

Let’s say in the 00s, I started hoarding the domain names, anticipating that a day, I would be able to sell it under the analogy of Future Options. These are not Specific Conceived Original domain names, but, are mere Dictionary words. Imagine, I bought in the 90s or 00, almost close to nothing these domain names. And then, eventually, when I saw, that the domain name empire thrived, I quoted the capriciously price to transfer, or, to sell them. But here is the conundrum-> That so far, I haven’t used these domain names, nor created any brand’s goodwill associated to any of these domain names. They just parked, lying unused, and I’ve collected these as Stamps.

Personality Rights, But Why Only For the Known, & Not For All?

 

Take this example, and we must take some inspiration from this law. Denmark has recently given Personality Rights to all of its Citizens in the age of Deepfakes! This is a welcome step wherein in few of my previous blogs, I called many top AI Companies in the World as alike somalian pirates! As the former looted on the Internet, whereas, the latter loot in the sea? The difference is: the former made/made Trillions of Dollars, whereas, the latter make far less!

An Act Of Treating Domain Names By Any Investor As Futures, Ought To Have Been Considered As An Act Of Hoarding!

 

My one question to Both ICANN & WIPO! What is the point of Typosquatting OR Cybersquatting, when the hoarding of the domain names, which are no more than being parked alone unused, even for a decade, yet, registrant holding the rights to own the same? Of-course, I was the only person who in my previous blog proposed a theory that, let the trademarks be also considered from the lens of copyrights. BUT, as long as that’s not the case, the act of hoarding of the domain names should be considered, if not illegal, but atleast, hoarding, and shouldn’t be allowed!

The Reason Why Discovery Is The Foundation Of An Invention!

 

There’s this myth of inventions being novel! Inventions wouldn’t happen unless discovered first. Examples: All the medicines today were first discovered in the Plants, Tress, Roots, and then, their steroidal compounds were extracted in the Labs, synthesized, and marketed via innovations! There’s nothing in the World called a Novel Invention. That’s why more than decade back, I coined the definition of Invention as -> Discovery++, i.e., one step ahead of Discovery. So first something is discovered, and then, derived and invented!

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?