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.

The Dilemmas of UDRP

 

Just an Opinion!

Now, if one looks at Paragraph 4(k) of the UDRP Policy, then the scenario of non-implementation / approaching independent resolution w.r.t to the decision of the Panelist(s) (one or three) is as mentioned:

My contention is (could be opposed too) that the remedy available for the cctld (let's say at any national dispute redressal level for eg. INDRP), would be more robust if being compared to what remedy is available for the gtld domain name disputes at UDRP Provider(s). The reasons I would surmise:

The Period Between Priority and Publication!

 

A dilemma I discussed about the infringement invoking retrospective rights between the period of publication and date of grant. But the question ensues, what about the period between priority and date of publication, which has not been discussed by many, even explicitly not been mentioned in the act itself, as per my knowledge and belief, and if I’m not wrong!

The Infringement Provision In Patent

 

One is familiar with the infringement proceedings with respect to the trademark, as in that case, the mark needs to be registered first, in case the proprietor wants to act w.r.t. infringement. The mark should be valid & subsisting. And if in case registration pending/not registered, then the option is of passing off. Thus, even if the mark is not registered, one has the legal remedy to initiate the passing off action. But what happens in case of Patents (from an Indian perspective), between the timeline when the patent is -> filed and before the grant (not yet granted)?

Atleast AI Shouldn’t Evolve VIA Random Harvested DATA!

 

Just alike PR + Recommendations == Trash! So as AI built on the foundation of random DATA, would eventually be an AI Trash!

Further, it seems, the companies are now updating in their agreements, terms & conditions too w.r.t. Artificial Intelligence Content for a better transparent system, which is a welcome step! Under Your (User) Content, they’re mentioning that the IP rights belongs to the USER only (if they truly hold); and further, under their artificial intelligence services, they’re including that the USER of their AI services, would not use the services for WEB Scraping, WEB Harvesting, WEB DATA Extraction, Weighing the Models, To Create/Train/Improve other AI Models; which is again a welcome step (and that I’ve also mentioned in my previous blogs), and as per the BERNE Convention & TRIPS Agreement, which would stop its wrongful Commercial Usage and also building of Clutter in the AI industry as well, which would help in building a better AI!

Opinion: E-Contracts && IP

 

The essential component of any contract is Consideration in return; unless and until it is restricted to charity, gifts, family affections etc. Now, unless any organization is registered as a non-profit, or, there’s a family affection involved; generally, there must be some kind of consideration involved; until further that isn’t in contravention to any laws of the land, for eg., in case of minors being the signatory, or, unlawful purposes, etc.

Now, if we converge both the E-Contracts && IPR; then there’s a relation that can be included, which I presume so far not being taken into account. We’ve mostly three types of E-Contracts: Shrink-Wrap; Browse- Wrap and Click-Wrap. The concerns are w.r.t. Click-Wrap & Browse-Wrap.

A Need to Re-Implementation of BERNE Convention!

 

Whether it comes to imitating in the mainstream; or the DATA on the Internet which is being used against the provisions of every single reciprocal treaties or TRIPS agreement; which was ought to have been restricted for personal & private use, R&D, academic only; YET, that has been used to train from AIs for 'commercial usage' (against Article 10 & 10bis, 11 ter, 12 of BERNE Convention), to, someone’s ancient knowledge been projected as someone else’s, as the latter being the architect of the same; or, whether the natural habitat & the presence of  its steroidal compounds in lab being extracted (albeit that would come under the ambit of Patents again), and then being claimed as the originator & inventor of the same.

EU’s AI ACT

 

Important Aspects of EU's AI ACT

Opinion

•          ChatGPT alike Generative AI are albeit not being considered as High Risk, but would’ve to adhere with the Copyright Regulations. And as the Copyright Act is governed by the BERNE Convention and there’s no Formality required, unlike in the case of WIPO’s Madrid, PCT & Hague; then that means ChatGPT and its cousins, friends, enemies; have to adhere by the Copyright Laws. This would be troubling for them. As they would’ve to publish the Data used for Training of AI models. If someone remembers, NYT sued ChatGPT because of the same reason. And as I also pointed out in my book and blogs that how algorithms being used by manipulation of DATA to index the pages in search; then that might also come under the ambit of this regulation.

What Defines Originality?

 

Whilst filing for the copyright, of course, one would be asked whether the work is original or translation or adaptation as shown below.

But according to me, what is Copyrightable shouldn’t qualify to implicitly become Original, or be part of the term - > Originality.

International Filing System Has Few Flaws!

 

If we can have copyright reciprocal treaties, why can’t that be the case for patents, trademarks, domain disputes without WIPO being involved? It’s understandable that everything comes down to how the payment at the local prosecution would be made, and as of course, the countries who file for most of patent and trademark applications, or domain name disputes, would end up having control over the arguments and legal nitty-gritties being embedded into the global system. And why the present system not fully serves the point of being contending for uniqueness in the World, without having so much of obstructions, in terms of both prosecution and cost involved. And of course, I’m not soliciting pro-bono. But a system, where uniqueness can evolve without limiting its scope to take action against anyone who adapts, derives, copies, infringe, pass off without permission.

Is PCT Relevant?

 

Notice the difference between the examination/scrutiny/objections in case of trademarks VS that issued in patents. In the former case, from the examination report to the scrutiny; include territorial prior works. Whilst in case of patents, examination reports consist of global prior arts, yet, if in case patent is granted, then rights are territorial only, like in case of trademarks. Exclude Copyrights due to reciprocal treaties.

Certificate of Inventorship Needs An Upgrade

 

In one of my previous blogs https://www.jpranavc.in/2022/12/the-inventors-who-arent-inventors.html , I opined that why every inventor’s actual contribution in the invention must be included; precisely bifurcated, segregated; in the declaration of the inventorship itself, so much so that, once the application becomes public (pre-grant or post-grant), one would be able to know who contributed what in the invention.

When Trade-Secrets Are Tried To Be Superimposed Over Patents!

It should be considered a wrong precedence if in case trade-secrets are being superimposed, or, tried to be superimposed over patents! The ‘generalized’ structure of the claims shouldn’t become the part of the specification anywhere. The non-inclusion of the precise metrics in the claims, in anticipation of then being used the same invention as a trade secret, should be negated in the specification. As the invention itself is restricted to the scope defined by the best method performed, and not wherein in the generalized definition in anticipation of the same invention to be then being considered as the trade secret as well. And there’s a reason behind that.

The Apple Watch Dilemma

 

Remember, Waymo vs Uber involving Levandowski’s case, wherein it was alleged that Levandowski stole trade secrets to then being used by Uber via acquired firm Otto, that Levandowski started, with all its IP assets, ending up Levandowski’s sentencing, whereas Uber-Waymo signing non-disclosed settlement agreement!

Is Google Committing a Mistake?

Check the below tweet that I had sent couple of years back (when I was on Twitter) to google (gmail), microsoft (outlook), yahoo (yahoomail); indirectly asking them NOT to delete emails related data, unless & until been explicitly requested by the User itself.
 

 

NOW,

The Trade Mark Case involving ‘Trump Too Small’

 

In one of my previous blog, I discussed how and why using some well-known names or surnames which are already being traded in the market could cause infringement, despite the applicant itself sharing the same/similar name or surname. I cited some examples viz. Trump, Tata, Ford, Gucci & the list goes on. I further wrote another blog on Jack Daniels vs Bad Spaniels case wherein I tried to draw the line (personal views) between liberty vs infringement.

The DPDP Saga

 

Few Questions & Review:

1.   The wordings for the data scraping provisions missing.

2.   The Data Privacy breach penalties are upto 250 crores. Penalty on the Data Principal is 10k.

3.   S.17(1)(d) says: d) personal data of Data Principals not within the territory of India is processed pursuant to any contract entered into with any person outside the territory of India by any person based in India; the exemptions suited for IT/ITES.

The Limits of Fair Use / Fair Dealing

 

There’s a difference between non-infringement vs. becoming actual claimant of the work produced to be then considered as protected under copyright, whether derived/adapted (eg. a theatrical act derived from any book which would explicitly require permission), or, transformed (eg. critical analysis & research that changes characteristics of original work to a greater degree, even without permission under fair use / fair dealing). As non-infringement work isn’t always compounded to be considered as novel minus original; irrespective of the subsequent actions of the original copyright holder; and further, depending on the length & extent of the original work, derived or transformed; question is, can such end products be actually protected under copyright?

The Dilemma of Claims in Patents

 

There’s no (or shouldn’t be any) inflexible rule for drafting claims, for example -> all inventive features should come or characterized or comprised in Claim 1 only as independent or not, & the followed subsequent claims shalt be (in)dependent or derivatives of the first etc.

The Claims (use, method, process/product, composition) shalt define the scope of the invention (whether as independent or dependent) what’s cited in specification. No more, no less! Subject to, they shalt not be loosely connected. By merely discerning Claim 1, one shouldn’t deduce the inventive feature of the Invention, otherwise, what’s the point of drafting claims after such lengthy specifications? Verbose friendly system?  

Data Scraping

 

With the new updated Google’s Privacy Policy read as:

publicly accessible sources 

“For example, we may collect information that’s publicly available online or from other public sources to help train Google’s languageAI models and build products and features like Google Translate, Bard, and Cloud AI capabilities. Or, if your business’s information appears on a website, we may index and display it on Google services;”

Use vs Territorial vs Monopoly

 

If the examination of any patent includes global application citations, then technically, is there any point of considering patent territorial, & furthermore making the use of PCT, then seems more redundant, unlike Madrid in TM, as citations differ in both, wherein latter is more territorially defined.

If mere manufacturing for export is considered as use within any territory w.r.t. TM, then shouldn’t rights being implicitly enabled beyond territory (especially of branded) (UFO Contemporary Inc TM case), even in case of non-use?

Liberty VS Infringement

 

The recent Jack Daniel’s TM Infringement Case once again has raised the question of where the distinction between Liberty and Infringement be drawn.

The case involves infringement of Jack Daniel's TM by VIP Products that made a dog accessory (a chew toy) named as Bad Spaniels along with The Old No.2, on your Tennessee Carpet in it, that resembles the Label, Shape of Bottle, TM of Jack Daniel’s that include Jack Daniel’s along with Old No. 7, Tennessee Whiskey. It’s basically more of a Trade Dress & Shape of Bottle Infringement Case. The Shape of bottle & Shape of the dog toy is same. Label is visually same. Trade Dress seems similar. But yes, both word mark Jack Daniel’s & Bad Spaniels seems different.

ChatGPT vs IP

 

DABUS wasn’t considered as the Inventor as it wasn’t the Natural Person.

What about the content created by ChatGPT? The human input or ChatGPT itself or OPEN AI, Who exactly owns that content?

In one of my earlier blogs, I discussed the case of AI being an Inventor citing example of DABUS. In the case of ChatGPT, I decided to converse with it (conversations assembled in several pages). One of the questions I asked it was to write a poetry on a particular subject. It generated an output (a poem), as anticipated. I repeated the question, but now on a slightly different subject. It generated another new poem but this time with few repeated lines taken from the previous ones.

The Inventors' Who Aren't Inventors'!

 

The moment a common name starts appearing in several different inventions associated with distinct subjects/domain/expertise (exclude computer science); one should conclude that he/she is the mere Investor/Owner/Assignee. The real Inventors’ are different, bounded by the Non-Disclosure/Employer-Employee Contract/Assignment; & that Investor/Owner just added their own names without adding any Inventive or Novel theory into that Invention. This has been happening for Decades. And according to me, this practice of adding names to Patents in the inventions wherein those who’ve neither contributed theoretically nor technically anything; should be stopped, everywhere. How this could be achieved?

Sound, Voice, Names, Memes, Face!

 

Can Sounds be trademarked? Yes! Via sonogram, musical notes and actual recording of thirty seconds, that can identify any product merely via sound, rather, visually. Copyrightable? Yes!

Can Voice be trademarked? Nope! Copyrighted? Sort of, via collection of well-known personality traits + performer’s rights & moral rights (copyright) + protection of life & personal liberty (constitution). But it should be extremely well-known, at least territorially.

Can Names/Surnames be trademarked? Yes. But are Conditional!

Different Goods, Same Class, TM!

 

As we know, there’re different classes in TM & one acquires exclusive rights over the TM in a class (which again, consists of several set of different goods/services) w.r.t. goods or services manufactured or proffered. But what if there’re two different goods or services falling under the same class, and further, there’re two contenders for the exclusive rights or user, of the same TM?

Restoration of Patents

 

Let’s say, you were granted a Patent. Then the intimation letter would’ve clearly instructed you to pay the annuity renewal fee U/S 142 (4), also read with U/S 53, payable w.r.t. 3rd year onwards from the Date of Patent i.e. (filing date) before expiration of second year from the date of patent; and furthermore within 3 months (or not later than the extended period of 9 months) from the date of recordal of Patent in the Register. Albeit, the said fees is supposed to be filed within that duration; but somehow the renewal fees wasn’t deposited, & the Patent ceased to exist. So what’s the remedy?

I.D.A.

 

The present blog isn’t my subject specific domain,  yet, thought to write about this.

There was a discussion regarding -> whilst the Industrial Dispute covered the definition of Workman (S.2s) & the Employer (S.2g), it circumvented on defining an Employee (eg. let’s say Software Engineers). So, the way Workman is covered against Laying Off, Retrenchment etc.; Employees, as mentioned above, should’ve also been covered. For example, IT or Finance Sector Employees protected from being Laid Off or Retrenched, especially at the time of Recession or amidst the likes of Covid lockdown.