1,062 results found

Patent Cooperation Treaty was signed by India in 1998. It allows an inventor to file an "international patent application," which has the effect of filing a separate patent application in each of the PCT member countries designated by the inventor.

The National Biodiversity Authority (hereinafter referred to as "NBA") and State Biodiversity Boards (hereinafter referred to as "SBB") are established to deal with matters relating to implementation of the Act and the Rules.

In the competitive world of business, it is natural for the rival traders to adopt and apply different tactics to boost up their own business. The real aim of the trademark is to reflect the bondage between the proprietor and the product.

‘Territorial jurisdiction’ has become a burning issue recently before the Supreme Court and High Courts. The conflicting decisions of Allahabad High Court in Civil Appeal No. 6248 of 1997 and Delhi High Court in Civil Appeal No. 16 of 1999 relating to territorial jurisdiction led to the decision of Dhodha House "Patel Field Marshal Industries v. S.J.Maingi" P.M.Diesel Ltd. (2006(32) PTC 1 (SC)) by the Supreme Court.

It is a settled rule that when damages can form adequate remedy, injunctions are not awarded. In the case of Dart Industries Incorporation Anr. V. Technoplast & Anr. 2007 (35) PTC 139 (Del.) apart from reiterating the above principle, the Delhi High Court dealt with the questions of passing off and infringement of designs and copyright.

In the case of Ashim Kumar Bagchi vs Balaji Telefilms Ltd. & Ors., the Bombay High Court addressed important questions about copyright infringement and breach of confidence.

Patent registration in India has hitherto been a slow and tardy process with inventors/innovators running from pillar to post for 6-7 years before they are able to secure the seal of registration.

Collaboration between academics and industry can play a vital role in developing nascent technologies and have a positive impact on business and the economy.

The establishment of prior user of a mark is an important strategy in defending infringement actions where the mark and the goods covered are identical as well as in trademark prosecution stages.

One of the major strategies of the misusers is to adopt famous/well known marks as a part of their trading style/corporate name. Obviously, the intention is to choose a name that is easy to recollect and gives the impression of being associated with a well-known company.

The Trademark battle often runs into taking the shape of a suit for infringement, deception, claim of being a prior user, so on and so forth.

Geographical Indications are recognized intellectual property tool for protecting the link or relationship between product quality and the geographic region of its origin.

Over the years, laws relating to Intellectual Property Rights in India have witnessed rapid growth and significant development.

We live in a scientific and technological world that is vastly different from the world of a hundred years ago.

A suit filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 and Order 39 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, titled "Montblanc Simplo- GMBH v. New Delhi Stationery Mart" 2008(38) PTC 59, involved two corporations, debating over similarity in the commercial names appended to their products and the associated Trademark principles.

The question whether two marks are deceptively similar is an important question which arises for consideration in connection with registration of trademarks. A trademark is said to be deceptively similar to another mark if it so nearly resembles that other mark as to be likely to deceive or cause confusion [Section 2 (i) (h) of Trademarks Act, 1999].

Trademark has emerged as one of the vital instruments in generating business. Once the mark becomes associated with the business, it instills a substantial amount of goodwill to the business. It has become a prevalent practice that the business concerns adopt a trademark much before the actual initiation of business.