article thumbnail

Ministry of Commerce and Industry Releases Draft Amendments to the Geographical Indication Rules, 2002

SpicyIP

Three years after the 2020 amendments to the Geographical Indication Rules, 2002 , the Ministry of Commerce and Industry (MoCI) published the 2023 draft amendments on October 20, inviting objections and suggestions from the relevant stakeholders.

article thumbnail

Delhi High Court Clarifies that the Obligation to Serve Counter Statement Does Not Fall on the Applicant (Sun Pharma v. Dabur)

SpicyIP

In the impugned order, inter alia the Court had held that “ Under Rule 50 of the 2002 Rules, the counter statement is to be served by the Applicant itself and not by the Registrar ” and had seemingly reiterated this understanding in different places. Consequently, now the corrected version of the above paragraph reads as “.Under

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

article thumbnail

Design reform reaches its finale: it is now Regulation (EU) 2024/2822 and Directive (EU) 2024/2823

The IPKat

Background Foundations for the EU design system (as of now still covered by Regulation (EC) 6/2002 for EU-wide designs and Directive 98/71/EC for national designs) were laid down in the late 1980s-early 1990s, when various groups of academics presented their proposals for EU acts on the matter. Modernised definitions (Art. 3 Regulation, Art.

Designs 120
article thumbnail

Whose Serve is it Anyway? Assessing the Sun Pharma v. Dabur Finding on the Applicants’ Obligation to Serve Counter-Statements

SpicyIP

The judgement arose out of an appeal against the decision of the Registrar of Trade Marks (“Registrar”), wherein the opposition was deemed to be abandoned due to the two month time-barred service of evidence under Rule 50 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2002 (“2002 Rules”). Para 4 and 5), Pioneer Overseas Corpn. Chairperson (Para 66).

Copying 108
article thumbnail

Understanding the Inevitable Disclosure Doctrine: Protecting Trade Secrets in Employment Transitions

IP and Legal Filings

4th 1443, 1446 (2002). 4-02-CV-90267, 2002 U.S. Iowa July 5, 2002). 4-02-CV-90267, 2002 U.S. Iowa July 5, 2002). 1184, 1192 (2002). Matheson, Employee Beware: The Irreparable Damage of the Inevitable Disclosure Doctrine , 10 Loy. Consumer L. 145 (1998). Schlage Lock Co., Hoskins Mfg. 2d 852 (E.D. High Tech.

article thumbnail

Lessons From the License to Drive (and Protect) Sports Illustrated

JD Supra Law

Meanwhile, I first learned about LeBron James when he graced Sports Illustrated’s cover in 2002. As an example, a signed 1975 SI cover of Muhammed Ali and Joe Frazier is one of my most prized pieces of memorabilia. By: DarrowEverett LLP

Licensing 111
article thumbnail

Gazing Substantive vs Procedural Rights in the Light of SAP Se vs Swiss Auto Products and Anr

SpicyIP

The case revolved around SAP Se (Appellant) trying to furnish new evidence according to the Trademark Rules, 2002. Instead the court assessed whether the Registrar should have applied the 2002 Rules or the 2017 Rules, while passing the impugned order, as the impugned order was passed in 2019.