Remove 2003 Remove Designs Remove Patent Infringement
article thumbnail

Logos Remain Relevant: Source Confusion and Design Patent Infringement

Patently-O

This post will focus on another key issue from the case – the relevance of logos in design patent infringement analysis. Still, ornamental logos found on the accused product can still be relevant as visual distractors in the process of evaluating similarities and differences between the claimed design and accused design.

article thumbnail

False Patent Marking as False Advertising: Overcoming Dastar

Patently-O

This case began back in 2006 when Crocs sued Double Diamond and others for patent infringement of Crocs’s design patents. 23 (2003), false claims about the inventorship or authorship of a product are not actionable under the Lanham Act. Crocs largely prevailed in those actions. ” Dawgs brief.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

article thumbnail

Parliamentary Standing Committee Report on IPR: Tipping the Scales of Patent Law? Part II

SpicyIP

Section 11 (b) read with Rule 24B of Patents Rules, 2003 concerning patent application exam stipulates a 48-month period from the date of priority or filing of patent application within which a request for examination of the application needs to be made. Concluding Thoughts.

Reporting 136
article thumbnail

Within The Scope of This Concise Analysis, the Case of Bajaj Auto Ltd. v. T.V.S. Motor Company Ltd. Is Investigated

IP and Legal Filings

Introduction The main emphasis of the case pertains to accusations of patent infringement made by the defendant, as well as the subsequent pursuit of damages. The purpose of submitting the application was to mitigate the risk of patent infringement amongst the ongoing legal proceedings. 1903 RPC 225. 1906 RPC 6.

article thumbnail

The Draft Patent (Amendment) Rules, 2023

Intepat

The Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade, Ministry of Commerce and Industry on the 22nd August, 2023 published “The Draft Patents (Amendment), Rules, 2023” (Draft Rules). Patent applications and prosecution thereof is currently governed under the Patents Rules 2003 (2003 Rules).

Patent 52
article thumbnail

Laching-On to Inexcusable Behavior

Patently-O

As an additional added layer of security, Apple further encrypted these decryption keys and this further encryption is the basis for the patent infringement suit brought by Personalized Media Communications, LLC (PMC) based on PMC’s U.S. 8,191, (the “’091 patent”).

article thumbnail

Contractually Agreeing to Not Petition for Inter Partes Review

Patently-O

law relating to patent infringement or invalidity, and filed within two (2) years of the end of the Covenant Term, shall be filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The agreement also included forum-selection-clause that kicked-in once the no-suit covenant expired. [T]he Idaho Potato Comm’n v.