This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
In India, Section 9(1) of the Patents Act, 1970 (“ Act ”) discusses what exactly qualifies as an abandoned application as per domestic law. Upon notification, the applicant is expected to reply to the objections within six months, or the applicant can take an extension of another 3 months for filing of the reply.
First thing first, let’s unfold the case: The case involves a writ petition challenging the abandonment of a patentapplication and praying for its restoration. Here, the background is that the Petitioner hired Mr. Naveen Chaklan of M/s Delhi Intellectual Property LLP to deal with his patentapplication.
Following the patent search, one should draft the patentapplication effectively. The application should include various parts such as claims, background, description, drawing, abstract and summary. Filing the patentapplication. A receipt is then generated with the patentapplication number.
Three pharmaceutical companies, including Enzon Pharmaceuticals, Micromet AG, and Cambridge Antibody Technology (now acquired by AstraZeneca), in September 2003 announced signing a non-exclusive cross-license agreement. However, in this case, it is imperative to note that determining the scope of a patent is not easy. Bottom Line.
A patent which is granted in the territory of India can only be discharged within the borders of India, meaning the Patent rights are territorial in nature. Which means that there is no “Worldwide Patent”. Nonetheless, if a patentapplication is filed in India, that leads to the protection of the patent internationally.
Interestingly, in these cases, the trademark owner itself/himself misused the trademark as the generic name of the product in advertising and PatentApplications. In 2003, the photocopier firm Xerox came up with an advertisement that read, “When you use ‘Xerox’ the way you use ‘aspirin,’ we get a headache.”
In July 2007, Aysha Shaukat’s post first discussed how Pakistan was planning to take legal action against India for patenting ‘Super Basmati’. However, it later turned out that there was no patentapplication for the Super Basmati, but rather, as Aysha said, it was a “proverbial case of the media conflating IP terms”.
Other Posts Timelines under Rule 138 of Patent Rules are to be interpreted strictly and there cannot be any leeway under Rule 49.6 of PCT Regulations, says Delhi High Court The DHC ruled that timelines for filing national phase applications cannot be extended, in light of India’s reservation to the PCT Regulations on this.
In the National Phase of the PCT Application there is no option for the applicant to automatically avail the examination of the Application. The PatentApplication will only be examined only when the applicant or any other interested person makes a request for such an examination. But the catch is here.
Considering that the petitioner is the prior user of the mark and has an earlier registration, Delhi High Court directs the Trademarks registry to remove the respondent’s allegedly similar mark. Since the petitioner has priority over both registration and the user of the said trademark, the court, thus, ordered the Ld.
The position of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) on trademarks for cannabis-related goods and services is discussed in my colleague’s blog post, “ Trademark Registration for Cannabis Trademark Owners a Legal Haze.”. Patents have issued with at least one claim containing the word “cannabis” or “cannabinoid.”
There are no precedents through which trademark issues could be discussed, but an online platform named Second life appeared in 2003 was a pioneer of metaverse technology and its fast development brought numerous intellectual property issues. With the growing number of patentapplications, the risk is also increasing.
Milliken And Company vs Controller Of Patents And Designs & Anr. on 11 March, 2025 (Delhi High Court) The appellant contested the rejection of its patentapplication for “Additive Compositions and Thermoplastic Polymer Compositions,” arguing that the Controller failed to consider the expert testimony of one Dr. Nathan A.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 9,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content