Sound Board

Our thoughts and views on the practice of Intellectual Property in India and around the world.

In a welcome move the Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks by public notice dated December 16, 2022 eliminated the mandatory requirement of filing physical copies of the forms for filing a design application in India. As a result, applicants are encouraged to use the online portal to file forms and documents related to design registration. These documents should be filed online and must be digitally signed in accordance with the Information Technology Act, 2000.

The Court held that in an intellectual property case, where the matter affects not only the disputants but also the consumers and the plaintiff has already exhausted all possible recourses to amicably resolve the matter, then the plaintiff’s application seeking exemption from instituting pre-litigation mediation proceedings in accordance with section 12-A of the Act can be allowed. Thus, it can be said that in intellectual property cases, such reliefs are granted by Courts not merely for the…

Alternate methods of dispute resolution are amicable methods of resolving disputes without the intervention of courts. It decreases the burden of the courts and encourages settlement proceedings among the parties. Generally, Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR) uses one or more neutral third parties who help the parties to communicate, discuss the differences and resolve the dispute. ADRs are a set of methods that enable individuals and group to maintain cooperation, and social order and provides…

Section 11(1) of the Designs Act, 2000, grants copyright protection to a design for a period of ten years from the date of registration. However, if priority is claimed then the registration period is calculated as being ten years from the priority date. Further, as per Section 11(2) of the Designs Act, 2000, a design may be renewed once for an additional period of 5 years anytime within the initial ten-year period of registration

However, the question remains - why has an option for renewal not been provided? Granted, it would ensure fewer instances where the right would have lapsed, and the protection would continue unbeknownst to the authorities (although the right holder must inform customs authority when his intellectual property ceases to be valid or if he ceases to be the owner of such intellectual property right). In this respect, the lack of an option for renewal enables authorities to properly examine the…

The Supreme Court indicated that it was proposing to lift the suo moto extension of the limitation period granted by it on account of the COVID-19 pandemic, with effect from March 15 this year. Following this, on 8th March 2021, the Court passed an order ending the extension of the limitation period.

The Indian Government has recently notified an amendment to the Designs Rules, 2001. The Designs (Amendment) Rules, 2021 (“the Amendment Rules”), were notified in the Official Gazette on January 25, 2021, and are deemed to be in effect from that date.

More often than not, when a “bona fide” proprietor of the trademark (I use the term “bona fide” rather loosely here) finds unauthorized use of their mark by a third party, the first step taken (often) is to send the other party a legal notice. While some legal notices sent/received are convoluted and packed with legal jargon, some are brief and get the message across. A legal notice simply outlines the rights of the sender (“bona fide” proprietor) and cautions the infringing party to refrain…

The three WIPO Agreements have received accession from the Indian Government.[1]The three Agreements were introduced through the WIPO treaties primarily to ease the search for trademarks and industrial designs. In this arena it is significant to understand the prominence of all the three Agreements. A brief understanding of all the three Agreements are as follows:

One of the significant judgements from the recent time is the order of the Delhi High Court in the popular Crocs case. In an order dated March 6, 2019, the Court rejected the maintainability of a suit for passing off, in the case of a registered design. It is important to note here that the Plaintiff had brought this suit after the Court had previously rejected its previous suit for infringement of its registered design, holding that the same was invalid on the ground of prior publication