advocatemmmohan
millennium plaza
16. Power of Controller to make orders respecting division of application.– A person who has made an application for a patent under this Act may, at any time before the grant of the patent, if he so desires, or with a view to remedy the objection raised by the Controller on the ground that the claims of the complete specification relate to more than one invention, file a further application in respect of an invention disclosed in the provisional or complete specification already filed in respect of the first mentioned application. (2) The further application under sub-S. (1) shall be accompanied by a complete specification, but such complete specification shall not include any matter not in substance disclosed in the complete specification filed in pursuance of the first mentioned application. (3) The Controller may require such amendment of the complete specification filed in pursuance of either the original or the further application as may be necessary to ensure that neither of the said complete specifications includes a claim for any matter claimed in the other. Explanation.– For the purposes of this Act, the further application and the complete specification accompanying it shall be deemed to have been filed on the date on which the first mentioned application had been filed, and the further application shall be proceeded with as a substantive application and be examined when the request for examination is filed within the prescribed period.
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY APPELLATE BOARD Guna Complex, Annexe-I, 2nd Floor, 443, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018 (CIRCUIT BENCH SITTING AT DELHI) OA/18/2009/PT/DEL MONDAY THIS, THE 29th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2012 HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE PRABHA SRIDEVAN — CHAIRMAN HON’BLE SHRI D.P.S. PARMAR — TECHNICAL MEMBER BAYER ANIMAL HEALTH GMBH — Appellants D-51368, LEVERKUSEN … Continue reading
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY APPELLATE BOARD “46. In view of the law as explained hereinbefore, the correct course of action for the Petitioner would be to file an appeal before the IPAB under Section 117 of the Patents Act against the order dated 16th March 2009 passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents. If such an appeal is filed within two weeks, accompanied by an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, the IPAB will consider such application on merits in accordance with law after accounting for the period during which the present writ petition has been pending. The IPAB will hear the Respondent (‘ICPL’) before passing such order. The petition is disposed of.”
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY APPELLATEBOARD Guna Complex Annexe-I, 2nd Floor, 443 Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai-600018 (Circuit Bench Sitting at Delhi) COD NO.19/2010 IN SR.NO.76/2010/PT/IPAB THURSDAY, THIS THE 20TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2011 HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE PRABHA SRIDEVAN … CHAIRMAN HON’BLE SHRI D.P.S.PARMAR … TECHNICAL MEMBER (PATENTS) Colorcon Inc. 415, Moyer Boulevard West Point, Pennsylvania 19486 … Continue reading
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY APPELLATE BOARD=the word polo is a dictionary word meaning a game of eastern origin with rules similar to hokey played on horse back with a long handled mallet and polo shirt meaning a casual short sleeved cotton shirt with a collar and several buttons at the neck. As such the claim of the appellant for proprietary right over the word POLO is untenable in the eyes of law and incapable of getting a well-known mark status as per the plethora of cases.
Polo/Lauren Company, L.P. v. Royal Classic Mills Private Limited – ORA/118/2007/TM/CH [2008] INIPAB 1 (19 March 2008) INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY APPELLATE BOARD Guna Complex Annexe-I, 2nd Floor, 443, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai-600018 M.P.Nos.102 & 103/2007 in OA/44/2006/TM/CH And OA/44/2006/TM/CH WEDNESDAY, THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH, 2008 Hon’ble Shri Z. S. Negi Vice-Chairman Hon’ble Shri Syed Obaidur … Continue reading
advocatemmmohan 