//
archives

technical member

This tag is associated with 9 posts

patent right granted was revoked = “Method for monitoring a Sensor”-” The Wind Turbine Components and Operation”=The applicant seeks revocation of the Patent No: 203552 for an Invention titled” Method for monitoring a Sensor.”= from the 1990s in India and elsewhere in the world there has been a spurt in wind energy activity. The 1990s were undoubtedly years of considerable change. The rated capacity of wind turbines was increasing rapidly, as was the size of wind farms. Wind speed cannot be controlled. It increases or decreases at will. That is why prediction of the wind speed and monitoring is required. We have already seen that ‘041 tells us that the blade pitch angle was known to be one of the parameters. If the pitch angle is not variable, then of course the anemometer can not use it to monitor the wind flow, But if the pitch angle can be varied and the wind speed is very high , what will the person skilled in the art who has common sense do? She will use the other known parameter that is the blade pitch angle and feather the blades. The answer it appears “is blowing’ in the wind”, it is obvious. 52. The proposed claim also speaks of detecting the flow speed, comparing it with at least one operating parameter and of the sequence the parameters. -Further all the features of the proposed claims are obvious as seen above. In the result, the patent No.IN203552 is revoked.

published in http://www.ipab.tn.nic.in/123-2013.htm INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY APPELLATE BOARD Guna Complex, Annexe-I, 2nd Floor, 443, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018 * * * * * * (CIRCUIT BENCH AT DELHI)   ORA/08/2009/PT/CH AND Miscellaneous Petition Nos. 7/2010, 31/2010, 51/2011, 86/2012, 142/2012 & 143/2012 in ORA/08/2009/PT/CH   WEDNESDAY THIS THE  12TH  DAY OF JUNE, 2013 Hon’ble Smt. Justice … Continue reading

CRYSTAL”-Application for removal of the trade mark “CRYSTAL” registered under No.1213531 in Class 23 under the provisions of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (‘Act’ in short= application has been filed on 11.07.2003 claiming user since 16.03.1998. The respondents have not filed their counter statement denying the applicants use nor have they filed any evidence of their user at least since 1998. The respondent’s trade mark is neither distinctive nor capable of being distinguished and therefore is in contravention of the provisions of Section 9 of the Act. The respondent has obtained registration in bad faith. The respondent has not used the trade mark and the mark therefore deserves to be removed for non-use.The main ground of the rectification petition is that the respondents have not used the trade mark after registration. The respondents are aware of the proceedings and had in fact filed their reply to the Miscellaneous Petition No.61 of 2010 for substituted service. The respondents probably are not using the trade mark and that could be the reason for them not filing their counter statement as well for their non appearance. 14. The applicant’s trade mark “CRYSTAL” has been on the register since 1991 for identical goods even before the respondent adopted and used the trade mark. We therefore think that the impugned trade mark is wrongly remaining on the register. 15. Accordingly, ORA/204/2007/TM/AMD is allowed with a direction to the Registrar of Trade Marks to remove the trade mark “CRYSTAL” registered under No.1213531 in Class 23 from the register of Trade Marks. There shall be no order as to costs.

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY APPELLATE BOARD Guna Complex Annexe-I, 2nd Floor, 443, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai-600018     (CIRCUIT SITTING AT AHMEDABAD)     ORA/204/2007/TM/AMD    MONDAY, THIS THE 25th DAY OF JUNE, 2012     Hon’ble Ms.S. Usha                                            …  Vice Chairman Hon’ble Shri V. Ravi                                           …  Technical Member                                                                                                                                                 Crystal Knitters 4/688, Nochipalayam … Continue reading

any person may file a notice of opposition within three months from the date of advertisement or within such further period not exceeding one month in the aggregate as the Registrar may allow on an application for extension. Section 21(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999: “21. Opposition to registration. – (1) Any person may, within three months from the date of the advertisement or re-advertisement of an application for registration or within such further period, not exceeding one month in the aggregate, as the Registrar, on application made to him in the prescribed manner and on payment of the prescribed fee, allows, give notice in writing in the prescribed manner to the Registrar, of opposition to the registration.” Rule 47(6) of the Trade Marks Rules, 2002: “47. Notice of opposition: (1) to (5) xxxxx (6) An application for an extension of the period within which a notice of opposition to the registration of a trade mark may be given under sub-section (1) of section 21, shall be made in Form TM-44 accompanied by the fee prescribed in First Schedule before the expiry of the period of three months under sub-section (1) of section 21.”

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY APPELLATE BOARD Guna Complex, Annexe-I, 2nd Floor, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai 600 018   (Circuit Sitting at Ahmedabad)   OA/71/2009/TM/AMD   FRIDAY, THIS THE  18TH DAY OF MAY, 2012     Hon’ble Ms. S.USHA          …..                              Vice-Chairman Hon’ble Shri V.RAVI           …..                              Technical Member   M/s.Swastic Oil Industries, F-5 to 8, Industrial Area, Newai – 304021, District … Continue reading

ORA/105/2006/TM/CH has been filed for removal of the mark “RALLY” registered under No.1213190 in Class 11, ORA/90/2007/TM/MUM has been filed for the removal of the mark “RALLIFAN” No. 306508 in class 11. Both the marks relate to electric fans manufactured by the respective owners. So goods are the same, the trade channels are consequently the same. We do not see any phonetic difference between, “I want a Rallifan” and “I want a Rally fan”. They sound identical. So the decision will depend on other facts like priority of user and honesty of adoption and so on. The owners of Rally fan have also raised a point of law with regards to S.44 of the Trade Marks Act 1999 ( Act in short). We will refer to the parties as Rallifan and Visesh, which will include Visesh’s alleged assignee Mahavir Home Appliances. A person whose adoption is not free from doubt cannot seek the removal of the mark which it has tried to imitate. So the rectification of the mark Rallifan is rejected. The applicant in ORA/105/2006/TM/CH has filed M.P.No.01/2008 for filing additional evidence. Similarly, the applicants in ORA/90/2007/TM/MUM have filed M.P.No.130/2011 for filing additional evidence. We have considered the additional evidences filed by the applicants in the respective rectification applications. In view of this M.P.No.01/2008 and M.P.No.130/2011 are allowed. 19. In view of the above ORA/105/2006/TM/CH filed by M/s Rallifan Limited is allowed. The Registrar of Trade Marks is directed to remove the trade mark “RALLY” registered under No.1213190 in Class 11 in the name of the respondent No.2. ORA/90/2007/TM/MUM filed by Mr. Rajesh Kumar Naredi is dismissed. No order as to costs.

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY APPELLATE BOARD Guna Complex, Annexe-l, 2nd floor, 443, Anna  Salai, Teynampet,  Chennai 600 018   M.P.No.01/2008 in ORA/105/2006/TM/CH M.P.No.130/2011 in ORA/90/2007/TM/MUM AND ORA/105/2006/TM/CH and ORA/90/ 2007/TM/MUM FRIDAY, THIS THE 20th DAY OF APRIL, 2012   HON’BLE Smt. JUSTICE PRABHA SRIDEVAN                    …  CHAIRMAN HON’BLE Shri V. RAVI                                                             …  TECHNICAL MEMBER   ORA/105/2006/TM/CH   … Continue reading

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY APPELLATE BOARD This application is being filed for rectification of the mark Bengal Lamps registered under No.895089 in class 11 in favour of the respondent. The learned counsel for the applicant is present and has made his submissions. Neither the learned counsel for the respondent nor anyone on behalf of the respondent is present. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant has also produced before us the history sheet of the mark impugned herein and it has been renewed upto 29.12.2009 and not thereafter. Perhaps this is the reason why there is no appearance on behalf of the respondent. Since they are no longer interested in continuing the registration of the impugned mark, ORA/9/2005/TM/KOL is allowed. The mark which has not been renewed shall stand removed from the register of Trade Marks.

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY APPELLATEBOARD Guna Complex, Annexe-l, 2nd floor, 443, Anna  Salai, Teynampet,  Chennai 600 018 (Circuit Bench sitting at Kolkata)   ORA/9/2005/TM/KOL TUESDAY, THIS THE 29TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2012 HON’BLE Smt. JUSTICE PRABHA SRIDEVAN    …     CHAIRMAN HON’BLE Shri V. RAVI                                             …    TECHNICAL MEMBER   M/s Bengal Lamps Limited, 137, Prince Gulam Hussain Shah Road, … Continue reading

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY APPELLATE BOARD- One Overture Services Inc. (original patent applicant) applied on 14.05.2004 for patent of its invention titled in respect of “System and method for influencing a position on a search result listing generated by a computer network search engine” which was later amended to “A method of operating a computer network search apparatus”. The application claimed priority from an US application 09/322677 dated 28.05.1999. The First Examination Report dated 30th December, 2004 raised 17 objections. The crucial objections were: the claim falls within section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970 (the Act in short); claims 62 and 63 not sufficiently distinctive and that the question of novelty will be considered after the objections have been complied with. The applicant gave its response on 11.07.05 substituting the claims with a new set of claims 1-45 which included technical subject matter and, therefore, not excluded by S. 3 (k) of the Act. On 12.08.2005, the Patent Office sent its report and it stated that objection (i) had not been met and that it was not patentable under section 3(k); there is no novelty etc. To this again the appellant gave its response and deleted claim 1-25 relating to apparatus and also requested that the delay in the belated submission may be condoned. On 09.06.2006, the appellant was informed that the application had been found in order for grant, but it will be granted only after the disposal of pre-grant opposition (if any). On 20.04.2007 application was published. M/s Rediff.com India Ltd., filed a pre-grant opposition under S.25(1) on 22.10.2007. On 03.03.2009, the appellant had taken over the original applicant by merger and this was informed to the Patent Office. On 30.03.2009, the appellant was informed that the invention did not pass the novelty and patentability test. -50. The learned counsel for the appellant referred to several patents granted for business methods to Google and cited the Dimminaco AG v. Controller of Patents (IPLR 2002 July 255). We are not going into the question whether Google ought to have been granted patent or not. We have found that this invention cannot be granted patent. However, it cannot be disputed that there should be a uniform practice, when similar inventions come up for grant of patent. There cannot be conflicting positions. If indeed the Patent Office had been adopting different standards, it is not desirable. If the patents granted to Google suffer from the same vice of S.3 (k) then as and when the question arises, it will be dealt with. But we cannot allow this appeal, ignoring the patentability bar merely because it is alleged that in other cases erroneous decisions have been issued. We cannot examine the correctness of those grants in the absence of that patentee.

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY APPELLATE BOARD Guna Complex, Annexe-l, 2nd floor, 443, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai 600 018   OA/22/2010/PT/CH THURSDAY, THIS THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2011   HON’BLE Smt. JUSTICE PRABHA SRIDEVAN                 …  CHAIRMAN HON’BLE Shri D.P.S.PARMAR                                                 … TECHNICAL MEMBER (PATENTS)   Yahoo Inc. (Formerly Overture Service Inc.) A Dealware Corporation having its place of … Continue reading

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY APPELLATE BOARD- On perusal of the records that the PVG label mark has been registered in the name of the applicants as of 24.12.1998 for the goods falling in class 7. The respondent who was working as the manager of the company and the applicant’s husband had the knowledge of the applicants use and registration. The respondent adoption cannot be said to be bonafide. When the adoption is dishonest the respondent cannot be the proprietor of the trade mark. The registration is therefore in contravention of Section 18 of the Act. 11. When the registration is obtained by suppression of material fact from the notice of the Registrar, the entry is deemed to be an entry made without sufficient cause. The respondent has falsely claimed to be the proprietor of the trade mark. 12. The authorities who are the custodian of register are to be more cautious while granting registration. They are to look into their records before the registration is granted. We find an identical trade mark for identical goods are also registered in the year 1998, the present impugned application has been filed in the year 2005. If the officer had been more careful this impugned mark would not have been registered. 13. The impugned trade mark therefore deserves to be expunged. Consequently, the application is allowed with a direction to the Registrar of Trade Marks to remove/cancel the trade mark registered under No.1384443 in class 7. No order as to costs.

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTYAPPELLATE BOARD Guna Complex Annexe-I, 2nd Floor, 443, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai-600018   ORA/93/2009/TM/CH FRIDAY, THIS THE  3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2012   Hon’ble Ms. S. Usha                                                     …  Vice-Chairman Hon’ble Shri. V. Ravi                                                    …  Technical Member   D.P. Parimala, 471, Avinashi Road, Coimbatore – 641 004.                                                        … Applicant   (Represented by Shri … Continue reading

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY APPELLATE BOARD=This is an appeal under section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) directed against the order dated 1.5.2006 passed by the Senior Examiner of Trade Marks whereby the application for registration of Trade Mark “OFLEX” has been refused.=After having perused the documents, we are in agreement with the observation made by the Senior Examiner of Trade Marks that the opponents and applicant both have filed half hearted evidences not bothering seriously, the concern. But certainly the onus is more upon applicants to show that they have right of registration and hence applicants stand to loose if evidence of applicant does not over weigh against evidence of opponents, the registered owner of conflicting mark. The appellant has failed to establish it use of the mark since 4.1.2000. The appellant has on the basis of available documents on our record has proved the user only since 9.4.2002. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the conclusion arrived at by the Senior Examiner of Trade Marks.

Mr. Vikash Rajgarhia v. Aristo Pharmaceuticals Limited – OA/51/2006/TM/AMD [2008] INIPAB 2 (19 March 2008) INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY APPELLATE BOARD Guna Complex, Annexe-1, 2nd Floor, 443 Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai – 600018   (Circuit Bench at Ahmedabad)   OA/51/2006/TM/AMD     WEDNESDAY, THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH, 2008       Hon’ble Shri Z.S. Negi … Vice-Chairman … 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

Blog Stats

  • 2,884,334 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,905 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com