Du IP Café

Past few years especially the last decade has seen unfathomable changes in the technology landscape. Suddenly, everything has started to become a near possibility. Technology is and will continue playing a significant role in the future of work which is evident with the widespread use of artificial intelligence, machine learning, automation and other relevant technologies. With the ever rising population all across the globe and the advent of technology, the fear has started to scale in almost everyone's mind that the machines are going to consume the jobs. The advent of technology has caused shifts in the types of jobs that are available, as well as changes in the way that work is organized and performed. For example, remote work and flexible work arrangements have become more common. At this juncture, it is difficult to predict the future of work with certainty, as there are many factors that can influence the direction of the workplace. The future of work is likely to be char

The title certainly looks catchy but hold on and read further.. The so called IP practitioners who don't have an iota of understanding of IP Laws have flooded the market and dooming Applicants. Once they manage to file applications somehow, they have no clue how to prosecute further and take it till the registration stage. Applicants become stuck and have nowhere to go under such circumstance as they have already paid for the entire process.   Recently, one such Practitioner got stuck with Section 9(1) objection under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and also had to file TM-M and had no clue what to with TM-M and how the objections are tackled or responded with.  Someone is trying to disrupt the market with provisional patent filing in just Rs. 2000/-. How low can it get, I keep on wondering. Filing a provisional patent application seems a joke for such practitioners as they do not care about inventors and how these inventors hold their inventions close to their heart. Some Patent Agents

Trade Marks registration process in India has seen enormous changes in past 2-3 years. The number of Forms have been reduced from 64 to 8. The examination time has reduced from 2 years to 5 working days - believe it or not but its true and one of the fastest all over the world!   However, the change in law or rules has not impacted some common misconceptions that are prevalent among business owners about the Trade Marks. Thought it would be good to address them here: 1. I don't need to perform search..My Trade Mark is Original in toto Applicants commonly believe that the trade name they thought is distinctive enough and don't see any need to get a search done or to get an opinion from a practitioner. Let me say something unpleasant that the name you want to trademark probably isn’t as original as you think it is, at least not in the eyes of the Trade Marks Registry. Every year, thousands of trademark applications are rejected without refunds because they too closely resembl

Copyright comes with a bundle of rights in India. Even though the registration of Copyright isn't mandatory, it serves as a proof of ownership and/or prima facie evidence before the Court of law during enforcement of such Copyright.  Lot many changes (pleasant changes) in functioning of Copyright registry have been observed in past five years. Digitization of records and process has been on top of all changes.  The Government of India has recently released the Copyright (Amendment) Rules, 2021 on 30th March 2021. The primary objective of such an amendment is to bring the existing rules in parity with other relevant legislations and at par with technological advancements. Sharing only relevant highlights of the amendment and its effects as below:- 1. Changes concerning the filing of applications for registration of Software Program Copyright: Earlier the Copyright Rules mandated submission of the entire Source Code and Object Code while filing an application for registration of a So

In a very lucid judgment in the case of S.D. Containers vs. Mold-tek Packaging Limited (Civil Appeal No. 3695 of 2020), the Supreme Court of India decided the matter clearing the air of doubt on the interplay of the Design Act, 2000 and the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Relevant facts on background of the case -  Mold-tek Packaging Limited (hereinafter Plaintiff/Respondent), a manufacturer and seller of plastic packaging material who obtained design registration for its container's lids, jars etc. in 2015 and 2017. In late 2019, the Plaintiff/Respondent came to know about S.D. Containers (hereinafter Defendant/Appellant) who allegedly infringed design of the Plaintiff/Respondent. The Plaintiff/Respondent filed a civil suit before the Commercial Court at Indore seeking permanent injunction against the Defendant/Appellant from copying and using the design of the Plaintiff/Respondent as described in Design Application No. 299039 and 299041 for the containers and lids, respectively. The

Though writing should be a regular affair when it comes to blogging but professional commitments intertwined with family responsibilities do not really leave much room to do so! What sparked this blog was the conundrum surrounding the Computer Related Inventions (CRIs) and their patentability in India in light of Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970. In December 2019,  the Delhi High Court in Ferid Allani vs. Union of India (2019 SCC Online Del 11876) examined the rejection of a patent by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) to a CRI and held that most inventions of the present era make use of computer programs and therefore, it would be discriminatory to reject a patent application to such inventions for merely making use of computer programs in its functioning. The Court further held that a patent application is to be evaluated with respect to its technical contribution. However, the Court did not elucidate a definition of what can be construed as an invention exhibiting