Readers may recall that the draft manual for Patent Practice was introduced in 2008 and after lot of consultation with the stakeholders; a revised draft had been published in November 2010. The finalized manual was to be published by year end, which, unfortunately is yet not completed

This draft design manual has the same format as followed by the draft Patent Manual and goes into details providing leading cases, both from the Indian courts and English Jurisprudence.

The Patent Office invites comments to the draft by 10^th March, which would be the first step in one of the multiple consultations before finalizing the manual. However, we hope that this process would be rather faster than that of the Patent manual.

News reports quote the FIR (First Information Report) registered in Bangalore as stating that this is “for infringement and displaying in Guruji.com web site film songs of 1) Om Shanthi Om 2) All the best 3) Bhool Bhulaiya 4) Apka Suroor 5) Aashiq Banaya Apne which belong to Super Cassettes Industries Ltd Copy Right Owner Ship”.

Copyright infringement being a criminal offense, the plaintiff is at liberty to choose either civil, criminal or both these remedies.

The search engine Guruji.com allows users to search and play music from sites which offer free music.

This looks like another Pirates Bay case in making and this is going to go a long way to act as jurisprudence for interpretation of the IT (Amendment) Act 2010 and the way India would determine the safe harbor principles of intermediaries.

Mint (on 25^th Jan) carried a report on a pre-grant opposition filed by Jet Airways against grant of a patent on herringbone seat (used in business class) by Virgin Atlantic covered by the Indian application 500/CHENP/2004 (Application number details was obtained from source here)

This opposition in India is another chapter in ongoing patent dispute which is in its final stages in the UK and EP.

The EP application had graduated into a patent EP1495908. The EP patent was opposed by Contour (along with Cathay Pacific & Airbus), but was unsuccessful; subsequently an appeal filed against the opposition decision is pending at the Board of appeal at the EPO. The file history of the EP patent can be found here along with the documents filed during the proceedings.

In the UK, the EP patent was used in an infringment suit against Contour. Virgin was unsuccessful at the first instance, where in Jan’09, Justice Lewison [2009] EWHC 26 (Pat) held Virgin’s patent valid but not infringed by Contour. Virgin appealed against this decision, and this time found luck. The Court of Appeal, on Oct’09, overturned the previous decision and ruled [2009] EWCA Civ 1062 in favor of Virgin, holding the Patent to be valid and infringed. Premier (Contour) was earlier involved in designing the seats with Virgin and had also supplied the allegedly infringing seats to other airlines including Jet Airways.

Reports on UK proceedings can be found in IPKat here and here, and detailed analysis at JIPLP here .

As a counter to the Indian opposition, and with a shot in the arm by a favorable decision in the UK, mint on 26^th Jan reported that Virgin has filed an infringement suit against Jet Airways in the UK.

The pre-grant opposition to the Indian Patent application is pending at the Chennai Patent Office and is presently at hearing stage, which was postponed to February. Surprisingly, Mint states that adjournment was sought by Virgin asking for time to reply, which may not be the case, as all such reply must be filed well before entering into the hearing stage.

The main grounds of opposition raised by Jet through their attorney Mr. LaxmiKumaran is the ‘design and technology has been in the public domain’ and as per Mr. Basheer ‘can be disqualified due to lack of novelty’.

Unfortunately, we could not find the exact document(s) that were relied upon (sorry no online file history available in India!), but we hope that there is something new to those relied by Contour in EP and UK, if Jet hopes to give any worthwhile challenge to destroy the novelty, especially since the novelty requirement is the same, derived from the UK Act and the patent was already held valid (twice) by the UK courts.

Though at present the visibility seems to be low, the skies look cloudy and going tough for Jet Airways, which if unsuccessful, will incur huge loss (money and time), and subsequent patent infringement suits if Virgin is successful in obtaining a patent in India.

With two big players in the ring with lot at stake (including pride), whatever the outcome, it is sure to be appealed and also with infringement suit also on cards, this case looks like one which will not die down anytime soon. We just hope that at the end of it all, we are left with some good jurisprudence to rely upon.

Fujitsu’s in 2002 launched a handheld device called IPAD and also filed for a trademark 76497338, which was published in Sep’09 and open for opposition. Apple has since then sought for 3 extensions for time to keep their options open for filing an opposition.

This is not the first time Apple is in trouble for its trademark. Earlier, the use of iPhone was objected by Cisco and a Japanese company, which was sorted out by mutually agreeing to use it and change its Japanese spelling to avoid confusion. Other Apple trademark battle with companies include the famous Beatle’s music company Apple Corp and Woolsworth (read here)

Others registered users of the mark IPAD included Siemens for a programmable Electric Drives (3389082), keypads for entering pin (3405828) and a company selling bra inserts (3396165). More IPAD marks applied and on the pipeline at the USPTO were, a medical equipment company (77149473), cleaning industry (77876096) and finally on 16^th Jan 2010 by IP Application Development LLC who is applying for Apple (77913563).

We could expect the opposition filed anytime now, unless some mutual agreement is reached by then. But as noted here, Apple will not be able to rely on the filing of its mark as it is not the applicant. It would be interesting to note the strategy Apple uses and its arguments when it finally decides to oppose.

Google sells words/terms to Internet search advertising and displays the advertisement in the right side whenever the term is searched using Google search engine.

But what happens when the terms turnout to be registered trademarks?

Companies such as shoe stores, for example, may buy the trademarked words pay Google so their name appears alongside Internet search results for a brand of designer shoes they sell or even a counterfeit, which is what happen in Europe when Google sold the Adwords of famous luxury brands to other who sold imitation products of the luxury brands.

Louis Vuitton had filed number of suits in different jurisdiction in Europe for trademark infringement claiming that Google had no right to use their mark and sell them to others for advertisement. The litigation in the France was heard by the European Court of Justice and on 22nd September, adviser and Advocate General Poiares Maduro in his opinion had favored Google, noting that they had not committed trademark infringement and the use by Google did not amount to ‘use of trademark’. A detailed analysis of this opinion can be read from IPkat blog here. The complete opinion of the Advocate General to the European Court of Justice in the Louis Vuitton v. Google can be read here.

Now the Indian Chapter of Google Adwords litigation has started.

Consim India, a company that owns the famous Indian matrimony website bharatmatrimony.com, has filed a trademark infringement suit against Google.com at the Madras High Court for what is alleged to be a two pronged infringement by Google. It is also been reported that they have been successful in obtaining an injunction, stoping Google from displaying such ads. However till date we don’t see any action. The reports from Medianama (which can be read here).

1. First alleged infringement by Google was that when the trademarks of Consim India like ‘bharatmatrimony.com’ are searched through Google, competitive website such as shaadi.com and simplymarry.com were displayed in the advertisement space of the search results.

This is the common activity by Google where certain Adwords including trademarked terms were sold to the competitors and on which the trademark owners had been fighting with Google in different jurisdiction for sometime now.  The above-mentioned case of Louis Vuitton also related one such abuse of trademarks.

One interesting issue pointed out by medianama (here) in their report was that Bharatmatrimony themselves were involved in such practices, i.e when one typed shaadi.com as the search term, advertisements by bharatmatrimony would be displayed on the side.

However when checked today, this was removed.

2. Second allegation by Consim was that when a generic term is searched, Google displayed advertisement which had the trademark of Consim but did not direct to their site. In other words when someone searched for ‘Tamil Bride’, which is a generic keyword, advertisement from competitors were displayed which used trademarked terms in the text of the Advertisement including the term bharatmatrimony but instead linked to the competitor’s websites.

Read medianama reports for more information on this. This round of Google Adwords infringement will sure be interesting.  We would keep you posted on the developments as it happens.

The bench consisting of Justice Markandey Katju and Justice AK Ganguly judged that

1. The matter is to be disposed on merits at the Chennai HC, with directions to complete the full trial and pronounce orders latest by 30th November 2009.

2. TVS has been allowed to sell its bikes with Twin Spark Plugs, with a Court Receiver being appointed to maintain books of Profit.

3. Issues directive for lower courts for IP litigation.

For background understanding of our readers, below is a synopsis of the facts of the case

• In  Dec 2007 Bajaj claimed TVS had infringed the Patent and filed an infringement suit at Chennai HC against TVS.  Single Judge of the Madras HC issued a temporary injunction  on 16th February, 2008 of the Manufacture and sale of TVS Bikes with alleged infringed twin spark plug.
• TVS appealed against this decision at the Division Bench of the Chennai HC against the injunction and the Division Bench Madras HC on 18 May, 2009 had decided prima facie that there was no infringement by TVS and allowed TVS to manufacture and sell the bikes.
• Bajaj then appealed at the Supreme Court against the Madras Division bench decision and the Supreme Court issued an interim order (dt 08th June, 2009) allowing TVS to manufacture but restrained it from selling till the final order is passed.
• Today’s judgment is the final order passed by the  Supreme court on the appeal on injunction.

The prime importance  that comes out from this judgment  is the direction issued by the SC in relation to the infringement cases handled in the country.

Disapponted that the matter in the Madras HC has been pending for more than 2 years, the Apex court sets guidelines for IP litigation.

In Page  3- 4 of the judgment (enclosed), the bench had cited a case of M/s. Shree Vardhman Rice & Gen Mills vs. M/s Amar Singh Chawalwala  (No.21594 of 2009 decided on 07th September, 2009) where the court noted that :

“…Without going into the merits of the controversy, we are of the opinion that the matters relating to trademarks, copyrights and patents should be finally decided very expeditiously by the Trial Court instead of merely granting or refusing to grant injunction. Experience shows that in the matters of trademarks, copyrights and patents, litigation is mainly fought between the parties about the temporary injunction and that goes on for years and years and the result is that the suit is hardly decided finally. This is not proper.

Proviso (a) to Order XVII Rule 1(2)C.P.C. states that when the hearing of the suit has commenced, it shall be continued from day-to-day until all the witnesses in attendance have been examined, unless the Court finds that, for exceptional reasons to be recorded by it the adjournment of the hearing beyond the following day is necessary. The Court should also observe clauses (b) to (e) of the said proviso.

In our opinion, in matters relating to trademarks, copyright and patents the proviso to Order XVII Rule 1(2) C.P.C. should be strictly complied with by all the Courts, and the hearing of the suit in such matters should proceed on day to day basis and the final judgment should be given normally within four months from the date of the filing of the suit.” (Emphasis Added)

The SC reiterated this stance in today’s judgment  (Pg 4) and observed that

“As has been observed by us in the aforesaid case, experience has shown that in our country, suits relating to the matters of patents, trademarks and copyrights are pending for years and years and litigation is mainly fought between the parties about the temporary injunction. This is a very unsatisfactory state of affairs, and hence we had passed the above quoted order in the above-mentioned case to serve the ends of justice. We direct that the directions in the aforesaid order be carried out by all courts and tribunals in this country punctually and faithfully” (Emphasis Added)

This is a landmark judgment by the Supreme Court and would form basis of litigating other Intellectual Property Rights related cases in India. The Trial court is supposed to give the judgment on merits within 4 months and the matters must proceed on day to day basis.

If followed, this will drastically change the working of Indian courts in Intellectual Property litigation scene and be a positive step towards a strong Intellectual Property enforcement regime in India.

The Supreme Court bench headed by Justice Bhandari issued notices to Centre and all the other parties involved and sought their replies. The respondents include the Ministry of Industry and Commerce, the Controller General of Patent and Design (CGPDTM), the NGO Cancer Patient Aid Association Centre and Pharma companies Natco Pharma, Cipla, Ranbaxy Laboratories and Hetero Drugs.

This SLP is an appeal against the IPAB decision which upheld the Chennai Patent Office decision to refuse the Novartis’ patent application for its cancer drug Gleevec based on Sections 3(d) and 3(b) of the Indian Patent Law.

For those interested in the appeal, a copy of the Special Leave Petition filed by Novartis at the Supreme Court in the Glivec case is available here from the IP Watch website.

Read more from Times Of India here

Indian Patent office has invited applications from interested persons for empanelment as a Scientific Advisors to provide technical assistance to various Courts in India. This invitation is open till the 30^th of November 2009.  The notice is available at the IPO website (here).

According to Section 115 of the Indian Patent Act , in any suit for infringement or in any proceeding before a court, the court may appoint an independent scientific adviser to assist the court or to inquire and report on any such question of fact or of opinion to the court.

The Patent Office is required to maintain a roll of such advisors who can be appointed by the court as per Rule 103 and must be updated annually.

Qualification for empanelment as a scientific advisor are (Rule 103)

1. He should hold a degree in science, engineering, technology or equivalent;

2. At least fifteen years’ practical or research experience; and

3. Holds or has held a responsible post in a scientific or technical department of the Central or State Government or in any organization.

The remuneration of the scientific adviser shall be fixed by the court and shall include the costs of making a report and a proper daily fee and any day on which the scientific adviser may be required to attend before the court, and such remuneration shall be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament by law for the purpose. (Section 115)

This is a welcome move by the Controller General to publicly notify such invitation for scientific advisors. With litigation increasing by the day and absence of specialized courts or bench for deciding complex technical matters, it was time to update that roll with the best people available.

For our erudite and learned readers who would qualify for this, you may download the notification (here) and proforma (here).

In a decision last week, the jury awarded damages totaling more than $32 million against hosting companies Akanoc Solutions Inc., Managed Solutions Group Inc their owner Steven Chen for knowingly allowed several Web sites they hosted to sell products that infringed Louis Vuitton’s copyrights and trademarks.

The US Digital Millennium Copyright Act’s (DCMA) protects ISP from contributory infringements if they can prove that they do not have actual knowledge of the infringement and upon obtaining such knowledge acts expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material  and does not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity. In this instance however the Web hosts had been informed of the activity by Louis Vuitton but still refused to implement a policy for removing the offending sites, which was their responsibility.

This is said to be the first successful application on the Internet on contributory liability for trademark infringement.

Though this looks like a clear case of non compliance on the part of the web hosts, in reality, it would be difficult for web hosts to scrutinize between valid complains before acting upon it, as it is no legal expert to scrutinize trademark infringements and cannot pull the plug off its customers without being 100% sure.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Washington) put on hold the order imposed by the district court until the final hearing in the appeal proceedings. The last month’s decision by the District court had found Microsoft infringing patents relating to customizing XML, a way of encoding data to exchange information among programs and ordered the world’s biggest software maker to alter its Word Software program by 10^th Oct or halt its sales in addition to a $200 mn fine.

Oral arguments on the appeal are scheduled for Sept. 23 in Washington.

The complaint (MDH Spices) in nearly a century long business, had acquired repute among Indian and Pakistani nationals and had also obtained registration of its mark MDH in at least 10 other countries other than India, however due to trade barrier between India and Pakistan it did not sell its product in Pakistan. On the other hand Muhammad Dawood Hassan Food Company (trading as MDH foods) had been selling spices and claimed to be in business since 1983 and has also applied for registration of the mark MDH in Pakistan.

The panelist though accepting that the disputed domain name was confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark noted that the respondent had legitimate rights to use the name.

Noting that the Complainant does not sell its goods into Pakistan, (and consequently may not enjoy there the same fame as it claims to enjoy elsewhere) the panelist adjudicates that this left a possibility the Respondent did not have the Complainant in mind when registering the disputed domain name. He further went to note that there was evidence the Respondent, whose trading name incorporates the initials MDH (standing for Muhammad Dawood Hassan),  has been trading in foods and spices and advertising under the MDH mark in Pakistan since 1984 and had also applied to register that mark in that country (Pakistan) before registering the dsiputed domain name. Therefore on the above reasoning, the panel noted the complaint had failed to prove absence of legitimate rights on the part of the Respondent and thus the request for the domain name transfer was denied.

Justice Katju is said be a supporter of making a balance between the need to give monetary inducements to new inventions, and making available these inventions to the broad masses in the underdeveloped countries at affordable prices. Read Shamnad in his blog spicyIP here.

We note that this was a very decent move made by the H’ble judge. Rather than giving a biased judgment being influenced by personal opinion, it was better that he recused himself from the case which involve such important issues and also being intensely followed by many around the world.

Bajaj’s petition at the Supreme Court against the Madras High court order allowing TVS to use the twin spark technology resulted in the June 2009 interim order, where the SC asked TVS to make an undertaking stating that it would only manufacture the product but refrain from moving its “finished product (motorcycle) from its warehouse” and ordered both parties to restrained from using the said order for any other purposes including publicity.

Noting that it was already 4 months since the division bench order of April and the final hearing on merit of the infringement case (Roche vs Cipla) has already commenced at the Delhi High court, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition and ordered that the ongoing trial at the Delhi High Court be expedited. The SC further went on to note that nothing in the Delhi division bench order would bind the trial court judge.

Read the mint report on this matter here and the analysis by Shamnad in his blog Spicyip here. Spicyip has been covering this matter for a while now read here.

The IPAB in its decision in July had rejected Novartis’s appeal against refusal of its Patent Application for its drug Glivec by the Indian Patent Office (Chennai) back in January 2006 on grounds that the application was not patentable under Section 3(b) (Public order, since the drug was high priced) and 3(d) (failing to give a significantly enhanced efficacy) of the Indian Patent Act.

Read more on Mint, Hindu, Times of India reports on this. SpicyIP has been covering this matter from day one, read them here

Read Bloomberg, IndiaTimes or PCWorld reports for more details

This decision seems harsh, particularly since the domain was based on the colloquial context for the application of the term ‘Tata’ to mean farewell, neither was there  bad faith on part of the respondent towards misguiding the public.  Last heard the respondent had intended to appeal against transfer of the domain at the Indian Courts.

Read the press reports Medianama (here) and Business Standard (here) for more on this topic and the report by Indiatimes (here) on why Cybersquatters eye online travel market.

Another interesting fact tweeted by Cleartrip is that <makemytrip.com> has also cybersquatted on the domain <clearmytrip.net.in> (see here), now that’s called bad faith registration.

]]> http://patentlyyours.wordpress.com/2009/08/27/domain-oktatabyebye-com-transfered-to-tata/feed/ 0 Patently Yours http://patentlyyours.wordpress.com/2009/08/26/26th-august-in-ip-history/ http://patentlyyours.wordpress.com/2009/08/26/26th-august-in-ip-history/#comments Wed, 26 Aug 2009 17:04:48 +0000 Admin http://patentlyyours.wordpress.com/?p=86 ]]> This 26^th day of August in IP History

• In 1902, Arthur W.McCurdy of the Eastman Kodak Company was granted a patent on ‘Apparatus for developing Photographic Films‘ (Patent No 707791)

In all started with second session the Patent Co-Operation Treaty (PCT) Working Group meeting the in May this year (Read all the reports here) where PCT reform was mooted. The aim of the reform was to provide a more effective PCT system which avoids the need for duplication of work. In spirit, this reform mooted by the PCT is the need for the hour. With increasing backlog in the national patent offices and inadequate resources leading to delayed grants which has a negative impact on technology and the economy, such a reform should be blessing.

As per the proposed reform, (as per PCT/WG/2/11 )

1. More than one Authority (say A & B) reviews the Patent Application and gives a comprehensive search report.

2. Another authority (say C) now Performs combined international/national examination using: their own search results; search reports from the previous authority A & B;

3. Authority C now acts like a Examination body receiving response from applicant.
   

4. Authority C also allows for and prior art submissions by 3rd parties before issuing patentability report.

5. If the report is positive then it automatically qualifies for a patent in the member country, unless the member country issues a notice of refusal.

Though all the member nations acknowledged the need for a stronger PCT to reduce duplication of work, there was no consensus on the proposal and it has been decided to further discuss on the proposal. However certain sections of the community have already started crying foul even before the reforms could take any shape. The generic Indian Companies in particular are up in arms against any such idea being mooted.

One such editorial on Economic Times can be read here and subsequent analysis of the editorial by SpicyIP can also be read here. The most recent article on Economic Times comes from the Dr.Y.K.Hamied, Chairman & MD, Cipla Ltd (here) warns the Indian Govt not succumb to the WIPO pressure (Looks more like Cipla pressurizing the government)

Basically the Indian Generic community has two major issues.

Afraid of possible amendment to the Patentability, especially Section 3(d)

Their first concern is that the PCT reforms would force India to accept the examination made by other Authority other than India and thus limiting the freedom of India to apply substantive conditions of patentability. Generic Pharma companies worry that this would force India to grant patents for incremental inventions which otherwise was not be possible under section 3 (d) of the Indian Patent Act. The generic industries which survive by manufacturing such drugs would be the most affected by this.

However this issue was addressed by WIPO in their summary of the Chair (PCT/WG/2/13) para 5 which reads

The Meeting agreed that the relevant PCT bodies should continue their work to improve the PCT. The Meeting agreed that the PCT system can and should function more effectively, within the existing legal framework of the Treaty provisions

- to deliver results which meet the needs of applicants, Offices and third parties in all Contracting States;

- without limiting the freedom of Contracting States to prescribe, interpret and apply substantive conditions of patentability and without seeking substantive patent law harmonization or harmonization of national search and examination procedures.”

Further WIPO itself has condemned a news report in pharmabiz which made its stand clear stating

“there is not – and never has been – any consideration at WIPO of what your article describes as a “global patenting system” which would “dilute the sovereignty of developing nations in determining patentability of applications for inventions and do away with flexibilities granted under the TRIPS Agreement”

More on the PharmaBiz report and WIPO’s clarification can be read from SpicyIP here.

Afraid of possible amendment to the Patent process, especially Pre-grant opposition proceedings

India is one of the very few counties who have two opposition proceeding. India Patent Act allows for a full fledged pre-grant opposition proceeding, including bi party hearing before the Controller. This has been used, rather abused, by the generic companies to the maximum extent for successfully delaying the grant of Patent. The proposed reform to PCT procedure takes into account the majority of member countries (as they have a single opposition (Post Grant)) and provides for 3^rd parties observation.

The report adopted by the working group (PCT/WG/2/14) in its para 58 would clarify the PCT stand on this matter

In response to a query by one delegation as to whether it was intended that International Authorities be required to respond to third party observations, the Secretariat stated that, while the details of any system allowing for the submission of third party observations were still to be discussed, there had been no intention that such responses be mandatory. In this context, several delegations stated that more discussions were needed on the possible details of such system, including whether the applicant should be entitled to comment on any such third party observations and the possible need for translations of such observations. One delegation stated that it wished to reserve its position on the proposal to set up a system allowing for the submission of third party observations, noting the possible impact on the pre-grant opposition system existing under its national law.

It is rather obvious which was the delegation (Indian) who had reserved its comments noting the pre-grant opposition under its laws. Though one may not be a big fan of Section 3(d) or the existing pre-grant opposition proceedings, we believe WIPO would not be a forum to sort out national issues therefore let us have some faith on the Indian Delegation to come up with the best for the country position.

So Generic companies stop complaining and start inventing!

This 25^th day of August in IP History

• In 1840, a patent for seeding machine was granted to Joseph Gibbons (US patent no 1,731).. later a patent of addition ( AI43 ) was filed to this patent.

The European Commission’s Directorate-General for Internal Market and Services has commissioned two independent studies, one on the comprehensive study on the quality of the patent system in Europe and other on the overall functioning of the trademark system in Europe.

On the Patent tender (Available here), the aim is to study the quality of patent rights with economic analysis in order to propose effective policy solutions for the optimal functioning of the future patent system in Europe considering its objectives to encourage innovation and the diffusion of new technology and knowledge.

This should take into account a system with the co-existence of national and European patents, and a future Community patent which is currently being negotiated between Member States. (Yes these guys seem to be serious about the community Patent system!)

On the trademark tender (Availble Here), the aim is to assess the current state of play of the Community trademark system and the potential for improvement and future development. As the Community trademark system is closely linked to national trademark systems, the study shall also evaluate national systems and, in particular, the relation and interaction between the 2 systems, including the need for further harmonization. The results shall, in particular, serve as basis for future review of the trademark system as a whole and enhanced cooperation between the Office for Harmonization on the Internal Market (OHIM) and the national trademark offices of Member States.

More on this can be read at IPkat (here) and Out-law (here).

We in India would really love to see such study happening here. However, what is more interesting is that EU has made an open tender to any 3rd party to undertake such a study which would end up making policy changes in EU. Such move in India to conduct study by a 3rd party would be strongly opposed. Any such study in India is either performed by the government themselves or by a technical committee appointed by the Government.

We have seen of what had happened to the Mashelkar Committee report (read here from shamnad’s blog spicyip) which has been plagued by number of accusations on numerous occasions, fist accused of plagiarism and now for misquoting. If only such study was conducted by a 3^rd party, they would be a on the receiving end of extreme lobbing by all interested parties to cater to their interests. Even when the report of the study is  finally out, it would be accused by the some parties for being partial to certain view, ending up at the Indian courts.

This makes me wonder if any other countries have such issues, would love to hear from the readers.

Patently Yours

]]> http://patentlyyours.wordpress.com/2009/08/25/eu-study-on-quality-of-patent/feed/ 0 Patently Yours http://patentlyyours.wordpress.com/2009/08/24/24th-august-in-ipr-history/ http://patentlyyours.wordpress.com/2009/08/24/24th-august-in-ipr-history/#comments Mon, 24 Aug 2009 15:33:26 +0000 Admin http://patentlyyours.wordpress.com/?p=39 ]]>

This 24^th day of August in IP History

• In 1891, Thomas Edison applied for a movie camera patent … but the film used to record the movies was patented only 6 years later.

• In 1869, the first U.S. patent for a waffle iron was issued to Cornelius Swarthout ( Patent No 94,043)

World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) provides a free online course twice a year on general concepts of IPR. This is a very good course for  for anyone who wants to know more about IPR and a must have for people working in IP field or looking to get into it.

This course covers the main areas of intellectual property, namely copyright, related rights, patents, trademarks, geographical indications, industrial design, plant breeders’ rights, unfair competition and international registration systems.

General Course on Intellectual Property (DL101) as it is called is a fully online course and has twelve modules which can be read online or even downloaded to read offline at your convenience.

1. Guide to Studying the Course

2. Introduction to IP

3. Copyright

4. Related Rights

5. Trademarks

6. Geographical Indications

7. Industrial Design

8. Patents

9. WIPO Treaties

10. Unfair Competition

11. Protection of New Varieties of Plants

12. Summary and Discussion on IP Rights

Registration for the 2nd session of 2009 are now open and open till the September 20, 2009.

The 50 hour course can be completed anytime between October 1 and 15th November 15 and is followed by an exam. This exam is an 2 hour online open book test with 40 multiple choice questions, and this test can be taken anytime between November 16 to 18. A beautiful certificate from WIPO Academy would be given to all successful candidates who pass the test.

To register for the course follow the steps.

1. Go to http://academy.wipo.int during registration period;

2. Select English;

3. Click on “Enroll now” on the right of the DL101 course description;

4. Click in the box next to course code which you wish to enroll for and click on “Enroll now” in the bottom of the page;

5. Click on “Confirm”;

6. Click on “Register now”

7. Fill in the registration form with your personal information; provide correct details as the Certificate will be in that name and be sent to the address provided.

8. Click on “Next” at the bottom of the page; it will tell about payment option, ignore it, those are for paid courses only.

9. Wait for the email confirming your registration.

You will be informed about when the course starts by your email. I will follow up with a post before start of the course about how to log on and start your studies.

So happy registering and studying.

Patently Yours