Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
TASKS ASSIGNED
1. Finding relevant case law on the legislative intent over the amendment of Rule 138
of Patent Rules 2003, in the year 2003.
The rule 138 of the patent rules 2003 reads as-
(1) Save as otherwise provided in the rules 24, sub-rule (4) of rule 55 and sub-rule (1A)
of rule 80, the time prescribed by these rules for doing of any act or the taking of any
proceeding thereunder may be extended by the Controller for a period of one month, if he
thinks it fit to do so and upon such terms as he may direct.
(2) Any request for extension of time made under these rules shall be made before expiry
of prescribed period. (emphasis provided)
Prior to the 2003 rules the language of rule 138 was different to the extent of use of
the phrase…..shall be made before expiry of the extendable period. The change of
the word ‘prescribed’ from ‘extendable’ has caused a problem in calculating the total
period in which one can apply for extension of time. Prior to 2003, the time for filing
an extension for filing a national phase application would be calculated to be 32
months as 31 months (statutory limit for filing national phase application) + 1 month
(the extendable period) . But after the amendment of 2003, the use of the word
prescribed changed the calculation for application for extension to a period of 31
months only i.e the statutory prescribed period. Our clients were already 8 days late
that the prescribed 31 month period and wanted to seek condonation of the delay
under rule 138. I was asked to find supporting case laws for the filing of such
application. –
Nokia Corporation Vs. Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs 2011(46) PTC
70 Mad
Kailash v. Nanhku (2005) 4SCC 480,
National Phase Application No 1494/DELNP/2010 dated 4th March, 2010 based
on PCT Application No.PCT/US2008/069688 10th day of July 2008
filed by INFORMATION IN PLACE, Inc, USA
Our clients DABUR had a renowned and world famous trademark ‘REAL’ of which
they found unauthorized use under the domain name www.realfruitjuices.com.au in
violation of the trade mark rights of Dabur.
The website was also using YouTube embedded videos, owned by DABUR in
violation of copyright of existing in the videos.
The website also featured images of ‘sonai bendre’ who endorses the brand ‘Real
Fruit Juice’ in violation of personality rights of the celebrity (who is no longer
ambassador of the brand).
I was asked to make an opinion on the possible legal actions that could be taken
against the infringing website. The following actions could be taken
1. UDRP complaint can be filed under paragraph 4(a) of the UDRP policy
2. Copyright infringement suit for the unauthorised use of videos/ Cease and Desist
Notice
3. A Takedown notice could be sent to Copyright office of Australia under REG 201
of the Copyright regulation 1969 of Australia.
4. Trade mark action/ Passing off.
WEEK 2
1. Drafting of opposition
Drafted opposition against Trade Mark “FIZZOLCAL-1000” for Nestle
Drafted opposition against Trade Mark “EXTRALUBE LG” for LG corp.
2. Research on John Doe suits
Jurisdiction of court in john doe suits
Appropriate court fee in john doe suits
3. Research on passing off
Value of doctrine of prior use in comparison to doctrine of reputation and
goodwill
4. Assistance in documentation
5. Research on Media Laws
Media Law and constitution
Media Law and IPR
Media Law and contracts
Personality Rights
WEEK 3
Difference between ‘sound recording’ and ‘musical work’ under copyright law
and possible differences in registration process.
different?
7. Case note
Prepared a case note/summary of Britannia ltd. V. ITC ltd ( FAO(OS)
(COMM0 77/2016 & CM Nos. 33194-97/2016)