Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 7

BUSINESS LAW

TRADEMARKS AND PATENTS ACT

AHTISHAM HASSAN
M. SHER ALAM
M. HARIS GILL
M. USAMA KHAN
WAZAH NADEEM

SUBMITTED TO:
SARA SOHAIL
Trademarks and Patents Act
Trademarks and Patents fall under Intellectual Property Act of modern law.

Trademarks and service marks are applied to a manufacturer's or a seller's products and services
to distinguish them in the marketplace--a valuable marketing tool, in some circumstances. A
trademark or service mark prevents another person from offering a similar product or service
confusingly similar to yours. If you don't register your trademark, you may be prohibited from
using it by someone who has.

History of Trademarks

In trademark treatises it is usually reported that blacksmiths who made swords in the Roman
Empire are thought of as being the first users of trademarks. Other notable trademarks that have
been used for a long time include Löwenbräu, which claims use of its lion mark since 1383. The
first trademark legislation was passed by the Parliament of England under the reign of King Henry
III in 1266, which required all bakers to use a distinctive mark for the bread they sold.
The first modern trademark laws emerged in the late 19th century. In France the first
comprehensive trademark system in the world was passed into law in 1857 with the "Manufacture
and Goods Mark Act". In Britain, the Merchandise Marks Act 1862 made it a criminal offense to
imitate another's trade mark 'with intent to defraud or to enable another to defraud'. In 1875,
the Trade Marks Registration Act was passed which allowed formal registration of trade marks at
the UK Patent Office for the first time. Registration was considered to comprise prima
facie evidence of ownership of a trade mark and registration of marks began on 1 January 1876.
The 1875 Act defined a registrable trade mark as 'a device, or mark, or name of an individual or
firm printed in some particular and distinctive manner; or a written signature or copy of a written
signature of an individual or firm; or a distinctive label or ticket'.
The Trade Marks Act 1938 in the United Kingdom set up the first registration system based on the
“intent-to-use” principle. The Act also established an application publishing procedure and
expanded the rights of the trademark holder to include the barring of trademark use even in cases
where confusion remained unlikely. This Act served as a model for similar legislation elsewhere.

Purpose of Trademarks:

The basic purpose of trademarks was to stop people who steal and create
counterfeit products and use trademarks of companies or merchants to confuse the consumers
and allowing organization a fair return and healthy competition with rivals.

History of Patent Law:


Patent law has a rich and extensive history that began as early as 500 BCE, where chefs in
Sybaris had the opportunity to enjoy a year of monopolized profit for a unique dish that they had
created. This is possibly the first intellectual property protection reference, although the Sybaritic
law was “[w]ell-known—but apocryphal” notes Bruce Bugbee in his Genesis of American Patent
and Copyright Law (p. 166 n. 5).

Several hundreds of years afterwards, Vitruvius, who served as a judge in Alexandria, tried and
exposed several poets who were guilty of stealing the material of others in their field. From then
on, Roman jurists discussed different types of ownership for intellectual works, although they still
did not have any intellectual property laws.

In 1421, architect Filippo Brunelleschi was granted an individual act to in protection of his
intellectual property rights. A 1474 statute then provided a statutory alternative to the existing ad
hoc system that was already in place to provide intellectual property protection.

The Statute of Monopolies was passed by the English Parliament in 1623. Luigi Palombi refers to
it as “the mother of modern patent law in all common law countries”. England also had monopolies
before 1623. For example, in 1449, Henry VI granted letters patent to a Flemish man for the
manufacture of stained glass in England. Sir Edward Coke principally drafted the 1623 statute to
outlaw abusive monopolies, particularly those granted under the King’s letters patent.

In 1787, the U.S. Constitution gave Congress the power to secure inventors’ rights (Article I,
Section 8). The U.S. has had patent protection since 1790, which was developed over the next
several hundred years with standards significantly expanded in the 1950’s. Since then, many
subsequent changes have been made to patent law.

The basic purpose of patent law was exposing talent and giving the inventor and others courage
and promotion of competition in science. Although many people think of patent law as monopoly
and commercialization of product to award the inventor rather than disclosure of invention.
Patents

The first law related to patents was promulgated under the patents and designs Act 1911, this
was later own repealed under the new patents Ordinance 2000. This incorporated all the
requirements of the TRIPs. The major features of the patents ordinance 2000 were as follows:

 A product patent can now be filled.


 The criteria and requirements of the industrial applications of patentable inventions were
elaborated.
 The novelty requirement disclosure status was changed from local to international.
 Patent terms were changed from 16 to 20 years.
 Chemical products such as agricultural and pharmaceutical products were given exclusive
marketing rights, for applications of inventions of black-box.
 An effective system of provisional measures was introduced for the infringements of the
patents.
 Border measures were further elaborated.


Trademarks

Trade Marks act of 1940 was followed until the Ordinance 2001 was implemented in 2004
although it was promulgated in 2001.

The 2001 Trade Marks ordinance incorporates all the requirements of the TRIPs, further new
additions to the previous rights were made with the following points. These include.

 Service marks were to be registered and enforced.


 Trademark being used in one class cannot be used for a similar description good in
another class
 A registered service mark to be sufficient for prevention of infringement to be used same
as a trademark vice versa.
 Introduction of more effective border measures.
 More effective measures to ensure fair trade competition
 Measures to avoid comparative advertisement
 Protection was provided to trademarks under Paris convention
 Offending trademarks were removed from infringing goods.

REAL LIFE EXAMPLES (TRADEMARKS AND PATENTS)


No organization wants to get involved in resource intensive and expensive lawsuit for Trademark or Patent
infringement. Also it’s a very lengthy process. Definition of such infringement vary throughout the world,
even if there is some sort of confusion or some similarities between the products or services, or the way
they are marketed and sold, organizations can be taken to court. These unique factors from company to
company.

The amount of resources an organization needs to defend itself from litigation can drain out every penny
from a company of any size, especially the smaller companies. For the big brands, they aren’t responsive
to such litigations, however it can hurt their brand image if the news gets public, on which they have spent
millions to make. Below are some examples of the most famous trademark fights:
1. Louis Vuitton vs Louis Vuiton Dak (South Korea)

In one of the more shocking examples of international trademark infringement, a South Korean fried
chicken restaurant recently lost a trademark battle with designer Louis Vuitton. The court ruled in the
designer's favor after determining that the restaurant's name of Louis Vuiton Dak was too similar to Louis
Vuitton. In addition to the name infringement, the restaurant's logo and packaging closely mirrored the
designer's iconic imagery. The restaurant was hit with another 14.5 million fine for resistance, in the wake
of changing their name quickly after the principal decision to LOUISVUI TONDAK.

2. Adidas vs Forever 21 (US)

Adidas as of late recorded a claim against garments retailer Forever21 charging that the retailer's items,
which contain a "three stripe" outline, constitute "fake items." Adidas reports they have "contributed
millions" to construct and ensure the three-stripe plan as a trademark segment of their image and possess
"various" trademarks. While agents for Adidas and Forever21 have not discharged further remarks with
respect to the claim since beginning explanations, it stays to be perceived how the courts will react to the
claim

3. American Eagle vs. Pantaloons (India)

The parent organization of attire retailer American Eagle, Retail Royalty Company, has recorded in the
Delhi high court against Pantaloons Fashion and Retail. The claim asserts that the " brand and logo are
misleadingly like its American Eagle Outfitters brand and logo." While Retail Royalty Company is US-
based, this case is a long way from the main case of global retail copyright encroachment. Design United
reports that Gap has likewise as of late recorded against India-based brands offering under the name "Gap
Two" Even for associations that are not worldwide, it can be basic to screen your trademarks on a global
scale.
4. Starbucks vs. Freddocino (US)

In January 2016, Starbucks recorded a claim against the parent organization of New York's Coffee Culture
Cafe for propelling a drink called the "Freddocino" The claim's archives affirm that not exclusively does
the drink seem like the Frappuccino, the structure of the name contains enough similitudes to cause
"perplexity in the commercial center" and lessen "Starbuck's image value." Starbucks owns the trademark
for the term Frappuccino, and also asserted that Coffee Culture has made tricky bundling to influence it
to show up the expression "Freddocino" is trademarked when it isn't. While Coffee Culture Cafe has
changed the name of the toast a "Freddo," Starbucks is continuing with the claim. Espresso Culture could
have stayed away from the issue by maintaining a strategic distance from encroachment on a firmly
watched trademark, with a yearly estimation of roughly $1.5 billion.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi