Google Tattoo

For years tattoos have been a fashion statement, but in future tattoos can me much more than that. Google owned Motorola Mobility has recently filed a patent in USPTO for an electronic neck tattoo that can serve as a lie detector. The tattoo can be pasted on the neck or worn on collar or on a band around the user’s neck. The patent application highlights that “the electronic skin tattoo can include a galvanic skin response detector to detect skin resistance of a user; it is contemplated that a user may be nervous or engaging in speaking falsehoods may exhibit different galvanic skin response than a more confident, truth telling individual.”

The tattoo can mainly serve as supplementary microphone and can be paired with various electronic devices such as smartphones, tablets etc.  This means that the user can easilycommunicate through mobile phone by a voice command without having to press any button. The tattoo can run on rechargeable batteries or can usesolar panel technology, capacitive technology, nanotechnology or electro-mechanical technology as explained in the patent application.

 

Picture: A drawing from patent application of Google’s neck tattoo by Motorola

The patent which is titled "Coupling an Electronic Skin Tattoo to a Mobile Communication Device” is primarily meant for nullifying the background noise when a caller speaks from a crowded surrounding. The tattoo worn on the neck can improve the voice quality by making the caller more audible to the person on the other end of the call through a noise-cancelling system.

Interestingly, the tattoo could also be worn by animals, although we are clueless as to how it could help an animal. But for now we are sure that this new wearable technology will make one think before lying.

Authored by Sai Ratna Manjari

Posted By Aurobinda Panda

For Biswajit Sarkar – Advocates – IP Attorney

Gucci Lost Opposition

In a recent turn of events, Gucci an Italian fashion and leather goods brand has opposed a UK trademark application for a device mark claiming it to be similar to their famous GG logo. But the registrar ruled that the said device mark lacks resemblance to the GG logo and the mark does not conflict Section 5(3) (of UK Trademark Act) for protectionof well-known marks. The applicant’s device mark was also applicable to similar goods such as clothing line etc.

 Courtesy: Gucci accessories, lyst.com

Gucci has registered its GG logo via Community Trade Mark registration in EU and UK. In UK it is a registered mark for over 50 years which was described as two G’s facing each other creating a symmetric mirror image. The basis of opposition by Gucci was based on this description. But the registrar disagreed on Gucci’s claim stating that the applicant’s device was more analogous to ‘human torso’. He also argued that the consumers will pay more attention to the device per se and the perception to the similarity of the marks will be little.

Although Gucci provided many evidences to prove its point, registrar stated that the Gucci has failed to prove that Gucci’s device mark has brought a significant distinction to their brand and products upon use. This led to Gucci’s unfortunate loss in the case.

So the question here is how much is too much? What amount of similarity between the device marks makes them similar and deceptive? Although, it is also important to note that Gucci has been changing its GG logo for the purpose of rebranding and advertising, so will a differently arranged  double ‘G’ applied for the similar kind goods create confusion among consumers as a rebranded Gucci’s logo? Perhaps this question can be best answered by the consumers themselves.

Authored by Sai Ratna Manjari

Posted By Aurobinda Panda

For Biswajit Sarkar – Advocates – IP Attorney

 

 

Roche loses Herceptin Patent

After the landmark grant of Compulsory license (CL) for Bayer’s Nexavar to Natco last year, a trend of CL application seems to have started in India. Recently, health ministry has recommended CL for a breast cancer drug Trastuzumab after various campaigns held regarding the affordability of this expensive drug in India. However, Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) has refused the CL for Trastuzumab (Herceptin) manufactured by Swiss multinational Roche.

It was previously reportedthat the health ministry has suggestedrevoking the patent in public interest under section 66 of Indian patent act 1970. However, a recent clarification from Kolkata patent office suggests that the three patents for Herceptin were not revoked but were abandoned or withdrawn because Roche failed to file the documents before deadline and did not appear for the hearing concerning its Herceptin patent.Although, Roche did not make any comments regarding the lapse of its patent; the Herceptin patent IN205534 is diminishing due to its post-grant opposition. India awarded patent for Roche’s Herceptin in 2007 which is currently extended till 2019. Three more patents related to the original patents were further filed, but were withdrawn since Roche failed to meet the deadline. The request for examination of one of the patents was not filed before deadline, while the same was filed for other two after the patent grant, which is not permitted in Indian patent law. Herceptin is said to be the third biggest seller by Roche.

Although, the Herceptin patent is abandoned, the generic version of this drug may not come to the market anytime soon. Currently, Roche’s Herceptin sells for Rs.1,34,000 per vial but Roche also sells the cut price version of this drug through an Indian generic company Emcure Pharmaceuticals Ltd. at the cost of Rs.70,000 per vial. Any generic version of this drug in Indian markets will lead to patent infringement. Besides, this drug is a Biotech drug and developing such a drug under generic company set up is not easy.

There are speculations that CL was refused by DIPP after widespread criticism from International community on CL to Nexavar. In the recent times, Indian IP office has been serious about the submission of ‘statement of working’ or form 27 by the companies regarding their working of patents in India. However, last year for the first time this information from various companies has been made available to public. Although the reason behind the disclosure of such confidential information is not known but it is wondered that lack of such information by the company regarding the working of the patent in India or information on non-working of patent may favour companies seeking CL. On one hand,with government enabling affordability of lifesaving drug to patients and on the other hand critics pointing fingers at Indian IP laws, only time will where India’s healthcare is heading.

Authored by Sai Ratna Manjari

Posted By Aurobinda Panda

For Biswajit Sarkar – Advocates – IP Attorney

Madrid Protocol in India

The Madrid Protocol is an important step towards the international protection and recognition of trademarks. The protocol is actually an amendment to the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks, which was revised at Stockholm, in 1967 and subsequently amended. This article attempts to focus on some of the key features of the Protocol and to what extent these features help the member countries or, the 'contracting parties' for securing the international registration of their trademarks.

Article 1 of the Protocol provides that reference to contracting party in the Protocol shall be construed as both a contracting state and a contracting intergovernmental  organisation. An important provision of this Protocol is Article 2, which deals with securing protection through international registration. This provision lays down the criteria for securing international registration of a trademark, such as, the applicant should be a national of a contracting party, or domiciled in a contracting party, or has a real or effective industrial establishment in the said contracting party. The main advantage of this Protocol is that the applicant need not individually approach every trademark registration office of the contracting states in which he wishes to get his trademark registered. All that is needed is that the applicant should approach the office of the contracting state and through this office, the application is to be sent to the International Bureau of the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) which shall then register the mark in the international register. Article 3 of the Protocol talks about the territorial effect of the registration. It says that application of the trademark to any contracting state shall be done only upon request made so by the applicant and thereafter, the trademark shall be construed  to be made applicable to each of the contracting parties.

Thus, the Madrid Protocol in India, by ensuring that the applicant, who seeks to get his trademark registered, not only ensures that the entire procedure for obtaining a registration is completed in a lucid way, but also significantly contributes towards reduction of time in filing an application, reduction of expenses which would otherwise have been undertaken by the applicant including expenses of engaging a lawyer, and also the applicant while filing an application is only required to file in one language and at one time and the benefits can be enjoyed in all the 89 countries who are members. Article 16 of the Protocol, which talks of signatures, languages with respect to the Protocol is an important provision. It says that the Protocol shall be signed in English, French and Spanish languages and shall be sent to the Director General who shall decide the official text of the Protocol. Another important advantage of the Madrid Protocol is that while in most countries, the process for obtaining the registration is cumbersome and may take a long time, this is not the case with Madrid Protocol. It mandates that the entire process for obtaining a registration shall be 18 months. This is provided in Article 5(2)(b) of the Protocol. But the above mentioned advantage is subject to the condition that the office of the contracting state has informed the International Bureau about the delay in filing opposition by others and the notification of refusal by the contracting state is made within one month of expiry of the opposition period.

There exist certain disadvantages such as limited membership, assignment of rights cannot be made to states which are not members of the Madrid Protocol, among others.

Some of the other key features of the protocol is as follows. For instance, Article 7 provides for renewal of the international registration of the trademark after every 10 years upon payment of fees for the same. Similarly, fees for registration of the mark include a basic fee, a supplementary fee for different classes of the mark mentioned in the application and a complementary fee for request for extension of the application of protection of the trademark. This is provided by Article 8 of the Protocol. The International Bureau of the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) is charged with the responsibility of preparation for revision of the Protocol in accordance with the direction of the Assembly and also for the international registration of trademarks. The Assembly of the Union, under Article 10 is the main institution which has to deal with all matters concerning implementation of the Protocol and any amendment proposed to be made with respect to the working of the Assembly or the International Bureau or financing of the Union shall be introduced by the Director General or the member states.

Very recently, India became the 90th member state to submit its instrument of accession for joining the Madrid Protocol, effective from 8th July, 2013. With this achievement, India became eligible for obtaining the benefits offered by the Madrid Protocol as are mentioned above. Concluding, it can be said that the objective with which the Madrid Protocol was introduced was to simplify the procedure for obtaining a registration of a trademark and thereby reduce time and cost spent on getting a registration, which would ultimately encourage more players in the area of intellectual property and thereby encourage competition and the Madrid Protocol has gone a long way in achieving this objective.

Posted By Aurobinda Panda

For Biswajit Sarkar – Advocates – IP Attorney