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