Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
INTELLACTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS WITH CASES
INTELLACTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS WITH CASES
INTELLACTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS WITH CASES
INTELLACTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS WITH CASES
INTELLACTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS WITH CASES
INTELLACTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS WITH CASES
INTELLACTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS WITH CASES
INTELLACTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS WITH CASES
INTELLACTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS WITH CASES
INTELLACTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS WITH CASES
INTELLACTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS WITH CASES
INTELLACTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS WITH CASES
INTELLACTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS WITH CASES
INTELLACTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS WITH CASES
INTELLACTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS WITH CASES
INTELLACTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS WITH CASES
INTELLACTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS WITH CASES
INTELLACTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS WITH CASES
INTELLACTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS WITH CASES
INTELLACTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS WITH CASES
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

INTELLACTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS WITH CASES

616

Published on

COPYRIGHTS, PATENTS AND TRADEMARKS WITH CASES

COPYRIGHTS, PATENTS AND TRADEMARKS WITH CASES

Published in: Business
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
616
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
30
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. CASE STUDY ON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS GROUP 9 MEMBERS-RAJNI VASHISHT SWATI SHARMA SHAHBAAZ AHMED SALONI RAMAN MISHRA SHRAVAN K JHA SUNDRAM SINHA
  • 2. PATENT CASE ONNovartis vs. Union of India & Others challenging the Indian Patent Office for: Denial of its patent application for Glivec Constitutional validity of section 3(d) of Indian Patent Law,1970
  • 3. INTRODUCTION Section 3(d) of the Indian Patent Act– Prevents the Grant of a Patent for New Forms of Known Substances, Unless It is Demonstrated with an Increased Efficacy.  Glivec Patented in 35 countries & Helpful in Chronic Myeloid Leukemia.
  • 4. CONTINUED “Imatinib Mesylate” in Beta Crystalline Form.  Restrain Indian Generic Pharmaceutical Manufacturers from Producing Drugs based on the Compound.  Not Compatible with the Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) (Vague).   Non Uniform Discretionary Power on the patent controller.
  • 5. CONTINUED……  Abuses of Power by Statutory Authority Corrected by the Hierarchy of Forums provided in the Act itself.  General Expressions for Court to Understand its meaning, would not be a ground to Declare a Section or an Act.
  • 6. DECISION Dismissal Court. of 2 Petitions by Madras High  Division Bench of Court Rejected the Contention as it gave Scope to the Statutory Authority to Exercise its Power Arbitrarily.  Substance Years . was Used in the Market for Many
  • 7. CONTINUED Glivec does not Qualify the Test of “Invention” as laid down in Section 2(1)(j) and Section 2(1)(j (a)) of the Indian Patent Act.  Novartis decided to stop any further Investment in R&D in India.
  • 8. PATENT CASE ON PROCESSINTRODUCTION Class of Patents which Disclose and Claim New Methods of Doing Business.  Includes New Types of E-Commerce, Insurance, Banking, Tax Compliance etc.  As Per Section 3(k), Business Methods are not patentable until a new method solves a "technical" problem and an apparatus/system is involved.
  • 9. PATENT CASE ONYahoo vs Controller of Patents.  Patent an Invention Titled “A Method of Operating a Computer Network Search Apparatus”.
  • 10. DECISION The court Invalidated Yahoo’s Claim.  Claimed ‘Invention’ is Doing the Advertisement Business Electronically.  Technical Advance Claimed Over Existing Art is an Improvement in the Method of Doing Business.
  • 11. CONTINUEDBy Section.3(k) Business Method cannot be Patented. Technical The Advance has not improved the case. Decision Made it Clear that Business Methods cannot be Granted Patent Protection in India.
  • 12. CASE ON TRADEMARK LAWS – INTRODUCTION  Deals with the Mechanism of Registration, Protection of Trademark and Prevention of Fraudulent Trademark, Nature of Infringements and Penalties.  Section 2 (z(b)) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999,
  • 13. TRADEMARK CASE ONAMUL VS LOCAL SHOPKEEPERS  Amul Dairy and the Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation (GCMMF) Filed Trademark Infringement Cases Against Two Local Shop Owners, Amul Chashmaghar and Amul Cut Piece Stores in the District court.  Kaira Union owns brand Amul, GCMMF manages the brand.
  • 14. PROCEEDINGS April 25, 2007, Order Passed by Court that it is a case of Infringement and Restrained the two from using Amul trademark.  Amul Chashmaghar Challenged the Court’s Interim Injunction in the High Court where Justice D N Patel Upheld Ruling of the District Court.
  • 15. DECISION Amul Chasmaghar's appeal was Rejected.  Order Passed by the Court was True, as well as in Accordance with the Trademarks Act 1999.  Amul’s name can not be used by an other proprietor even if the company is selling goods other than that sold by the proprietor, who has registered the trademark.
  • 16. COPYRIGHT CASE ON Microsoft Files Copyright Infringement Case Against KK Software-  Kamlesh Kumar Jha, the owner of New Delhibased KK Software Solutions, and other Defendants were Indulge in Software Piracy and Counterfeiting Microsoft products.
  • 17. PROCEEDINGS Loss of Rs 5.71 crore by Microsoft, due to Illegal Softwares Seized by CBI during the Raids in 2009.  Includes Bulk of Microsoft softwares and Unauthorized Packaging and Printing Material, Blank Certificate of Authenticity (COA) stickers, and other Infringing evidences.
  • 18. DECISIONJanuary 7, 2013, the Delhi High Court issued an Ex-Parte Ad Interim Injunction Restraining the Defendants from Undertaking any Further Reproduction, Storage, Installation or Usage of Unlicensed Softwares of Microsoft. Court Ordered them to Disclose the Details of their assets on Affidavit.
  • 19. CONTINUED Charge Sheet Filed Against KK Jha and others Citing Violations of the Copyright Act 1957, the Information Technology Act 2000 and the Indian Penal Code 1860.  The Case is currently awaiting Framing of charges by the court, according to Microsoft.
  • 20. THANK YOU…..

×