Search  
 
  Issue-12 & 13  
 

Issue 12-13

September 2002

________________________________________

Various IPR legislations continue to be in the pipeline. The only legislation which has proceeded to implementation is the new Designs Law, which was brought into force on May 11, 2001. It is hoped that the new Trade Marks Law and the amendments to the Patent Law will be in place before the end of this year. The Government is still labouring over certain matters of procedure. Laws relating to Geographical Indications of Goods and Semi-conductor Integrated Circuits Layout Designs, while passed by the Parliament, are still to be enforced.

Following are the salient features of the new Designs Law :-

The proposed Trade Marks Law provides for :-

A few words on Government’s policy on payment of royalties for use of trade marks of foreign companies. Departing from its past policy, the Government has decided to permit payment of such royalties to the extent of 2% on exports and 1% on domestic sales. The percentage of royalties will be on the basis of “gross sales less agents’/dealers’ commission, transport cost (including ocean freight), insurance, duties, taxes and other charges and cost of raw materials, parts, components imported from the foreign licensor or its subsidiary/affiliated company.” Interestingly, unlike in the case of royalties for transfer of technology where the duration for payment of royalties is 7 years, there is no such limitation for payment of royalties for trade marks

. However, where transfer of technology is envisaged along with license of trade marks, then the royalty for trade mark license has to be subsumed within the payment and the period of royalties for technology transfer. Thus, no separate royalties can be paid for use of trade mark under a licence over and above royalties for transfer of technology. There has been an interesting decision of the Supreme Court of India. While analysing the rival marks “PIKNIK” (consisting of three essential features, i.e., peculiar script, curve and the device of a boy with a hat) and “PICNIC” (along with the word Cadbury’s), the Supreme Court held that the absence of the essential features have made the latter mark “PICNIC” look dissimilar in spite of the phonetic similarity. Extending the principle laid down by the English Courts, the Supreme Court held that “more importance” has to be given to the dissimilarity in essential features rather than to the similarity of the two marks. However, in a subsequent case the Supreme Court disagreed with the ratio laid down on the ground that in a passing-off action, to determine the likelihood of deception or confusion in the minds of the trading public, similarity between the competing marks has to be given more importance.

The amendments to the Patents Law, which are yet to be enforced, aim to :-

Applications for Exclusive Marketing Rights (EMRs) from international pharma majors have trickled in over the last two years. However, the Patent Office appears determined to close the tap, having rejected the first 3 applications. There have also been reports about some intensive anti-EMR lobbying by the domestic pharma industry. All in all, it will be a tough going for the rest of the applicants.

In a recent judgement, the High Court of Calcutta has dramatically widened the interpretation of “manner of manufacture” in the definition of “invention”. In absence of a statutory definition of “manufacture”, the Patent Office had evolved a ratio that “manufacture” must be an industrial process for the production of tangible and vendible article and substance. It maintained that living organisms are not articles and substances, though they may form a part of the process for the production of one but not a part of the end product itself. Therefore, the Patent Office had permitted processes, for example, of the manufacture of antibiotics or alcohol through microorganisms involving a technical level of human intervention. The High Court of Calcutta has now held that there is no statutory bar to living organisms forming a part of the end product. This judgement is bold in view of the conservative stand Patent Office has so far adopted and it is likely to provide a precedent for several cases that would not have otherwise been considered patentable.

A brief overview of the system of Domain Name registration in India:-

A company can apply for a domain name under the category “co.in” if it is incorporated in India or has a pending or registered trademark in India. Alternatively, it may seek a registration under the “gen.in” category (for general/miscellaneous purposes), for which there are no formal requirements.

Some technical guidelines : It is necessary to run domain name servers (DNS) for the domain being registered. The name servers may belong to either the applicant or the Internet Service Provider/Web Service Provider (ISP/WSP), and can be located in any part of the world. It is recommended that there are at least two independent name servers (primary and secondary). It is mandatory to run at least the primary name server for the domain. The name servers must be up, permanently connected to the Internet and configured correctly to respond to DNS requests for the domain before the application is submitted.

Some of the significant developments in Corporate Law and in the area of Foreign Investment :-

 

©Remfry & Sagar September 2002