article thumbnail

Ministry of Commerce and Industry Releases Draft Amendments to the Geographical Indication Rules, 2002


Three years after the 2020 amendments to the Geographical Indication Rules, 2002 , the Ministry of Commerce and Industry (MoCI) published the 2023 draft amendments on October 20, inviting objections and suggestions from the relevant stakeholders.

article thumbnail

Whose Serve is it Anyway? Assessing the Sun Pharma v. Dabur Finding on the Applicants’ Obligation to Serve Counter-Statements


The judgement arose out of an appeal against the decision of the Registrar of Trade Marks (“Registrar”), wherein the opposition was deemed to be abandoned due to the two month time-barred service of evidence under Rule 50 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2002 (“2002 Rules”). Para 4 and 5), Pioneer Overseas Corpn. Chairperson (Para 66).

Copying 111

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

article thumbnail

USPTO Wants Input on Scope of Possible Statutory Experimental Use Exception

IP Watchdog

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s 2002 decision in Madey v. The experimental use defense to patent infringement arises out of jurisprudence dating back to 1813 that allows some non-commercial experimentation with patented subject matter for limited purposes. According to the RFC, since the U.S.

article thumbnail

Lessons From the License to Drive (and Protect) Sports Illustrated

JD Supra Law

Meanwhile, I first learned about LeBron James when he graced Sports Illustrated’s cover in 2002. As an example, a signed 1975 SI cover of Muhammed Ali and Joe Frazier is one of my most prized pieces of memorabilia. By: DarrowEverett LLP

Licensing 113
article thumbnail

Gazing Substantive vs Procedural Rights in the Light of SAP Se vs Swiss Auto Products and Anr


The case revolved around SAP Se (Appellant) trying to furnish new evidence according to the Trademark Rules, 2002. Instead the court assessed whether the Registrar should have applied the 2002 Rules or the 2017 Rules, while passing the impugned order, as the impugned order was passed in 2019.

article thumbnail

Amgen Inc. v. Sandoz Inc, No. 2022-1147 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 19, 2023)

Intellectual Property Law Blog

Regarding the ’101 patent, Sandoz argued that the district court erred in holding that the ’515 provisional application inherently disclosed the crystalline Form B of apremilast and thus that it did not provide the necessary written description support to entitle the patent to a March 2002 priority date. Holding(s) No.

Art 130
article thumbnail

Decoding the Ambiguity: Sun Pharma vs. Dabur India and the Uncertainty of Extensions of Time at the Opposition Evidence Stage under Trade Mark Rules, 2017

Selvam & Selvam Blog

The evolving landscape of the rules governing extensions of time at the evidence stage of opposition proceedings, particularly examining the transition from the Trade Marks Rules of 2002 (hereinafter “2002 Rules”) to the Trade Mark Rules 2017 (hereinafter “2017 Rules”) is a topic which has sparked significant debate recently.