article thumbnail

Governance and Supervision of Trademark and Patent Agents: Discussing DHC’s Saurav Chaudhary vs. Union Of India

SpicyIP

First thing first, let’s unfold the case: The case involves a writ petition challenging the abandonment of a patent application and praying for its restoration. Here, the background is that the Petitioner hired Mr. Naveen Chaklan of M/s Delhi Intellectual Property LLP to deal with his patent application.

article thumbnail

Understanding Freedom to Operate (FTO) Concerning IP & Patents

Kashishipr

Three pharmaceutical companies, including Enzon Pharmaceuticals, Micromet AG, and Cambridge Antibody Technology (now acquired by AstraZeneca), in September 2003 announced signing a non-exclusive cross-license agreement. However, in this case, it is imperative to note that determining the scope of a patent is not easy. Bottom Line.

IP 105
Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

Trending Sources

article thumbnail

Saving your Mark from Trademark Genericide

Kashishipr

Interestingly, in these cases, the trademark owner itself/himself misused the trademark as the generic name of the product in advertising and Patent Applications. ” For combating trademark genericide, conventional trademark enforcement measures have to be coupled with unconventional methods.

Trademark 105
article thumbnail

SpicyIP Weekly Review (August 7- August 13)

SpicyIP

Other Posts Timelines under Rule 138 of Patent Rules are to be interpreted strictly and there cannot be any leeway under Rule 49.6 of PCT Regulations, says Delhi High Court The DHC ruled that timelines for filing national phase applications cannot be extended, in light of India’s reservation to the PCT Regulations on this.

article thumbnail

SpicyIP Weekly Review (May 8- May 13)

SpicyIP

The petitioner is the sole registered proprietor and user of the “Maxgalin” mark, a Schedule H drug, since 2005. 1 applied for the registration of “MGalin” in 2018 with false user data of 7th January 2003, to which the respondent failed to adduce any evidence to rebut the assertion.

Trademark 104