Instead of getting a new international agreement in place which will create too much of confusion, we should try and adopt better enforcement mechanisms through the existing agreements like TRIPs. Part III from Article 41 t0 61 and special requirements related to border measure from Article 51 need to be incorporated in national law of every state to strength IPR Enforcement.
More importantly every individual need to be educated to respect Intellectual property rights of others rather than enforcing the same through legal mechanisms. Individuals should feel responsible for creation intellectual property and respect the same. Morality should play important role here; individuals should feel guilty of encouraging counterfeiter and counterfeiter should feel guilty for encroaching the Intellectual property rights.
Most of the nations, people are not aware of their intellectual property rights and to the maximum intellectuals creating intellectual property are exploited by the wealthy community. There were very less interesting stories on development of individual through intellectual property rights. Publication of these stories related to such individual’s development would encourage people to think creatively and invent.
Intellectual property rights (IPR) now means one company fighting on monopoly with other company. This trend needs to be changed and IPR should mean individual who contributes for the creation of IPR. Often individuals don’t tend to fight with wealthy multi national companies (MNC) and give up their intellectual property rights which MNC’s take advantage. MNC’s should respect intellectual property rights of individual and set an example so that individuals follow them.
To conclude I would say we need to inject ethics and morality and strongly recommend not encouraging counterfeiters and respecting each others intellectual property. For this we don’t require any legislation what we require is creating awareness.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
US Appeals Court confirms Qualcomm infringement of two Broadcom Patents
US Federal Circuit Court today upheld a unanimous jury verdict that QUALCOMM Incorporated cellular chips and software infringe two Broadcom(R) patents, and upheld the injunction entered by the district court on those two patents.
The appeals court also rejected Qualcomm's request for a new trial howerver the court ruled that a third patent was invalid.
The two patents that the appeals court upheld are U.S. Patent No. 5,657,317, which the jury found infringed by Qualcomm's EV-DO technology, and U.S. Patent No. 6,389,010, which the jury found infringed by Qualcomm's QChat chips and software. The third patent, held invalid, is U.S. Patent No. 6,847,686, which relates to video processing technology.
Indian Government fostering IPR Rights
In a move to Globalization and International obligations, Indian government initiated promoting IPR awareness and modernization of IPO offices. The government has spent about Rs.150 crore in the first phase to create modern integrated Intellectual Property Offices (IPOs) which gave them fruitful results through increased number of filings.
Filing of patent applications has increased from 4824 in the year 1999-2000 to 28,882 applications in the year 2006-2007. As against 8,010 trademark (TM) registrations in 1999-2000, 109,361 Trade Marks were registered in 2006-07. Also, the filing of applications for design has increased from 2874 in 1999-2000 to 5372 in 2006-07.
E-Filing of applications introduced from 20th July 2007 marked filing 1000 Patent applications within a year. Indian applicants welcomed by equally responding to the modernization of the IPO’s.
Indian Patent Offices also provide interactive guidance to the applicants through their website http://www.ipindia.nic.in/ or http://www.ipindia.gov.in/
Indian Government has prepared a budget of Rs 320 crore for the second phase of modernization.
Indian applicants are expecting paper less work in the IPO’s and Video Conference hearing system soon.
Filing of patent applications has increased from 4824 in the year 1999-2000 to 28,882 applications in the year 2006-2007. As against 8,010 trademark (TM) registrations in 1999-2000, 109,361 Trade Marks were registered in 2006-07. Also, the filing of applications for design has increased from 2874 in 1999-2000 to 5372 in 2006-07.
E-Filing of applications introduced from 20th July 2007 marked filing 1000 Patent applications within a year. Indian applicants welcomed by equally responding to the modernization of the IPO’s.
Indian Patent Offices also provide interactive guidance to the applicants through their website http://www.ipindia.nic.in/ or http://www.ipindia.gov.in/
Indian Government has prepared a budget of Rs 320 crore for the second phase of modernization.
Indian applicants are expecting paper less work in the IPO’s and Video Conference hearing system soon.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Thailand geared up to Sue Chinese traders for violations of Thai Hom Mali Jasmine Rice trademarks
It’s now Thailand after USA which wants to enforce IPR Rights in China. The Foreign Trade and the Intellectual Property departments of the Commerce Ministry is taking initiative to take appropriate action on violation of IPR Rights of Thailand. This initiative is following complaints by Thai exporters who report rampant instances of Thai Hom Mali rice being blended with other varieties and quality trademark violations in China.
Ms.Apiradi Tantraporn, the director-general of the Foreign Trade Department informed that Chinese are violating their rights due to the rise in world pricing for the RICE.
She further informed that Chinese are trying to blend Thai Hom Mali rice with low grade white rice thus degrading the quality of Thai Hom Mali Jasmine Rice.
The violations are primarily occurring in the areas of Xiamen, Shenzhen and Guangzhou.
Source: http://news.tourthailand.org/business-news/chinese-face-suit-over-rice-trademarks.html
Ms.Apiradi Tantraporn, the director-general of the Foreign Trade Department informed that Chinese are violating their rights due to the rise in world pricing for the RICE.
She further informed that Chinese are trying to blend Thai Hom Mali rice with low grade white rice thus degrading the quality of Thai Hom Mali Jasmine Rice.
The violations are primarily occurring in the areas of Xiamen, Shenzhen and Guangzhou.
Source: http://news.tourthailand.org/business-news/chinese-face-suit-over-rice-trademarks.html
LAXMAN PRASAD VS. PRODIGY ELECTRONICS LIMITED AND ANOTHER
The Judgment was delivered by : HON'BLE JUSTICE C. K. THAKKER
Case Facts:
Prodigy Electronics Ltd is a Hong Kong based company and engaged in the business of trading electronic goods particularly in Printed Circuit Board (PCB). Mr.Laxman Prasad was working for Prodigy Electronics Ltd since July 22, 2002 till December 20, 2004. He entered an employment contract with the Prodigy Electronics Ltd on October 2, 2003 and subsequently when he is shifted to India on September 13, 2004.
Mr.Laxman Prasad has joined another company Multi Circuit Board (CHINA) Ltd., one of the supplier companies to Prodigy Electronics Ltd and attended a Trade Fair in Delhi (Componex/Electronic India, 2005) which was held between February 1, 2005 to February 4, 2005 at Pragati Maidan, New Delhi.
Prodigy Electronics Ltd., alleged that Mr.Laxman Prasad has breached the contact entered on September 13, 2004 and has used goodwill and passed on the tradename 'Prodigy' during the Trade fair in Delhi. He has also registered a domain name 'www.prodigycircuits.com'.
Aggrieved by these acts of Mr.Laxman Prasad Prodigy Electronics Ltd., has approached Delhi High Court requesting for permanent and mandatory injunction against the defendant as also for damages by ordering rendition of accounts also requested interim injunction restraining the defendant from using the name 'Prodigy', 'Prodigy Circuit' or any other identical or deceptively similar name or from passing off any such identical or deceptively similar trade mark or trade name.
Mr.Laxman Prasad asserted that there was an agreement between the plaintiff-Company and the defendant by which exclusive jurisdiction was granted to Courts in Hong Kong and jurisdiction of all other Courts had been ousted and on that ground also Delhi Court had no jurisdiction in the matter.
Delhi High Court considered the application of the Mr.Laxman Prasad and dismissed it holding that the agreement did not take away jurisdiction of the Court as contended by him and the application had been filed only with a view to delay the progress of the suit which was liable to be dismissed and it was accordingly dismissed with costs of Rs.4, 000/-.
Aggrieved by Delhi High Court’s Order Mr.Laxman Prasad has approached honorable Supreme Court of India under this Special Leave Petition.
Issue:
Whether Delhi High Court has jurisdiction to entertain the civil suit considering the agreement between Mr. Laxman Prasad and Prodigy Electronics Ltd which specifically confers jurisdiction to Hong Kong Courts?
Holding:
The Honorable Supreme Court of India held that Delhi High Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
Analysis:
The Honorable Supreme Court of India observed that 'cause of action' and 'applicability of law' are two distinct, different and independent things and one cannot be confused with the other.
The Court further observed that territorial jurisdiction of a Court, when the plaintiff intends to invoke jurisdiction of any Court in India, has to be ascertained on the basis of the principles laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure. Since a part of 'cause of action' has arisen within the local limits of Delhi that is using goodwill and passing off the tradename 'Prodigy' during the Trade fair has happened in Delhi the High Court of Delhi has the Jurisdiction.
Case Facts:
Prodigy Electronics Ltd is a Hong Kong based company and engaged in the business of trading electronic goods particularly in Printed Circuit Board (PCB). Mr.Laxman Prasad was working for Prodigy Electronics Ltd since July 22, 2002 till December 20, 2004. He entered an employment contract with the Prodigy Electronics Ltd on October 2, 2003 and subsequently when he is shifted to India on September 13, 2004.
Mr.Laxman Prasad has joined another company Multi Circuit Board (CHINA) Ltd., one of the supplier companies to Prodigy Electronics Ltd and attended a Trade Fair in Delhi (Componex/Electronic India, 2005) which was held between February 1, 2005 to February 4, 2005 at Pragati Maidan, New Delhi.
Prodigy Electronics Ltd., alleged that Mr.Laxman Prasad has breached the contact entered on September 13, 2004 and has used goodwill and passed on the tradename 'Prodigy' during the Trade fair in Delhi. He has also registered a domain name 'www.prodigycircuits.com'.
Aggrieved by these acts of Mr.Laxman Prasad Prodigy Electronics Ltd., has approached Delhi High Court requesting for permanent and mandatory injunction against the defendant as also for damages by ordering rendition of accounts also requested interim injunction restraining the defendant from using the name 'Prodigy', 'Prodigy Circuit' or any other identical or deceptively similar name or from passing off any such identical or deceptively similar trade mark or trade name.
Mr.Laxman Prasad asserted that there was an agreement between the plaintiff-Company and the defendant by which exclusive jurisdiction was granted to Courts in Hong Kong and jurisdiction of all other Courts had been ousted and on that ground also Delhi Court had no jurisdiction in the matter.
Delhi High Court considered the application of the Mr.Laxman Prasad and dismissed it holding that the agreement did not take away jurisdiction of the Court as contended by him and the application had been filed only with a view to delay the progress of the suit which was liable to be dismissed and it was accordingly dismissed with costs of Rs.4, 000/-.
Aggrieved by Delhi High Court’s Order Mr.Laxman Prasad has approached honorable Supreme Court of India under this Special Leave Petition.
Issue:
Whether Delhi High Court has jurisdiction to entertain the civil suit considering the agreement between Mr. Laxman Prasad and Prodigy Electronics Ltd which specifically confers jurisdiction to Hong Kong Courts?
Holding:
The Honorable Supreme Court of India held that Delhi High Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
Analysis:
The Honorable Supreme Court of India observed that 'cause of action' and 'applicability of law' are two distinct, different and independent things and one cannot be confused with the other.
The Court further observed that territorial jurisdiction of a Court, when the plaintiff intends to invoke jurisdiction of any Court in India, has to be ascertained on the basis of the principles laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure. Since a part of 'cause of action' has arisen within the local limits of Delhi that is using goodwill and passing off the tradename 'Prodigy' during the Trade fair has happened in Delhi the High Court of Delhi has the Jurisdiction.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)