In April 4, 2010, Apple and its associated company IP
Application Development brought a lawsuit against Proview
Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd ("Proview
Technology") before Shenzhen Intermediate
People's Court. In the lawsuit, Apple claimed:
Apple should be the legitimate trademark holder of the IPAD
mark under No. 1590557 and iPAD mark under No. 1682310; and
Proview Technology should compensate Apple for the loss of RMB
4,000,000 for conducting investigation and legal fees in connection
with the iPad case.
After examination, the court concluded that Apple should pay
more attention when it wishes to acquire trademark rights of the
said marks through transfer. The Assignment Agreement is signed
between IP Application Development and Proview Electronics Co., Ltd
("Proview Electronics") while the
registered owner of the said two marks is Proview Technology.
Proview Electronics and Proview Technology are different legal
entities and the Agreement is not binding on Proview Technology.
Also, the "agency by estoppel" doctrine does not apply to
this case. Based on the above, the court refused all claims made by
Apple and IP.
As of the writing of this article, it is not clear whether Apple
intends to appeal to the higher court
For more information about the above issue, please refer to:
This article enunciates the recent, much awaited, and landmark judgment delivered on September 16, 2016 by Hon'ble Delhi High Court throwing light on the important provisions of the Copyright Act, 1962.
Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion recently issued an office memorandum pursuant to receiving representations from various stakeholders for guidance with respect to the applicability of the provisions of Section 31D of the Copyright Act, 1957.
An Invention Disclosure Form is the documentation of the invention. This is a means to document particulars of your invention and submitting it to the patent attorney who is filing your patent application.
The Patents Act 1970, along with the Patents Rules 1972, came into force on 20th April 1972, replacing the Indian Patents and Designs Act 1911. The Patents Act was largely based on the recommendations of the Ayyangar Committee Report headed by Justice N. Rajagopala Ayyangar. One of the recommendations was the allowance of only process patents with regard to inventions relating to drugs, medicines, food and chemicals.
Some comments from our readers… “The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable” “I often find critical information not available elsewhere” “As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).