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:
The Indian Patents Law categorizes certain inventions as not inventions. Among these, the most discussed category is the Section 3(d), which prohibits patenting of ‘the mere discovery of a new form of a known substance which does not result in the enhancement of the known efficacy of that substance’.
The Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) has recently rejected the appeal of Jones Investment Co. Inc., A US Company, challenging the order of the Registrar of Trade Marks, dismissing the opposition filed by US Company against the registration of trade mark JONES label by Indian party trading as Vishnupriya Hosiery.
The term "well-known trade mark" has been defined in the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and refers to a mark which has become so to the substantial segment of the public which uses such goods or receives such services that the use of such mark in relation to other goods or services would be likely to be taken as indicating a connection in the course of trade or rendering of services between those goods or services and a person using the mark in relation to the first mentioned goods or services.
The Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) recently passed
an order for the removal of a trade mark (Tiger Brand label
registered under No. 1330146 in class 34) from the Register of
Trade Marks in a rectification petition being heard by it.
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”