Why Not Merge Trademarks & Designs With A Caveat?

 

Now, the Trademarks have evolved from Word to Device, to, 3D + Sound + Color + Shape + Façade! The two requirements for the Trademarks are, the absence of functionality, class restricted, and, the ability to be industrially or otherwise been used. Isn’t this also similar in the case of the Design as well? The functionality is missing in Design, whereas being restricted to a particular Class as well! But yes, the Caveat that I’m speaking about  would be that, for the Design, it would be its ability to be filed as PROPOSED! As the provision of Proposed is available in the Trademarks as well, and in any case, if the Design has already been subjected to the industrial application or been disclosed prior to its registration, then its qualification to be filed as Design becomes void & can be Cancelled! Thus, when we have the 3D Shapes, the Façade, the Color Scheme already included in the Trademarks, then why not Merge the Design Act into the Trademarks as well?

Now you would contend for Section 2(d) of the Design Act, which exclude the Trademarks and Copyrights from the Design itself. Herein my Dilemma arise! You get the Copyright in Design upto the expiration of 10 Years, plus for the next 5 Years! Correct? You already have Classes defined in the Design and One Design equals to One Class i.e. 1 Design == 1 Copyright == 1 Class, just like in the case of Trademark wherein One Trademark == One Class! Correct? Thus, in one of my earlier blogs also, I contended about this relation long back. But now I’m openly writing about the merging of the Trademarks and Designs Acts together with a Caveat that the Design should not have been subjected to any Industrial Application or been Used prior to the filing of the Application, wherein One Design One Class One Copyright equation should be Withheld. What would this achieve? You would’ve a Single Window Filing Procedure for both the Design and the Trademark! But now you would ask me that trademarks are for the brand name recognition, whilst, Designs are for the Industrial Application. So, My Dear, the Designs are also restricted to its Ornamental 2D and 3D features, like in case of the Trademarks! So why now merge and add the Design as one more option in the Trademark itself? Again, the period of its validity would be same, 10 years + 5 Year Extension of as Copyright in Design! Thus, this period of validity would be different for both the Trademarks and Designs, whilst, the Procedural features, including the case of Opposition would remain same, except the Conditions of opposition that would become different for both, wherein for Cancellation, Section 19 of the Design should be upheld!

Did I miss anything? 

© Pranav Chaturvedi  

Jason Arday’s Case, &, Why It Was / Is Needless To Give Up 'Life' W.R.T. Plagiarism!

 

Remember -> Capital Punishment is Not Subscribed for an Act of Plagiarism! And INDEED, one Must be Self-Aware, and Try to Create Anything Original, Fresh; and if in case found in a Complicit Situation, then, MUST Introspect, Re-Create, or, Leave to Start Afresh! BUT, Self-Harming with Capital Punishment is of course -> UNNEEDED, as what happened in the case of Jason Arday! Honestly, then what about AI Companies w.r.t. BERNE?

This Argument Lies In Grey Area! I Once Used It, & Albeit It Was Rejected For All The Correct Reasons, But Worth Discerning Upon As Why There’s A Problem With Some Of The WIPO Prosecution Timelines in “PCT” & Why I Admire “MADRID & HAGUE” Prosecutions ‘Structure’ More, In The Comparative Analysis!

 

Take This Scenario!

The time limit mentioned in the PCT/RO/132 of approx. 5 DAYS can indeed be extended, for the reason under Article 14(1)(b) wherein if the receiving office finds any defects, it shall invite the Applicant to correct them under Rule 26(1) of PCT Regulation, and, the Time Limit to Correct the Defects under Rule 26(1) of the Regulation shall be TWO MONTHS under Rule 26(2) of the Regulation from the date of invitation to correct, which further mentions that -> it may be extended by the receiving Office at any time before a decision is taken. Now, this will circumvent the necessity of the cooling period of six weeks wait time before going in the convention country, either directly or vide the PCT, wherein the time limit to process the said request is usually approx. 21 Days, for by passing the six weeks colling period, or, maybe for directly going into the convention country, as per the instructions given to the Applicant in PCT/RO/132 and PCT/RO/105.

The Conundrum of Chapter – I & Chapter – II! And Their Non-Biding Status Dilemma!

 

What Chapter – I’s ISA IPRP provides? An optional opportunity to amend merely the -> Claims! No more No less! And what Chapter – II’s IPER provides! An optioinal opportunity to amend Claims, Description, and, Drawings! Again, Non-Binding on the regional, elected, or designated offices, as well as Optional, the latter being more effectual than mandatory! And what does Supplementary Search provides? Another optional Non-Binding additional Report! Correct? Following the same mutatis-mutandis!

Hey GOOGLE -> You’re Wrong In Your Research Article -> Approach For AI. See Its Excerpt; And If I’m Wrong In My Approach In My Blog!

 

When I enter any gallery or a museum, then my bags are checked. At some places, I’ve to buy tickets. In some major art galleries or museums, I’m not allowed to take pictures, and in case I’m allowed, then I’m not authorized to sell, unless it’s the Public Data (provided by respective Governments) which is absolutely DIFFERENT from the Private Data. A User is Not bound to Opt-Out, Neither is liable to Fill any Form to Opt-Out from the Scrapers; to inform explicitly to not to use their DATA on the Internet. Copyrights are implicit rights, come into existence once formalized into writings, drawings etc.!  

If in case I’m starting a new Company, would I be allowed to enter the GOOGLE Premises in the Bay Area U.S., WITHOUT Prior Authorization from YOU? WITHOUT Prior Approval from your Security? Can I then say that by Not allowing me to take INSPIRATION from Your premises, You’re stifling the innovation, by Not letting ME to see how You WORK? As far as I know, this INSPIRATION problem you had with China (Huawei / SMIC), Japan (Sony), South Korea (Samsung), and, Taiwan (TSMC), back in the 80s-90s, when it came down to the Silicon Chip Manufacturing Units! Correct?

Thus, your this approach is WRONG!

Am I missing something?😊

© Pranav Chaturvedi

 

Is Truly Web 3.0 > Web 2.0?

 

Just an opinion. Correct me if I’m wrong!

Given a chance, honestly, looking at the present condition of Web2.0 today, I would prefer Web 1.0, for the reason that Silicon Valley’s “more numbers and more funders” mantra sowed the seeds of Web 2.0’s “crumble”! We won’t be upgrading to Web 3.0, rather, it’s an alternate platform formulized that would run parallel to the present broken Web 2.0. Web 2.0 is not going anywhere, because Web 3.0 seems to be a subset of Web 2.0 only. It’s just being marketed in a new gift wrap. Blockchains, Tokens, (Un)Stablecoin, Cryptos, NFTs, Fungible & Non-Fungible Assets etc., aren’t they already the part of Web 2.0! Thus, where’ the difference? Maybe I’m missing something somewhere or need to upgrade myself!

Is 18 Months Necessary For The Publication? This Creates A Grey Area In The Anticipation Itself! And Why The Concept Of Provisional Application Should Be Abolished & Replaced With The Existing Patent Of Addition After Complete Specification!

 

I covered this topic long back. I’m covering this again with a caveat!

Let’s say between the period of provisional and complete, someone else files or use the almost similar invention. Now, issue is, technically, your right to invoke full rights, retrospectively, starts post grant only! Because usually no one knows how many claims would end up getting accepted or struck down, thus, till then, one has to wait! If anywhere it happens the other way around, then, that’s a problem, because, without the grant and on the basis of contingency & unlikeliness, one cannot enjoy the fruits of something which is still abstract and hypothetical!

Can A Public Leader Protect His / Her Personality & Trademarks Rights? This Dilemma I Had The Other Day! Because The Answer Is Not That Simple Comparing To The Cases Of Actors / Actresses / Entertainers!

 

You’re a Public Government figure. Can you protect your Personality Rights as long as you’re serving the government or public? Or, can a politician / leader galvanize the fruits of his name or surname as Trademarks rights? Can, or, should he/she be ‘fully’ protected by the Copyrights or Trademarks Act? If I were the judge, I wouldn’t consider this question in black & white, nor would give protection in absolute! And the reason I’m going to explain herein underneath!

When you’re appointed or elected as the servant of the government or leader of public, then, you lose some of your personality rights, because, you would be discussed, cherished, blamed, criticized, commended, condemned, as long as you’re there on that position. Now, I’m not in favour of mutilating the morality rights of any politician or leader, which has become a trend, especially with the help of Slop AIs. But, if something is done more academically, with intellectual integrity, in a more refined and subtle manner, including a parody; then that part shouldn’t be considered as violation of personality rights!

The Ethical Legalities In AI vs AI Suits That Are Never Argued!

 

How many of the cases we’ve seen wherein one AI company sued another AI company for the violation of the BERNE or TRIPS or PARIS Convention? None! In the recent case of Grok VS OpenAI (or Musk VS Sam) too, what exactly is the dispute? That any non-profit should not be allowed to work for profit, else, this will send a wrong message, creating a wrong precedence! And secondly, Musk alleging that, OpenAI wanted to bring him as the shareholder, which Musk considered as bribe (check again for the exact wordings)!

 We have witnessed many cross-litigations in Tech Industry whether it belonged to the Search Engine Giants for monopolies under the Anti-Competitive / Anti-Trust Laws, or, of the IP (especially Patents) infringement cases going back to the 1990s, in which it was argued from  -> that the IP must be protected, to, one cannot enjoy the monopoly in the Market, citing examples of Netscape Navigator vs Internet Explorer, to,  Duck Duck Go vs Google Search! As we all know that to become the monopoly itself, certain backing is required!

Patents AND Copyrights Offices Should Formulate Some Rules On Inventions OR Literary OR Dramatic Works Generated By AI, That Are Filed By Individuals / Companies As Inventors OR Authors!

 

I am not against the AI generated work. I am merely against who should be considered as the Original Proprietor / Author / Inventor of the work generated by AI! So far, there’re no guidelines whatsoever have been issued by the concerned offices, that if the work is generated by AI, then, the Author or the Inventor or the Applicant or the Owner, shall submit an UNDERTAKING clearly mentioning that they are merely the Owners or Applicants of the AI generated work, and not the Authors or Inventors; and then, such applications should be Accepted on “AS IS” basis work, clearly writing the same details.

The Social Media Usage May Now Be Considered As Equivalent To Smoking! Can Its Usage Be Banned At Public Places If Used Without Headphones? YES!

 

United Airlines has banned the use of mobile phones playing audio/video contents without Headphones. Should have been done by every Airline, Railways, Bus Transportation System etc. long back. Not only them, but playing audio-video contents on mobile phones at public places without headphones should also be banned at Coffee Shops, Restaurants, Public Places. People playing YouTube Reels, Videos, Instagram blabbering, at public places without using Headphones, anticipate that the person sitting or standing next to him/her would also enjoy their brain rot, or, 24/7 commentary videos. And as you cannot argue, you end up vacating that seat or place only.

The Real Dilemma Of NOCs of Author(s) In Copyrights!

 

Authors) and Artist(s) can only be the Natural Person(s). Herein the dilemma ensues and how the TRIPS may be in the direct collusion with respect to the Territorial Laws of different lands. I’ll discuss that one by one hereinafter. But first, in short, the equations:

1.     Author(s) == Natural Person(s). and;

2.     Natural Person(s).equals (!Entity).

The Law Should Follow Rule Of Physics, And, Maybe Not Mathematics!

 

In one of my earlier blogs, I opined that, how the dilemma of trial can be circumvented by deciding at the time of framing of charges, the outcome, rather moving that to in future trial, because that is a mathematically driven resolution, which is incoherent with the subject of law that stands on the substrata of philosophy also. How? I give you some examples.

The Dilemma Of Myriad Licensing Agreements!

 

Disney signed a Licensing Agreement with OpenAI for using its characters. Whilst ByteDance danced on the Cease and Desist notice, and now have pledged to safeguard the IP Rights. At Least ByteDance took a pledge to respect the BERNE; UNLIKE other AI companies & search engines, who were training their modules vide scrapping WEB, and busy putting blame on the USERS only, for generating an infringed output. That’s why in one of my earlier blogs I’ve mentioned that, use these generative AI platforms etc. mostly either for personal use or for the R&D activities, despite of their non-deterministic nature.

The Coding, The Copyrights, The Inventions!

 

I was a Weekend Coder doing it for FUN. It started in 90s with C, then C++, creating for instance, dummy model of Train Ticket Booking System; and before that, HTML, for building websites; then, moving towards the VC++, Core Java, Javascript (for GUI; sometimes using Core JAVA for the GUI which was more tedious to maintain the flow of alignments; whilst sometimes using VB, which was quite easier), J2EE  / J2ME (JSP for WEB based), SQL, some part of Oracle for the backhand DB connectivity; until the APP era came in late 00, and then the Android, IOS, Windows, Blackberry (I presume) exponentially replaced the WEB development. Windows and Blackberry eventually vanished. But I switched on to the Android part basically where in the early 2010, building both the Native and Hybrid APPs on Weekends. if I correctly remember, in one of my APP, I used the GPS feature to draw an image automatically, while you move your cell anywhere. In another one, I used APIs of NASA for Mars Rover related APP. That was interesting! And the most easiest Language I would say would be PYTHON, if I’m not wrong. In the initial era of the coding, you had to define even the margines, alignments, and adjustments. When I was doing that with Core JAVA, C++, or, C, it was even more difficult. But with JS, always easier. And in the era of APP coding (Eclipse), it became quite simple. Then, I also did Coding at Embedded Level, designing the Circuits, or, controlling RASPBERRY PI vide Bluetooth APP that I built in Android, like creating a Prototype of fire extinguisher, NERF shooter etc. controlled vide my APP. This all I was doing on the Weekend for FUN, or while traveling to my workplace in the BUS. I even worked on building Drivers, that were more difficult to CODE than to build any Native or Hybrid APP. This all I did until 2016, then I lost the touch, and stopped doing so. And one thing in Coding is that, if you’re not Coding, for let’s say six months, then you’re as good as a fresh coder. Ask this question to any Coder. Today you’ve AI to CODE, which is more boring I would say.

So, from Breadboard to actual Circuits, from C to Android to cross platforms APPs, I always wondered, where can the inventive features be drawn in all this. Because at the end of the day, you’re using Libraries already defined, APIs been derived etc. At the embedded level, it was justified, as I myself worked on that. But at the basic SW level, let’s say for a web portal related to matrimony or social networking site; where one can find the inventive feature? At one point, when owners of these Social Networking sites came forward and said that, “The ‘LIKE’ Button Is an Invention! Then, I Honestly got Confounded and asked myself, could that be?”

What one thing I’ve found that, Computer Engineering is not an Engineering Subject! Nope! It should’ve been treated as Computer Science from the beginning, not Engineering. Further, if we wanted to add Computer Engineering as the subject of Engineering, then, its curriculum should’ve been amalgamated with:

1.     Embedded Engineering

2.     Electronics Engineering

3.     Computer Science

4.     And if possible, some part of Electrical Engineering    

These four subjects together should’ve been considered as the subject of Computer Engineering, wherein, then the scope of the inventiveness could’ve been more elaborated. That’s why anything Software related was mostly restricted to Copyrights only.

Am I missing something!😊

© Pranav Chaturvedi