When Claim or Oppose & When Not to Troll!

IP is necessary for recognition of the Original Creator & in No Way should become the means to Exploit public at large. An analogy, Tesla > Edison.

So far, previous blogs covered parts of IP & IT Acts, Procedures (Domestic/International), Biodiversity, Protocols, Online Contracts, Arbitration etc. This present blog is restricted when might oppositions become troll, beyond definitions.

Basic opposition/revocation thumb rule in brief, for Patent is, either pre-grant (before sealing) or post grant (within one year from date of grant) or revocation (S.64); TM is within four months from date of publication or (re) advertising or, post registration option for rectification to Appellate Board/Registrar; Design is cancellation/rectification post registration.

But these are theoretical procedural aspects of opposition. When to oppose or revoke, that too is also point wise theoretically defined. But when should or shouldn’t that goes beyond such definitions? For example, themes & ideas aren’t claimable, but, if it has a novel functional blueprint embedded in it, can or should it then be qualified to become claimable? To some extent, Yup! Can you bifurcate something to claim? With respect of TM, to certain extent, Nope (eg. S.17), minus, in case of Series Marks! Patents, to certain extent, Yup (eg. S.58)! Copyright, Yup (eg. S.13(3))! Design, to certain extent, Nope! Anything abstract isn’t claimable. Mostly, products are similar, but might never processes. Hence emphasis is made on processes, not products (eg. Self Driving Cars). Destination is same. Routes could be different. So, Routes taken matter, not usually Destination, mostly. A design not registered but copyrightable, is not claimable if produced few times.  

So why troll? BTW, I believe in the case present, not case precedent. 😊  

© Pranav Chaturvedi