What Is Useful, May Not Be……

 

This is true that what is useful, may not necessarily be an invention. Rather, most of the invented products are not even useful. A company would show their portfolio of Intellectual Property, in which, they’ve piled up patented products, trademarks that are meant to be Proposed to be Used only. Yet, most of that stock never end up in the Market, nor become innovation.

What is useful, and if sellable, becomes Innovation (invention or not). You might’ve heard that CEOs calling their companies as great Innovators. It’s because, lets say, you’ve this Tri-Folded smart phone. Good invention. The same feature would eventually be used by other mobile companies too, eventually. But again, how many of the Tri-Folding mobiles would be bought? Can a good invention turn into a great innovation? This leads us to another classification, that, what is useful, may also not necessarily end up becoming the most sellable product.

Thus, three classifications:

1.     What is useful, may not necessary be an invention or novel;

2.     What is useful, may become innovation, with or without invention; and

3.     Not all great innovations originated from great inventions.

Unlike in some nations, where for Trademarks, every 5^th to 6^th year, one needs to file the Intent of use of the mark; in other nations, such requirements aren’t applicable nor mandatory. And as I mentioned in the first para, the companies build IP Portfolio, but not all of these assets are usable. There are piled up Registered trademarks under Proposed to be Used, but they aren’t been used, especially in case of Pharma companies.

In one of my previous blog, I opined that, rather removing or rectifying any trademark on the basis of non-use, it’s always better to put them on the hibernation state subject to payment of fees, or, put them on, just alike NPA accounts, in the Dead trademark lists, rather than opening them for the other Users’, under concurrent use or otherwise, in case of non-payment of fees.

It maybe possible a company’s 80-90 percent profit is coming from a single invention, or a trademark; whilst the rest been lying unused, not because they are not novel or inventive, but they are not sellable to the consumer at large.😊

© Pranav Chaturvedi