Looking Patents Once, From The Lens Of Trademarks!

 

This is one of my dilemmas of dilemmas’ in the labyrinth of regulations.

Now, you would ask this question to me, that how come I can jumble up these terms and definitions Patents & Trademarks? But again, I’ve captioned in the subject line that, looking only once the Patents from the lens of Trademarks, and not beyond. And what does this mean?

Tale this example. Your trademarks are accepted on the grounds if you’re able to obviate the objections cited in the examination reports. Sometimes there’re similar cited marks, which you need to obviate, and sometimes objections like Section 9, in which case, occasionally, no similar marks are cited. Yet, even under the stringent provisions like Section 9, there’s a sub provision which states: provided that the trademark shall not be refused if it has acquired a distinctive character as a result of use. Remember the term use.

Now, what if I juxtapose this onto the FER as well? Albeit u/s 3, or similar sections in other nations, there’re inventions which cannot be considered as inventions, yet, what if the inventor is able to obviate the cited prior arts in the FER, as well as able to demonstrate its usage with the acquired permissions; then in that case, can that invention (which is Discovery ++ as per my definition which I coined decade and a half back) be considered as an invention with an inventive step (let’s say put such inventions into the subsection of single step inventive products of processes?

What I’ve done here? I juxtaposed Section 9 of trademarks over Section 3 of patents, and now in the same exact situation, looking the invention, from the lens, as if, being looked while taking into cognizance of the line: provided that the trademark shall not be refused if it has acquired a distinctive character as a result of use?

What similarity in my observations I’ve achieved? Firstly, if the invention is able to obviate the cited prior arts objections, then even if that invention is covered under Section 3, which is similar to Section 9 (absolute grounds of refusal) of the Trademarks, (my theory), then, if the Inventor is able to prove its usage with the required permissions from the authorities, then, can that invention be considered as -> an invention as well? But how & under what context? For example, let’s say there’s a precise admixture which Section 3(e) bars; yet, what if that precise exact metrics of admixture, has achieved the approval of usage, then can the invention be given, taking into those exact precise metrics into consideration only (and further as I proposed above, under the single inventive step only)?

If yes, then the captioned line of looking at any Patent from the Lens of the Trademark, would be proven!

Think about It! Am I wrong? 😊

© Pranav Chaturvedi