The Inventors' Who Aren't Inventors'!

 

The moment a common name starts appearing in several different inventions associated with distinct subjects/domain/expertise (exclude computer science); one should conclude that he/she is the mere Investor/Owner/Assignee. The real Inventors’ are different, bounded by the Non-Disclosure/Employer-Employee Contract/Assignment; & that Investor/Owner just added their own names without adding any Inventive or Novel theory into that Invention. This has been happening for Decades. And according to me, this practice of adding names to Patents in the inventions wherein those who’ve neither contributed theoretically nor technically anything; should be stopped, everywhere. How this could be achieved?

Sound, Voice, Names, Memes, Face!

 

Can Sounds be trademarked? Yes! Via sonogram, musical notes and actual recording of thirty seconds, that can identify any product merely via sound, rather, visually. Copyrightable? Yes!

Can Voice be trademarked? Nope! Copyrighted? Sort of, via collection of well-known personality traits + performer’s rights & moral rights (copyright) + protection of life & personal liberty (constitution). But it should be extremely well-known, at least territorially.

Can Names/Surnames be trademarked? Yes. But are Conditional!

Different Goods, Same Class, TM!

 

As we know, there’re different classes in TM & one acquires exclusive rights over the TM in a class (which again, consists of several set of different goods/services) w.r.t. goods or services manufactured or proffered. But what if there’re two different goods or services falling under the same class, and further, there’re two contenders for the exclusive rights or user, of the same TM?

Restoration of Patents

 

Let’s say, you were granted a Patent. Then the intimation letter would’ve clearly instructed you to pay the annuity renewal fee U/S 142 (4), also read with U/S 53, payable w.r.t. 3rd year onwards from the Date of Patent i.e. (filing date) before expiration of second year from the date of patent; and furthermore within 3 months (or not later than the extended period of 9 months) from the date of recordal of Patent in the Register. Albeit, the said fees is supposed to be filed within that duration; but somehow the renewal fees wasn’t deposited, & the Patent ceased to exist. So what’s the remedy?

I.D.A.

 

The present blog isn’t my subject specific domain,  yet, thought to write about this.

There was a discussion regarding -> whilst the Industrial Dispute covered the definition of Workman (S.2s) & the Employer (S.2g), it circumvented on defining an Employee (eg. let’s say Software Engineers). So, the way Workman is covered against Laying Off, Retrenchment etc.; Employees, as mentioned above, should’ve also been covered. For example, IT or Finance Sector Employees protected from being Laid Off or Retrenched, especially at the time of Recession or amidst the likes of Covid lockdown.

Registered Proprietor, Registered or Permitted User & Assignment in TM

 

An assignment in TM can’t create parallel exclusive rights nor territorial different exclusive rights, for similar goods or services.

A registered user is the user of any registered TM, u/s 49; becomes registered, post filing a proposed application for the same jointly with registered proprietor of the said TM (owner); along with the TM user agreement executed with the latter; whereas, a permitted user is the user of the trade mark permitted to use by the registered proprietor via written agreement.

Trade Secrets, Confidentiality & IP (Patents & Copyrights)

Suppose you conceptualized a theme of a Dinosaur Combat with the surrounding nature similar to of that era, & further disclose it to someone else, make this individual sign with you an NDA, for any mutual future production work. Later, this individual, without disclosing you, makes a short or long series or flick, about a Dinosaur combat with similar theme containing elements (elements that define an expression of an idea) of the same era. Is it breach of confidentiality?  Further, are Trade Secrets dissimilar or similar to that of protection acquired by Patents? 

The Reply in Madrid System

 

The earlier few blogs already covered the Madrid System (which is nothing but what resides alike inside a Mall (WIPO) with different showrooms (Contracting Parties (member nations)) in it, where you decide in which shop (designated Contracting Party) you want to approach for your TM to be registered whereas Mall (WIPO) is merely checking security at entry (Irregularities) whilst entering the Mall & guiding you further to different shops with an entrance fee). Also, the previous blogs covered the PCT (Patents), Hague (Design), WIPO Domain Disputes Redressal (UDRP), G.I., Evidence in IP, some part of IT etc., where, when & how to approach & reply &, the further coming blogs would deep dive furthermore into it.

Digital Copyrights

 

There shouldn’t be any distortion in the hereinunder flow:

Start -> Author -> Publisher -> Distributor (if any, of publisher(s)) -> Seller -> End User -> Stop.

For example, In 2009, Amazon Kindle had to delete e-book copies of 1984 & Animal Farm at the end user’s accounts’ as there was a break in the above chain work flow, as the uploading publisher had no relevant rights directly with author or its assigned publisher or distributor, thus leaving Amazon not having rights to execute contract with the end user buyers/readers’ (somewhat similar to void-ab-initio).

Assignment in IP

 

Both context & concept of Assignment in IP differs as explained:

G.I. - > Herein, any right acquired via registration isn’t a subject matter of assignment (S.24) whereas right of any authorized user (as explained in previous blog) would be passed via succession only.

Domain Disputes

 

One of my previous blog briefed about UDRP process for cybersquatting (TM) related disputes, in-depth, from filing - complaint, response; to selecting panel members to time period involved. URS is another light version mechanism used to resolve cybersquatting disputes with almost similar process. Whereas, the present blog briefly explains miscellaneous domain related issues, when arisen &, where to approach.

G.I. vs TM

 

Article 22-24 of TRIPS Agreement (as already discussed in previous blog in detail with examples of limited suspension of IP rights w.r.t to covid vaccines amidst Covid biowarfare) defines Geographical Indication (G.I.), Whereas, Article 15-21 elucidate about Trademark (TM) (again, as already explained in-depth upto how to globally handle in one of my previous blog). But what exactly is the difference between TM & G.I. & further, can TM be registered as G.I.? To differentiate it with G.I., here’ a small definition:

Electronic Evidence w.r.t. IP

 

Digital forensic (of course, isn’t my domain) involves analysis of vulnerabilities via logs, metadata, flow control, network connections, registry data, event logs, storage, file integrity, etc. to detect and track security incidents & compile such data as evidence. This blog basically surrounds electronic records aka evidence w.r.t. IP only, which is in continuation with one of my earlier blog elucidating concept of Online Contracts; and of course further, along with it, my alternate concern + suggestion. Basically, these things hardly change (except the Tech part), which are written in several other similar books, articles or journals. And writing case precedences is mere an act of compilation. 

Design<->TM (When Juxtaposed)!

 

If we can interpret a sentence into several different or distinct meanings, then that framed sentence only is flawed. And that also implies to any legal definition. I’m absolutely not endorsing in verbatim studies or discussing question of law itself, BUT still, what can be precisely defined, (s)could be defined. And this is the reason that for more than millennium, holy wars were unleashed because of misinterpretation of sentences. This ain’t Science, that works on successive steps. Framing of Sentences are in our hands & can be drafted unambiguously.

AI, The Inventor?

 

Is DABUS an Inventor?

 

Well, the UK, US & EPO don’t think so, whereas, South Africa has another opinion. In my Blogs, I always TRY, NOT to discuss or write repetitive cases or laws or case precedences, rather, produce novel arguments, precise notions or prototypes aka blue prints, for certain practices or system that can be changed for good. And what’s the harm adding probable contentions amongst several other already existing!

Exclusive Rights on Name-Surname in TM!

 

The extensive commercial use along with a well-known status on paper gives someone the exclusive rights to be a proprietor of one’s own Surname or even Name, over Others. For example, suppose your surname/name starts or ends with Tata or Trump or Sony or Gucci or Ambani or similar known alike; and you decide to launch your own products or services with your surname/name, anticipating that you’re merely using your own surname/name for its commercial exploitation & have an exclusive rights to do that & further not being in any case infringing/passing off any said surname/name as mentioned supra, which have already acquired a well-known status on paper. Well, you can’t do that & would basically end up infringing/passing off the above trade marks/trade names aka well-known surnames/names.

Theranos Trial!

 

Basics:

How do we define an Invention?

It’s a product or process built with novel inventive step(s) capable of being industrial applicable.

 

There’re no words alike may, might, method, probable in any Claims Section of any Patent Application, as Claims are precise, concise, elucidated with exact values or measurements.

Disruption in Legal System!

 

The other day, I was leafing through online & came across to one of the presidential debates wherein one contender Ms. Fiorina contended for a Three page taxation code instead of 73,000 pages in US, which was rebutted by everyone else. There’s another debate going on, including in India, of abolishing taxes for good, as it creates load on only few honest tax payers. I’m sailing on the similar ship as a common man wherein to see the entire legal system being minimalistic but unparalleled. AI is an option, & of course is in use at many places, BUT, until General AI is built & planted everywhere with full Autonomy, it’s unworkable. Till then, it has to be done through human intervention.

Nominee vs Successor

 

IP too is subjected to inheritance. One may bequeath to Trust or via Will to its beneficiary Successors or if intestate, then proceeded via Succession act or if part of employment, then irrelevant as the company/firm owns it unless entered into with any special employment provisions. Other ways of transferring rights are through mortgage, license, assignment. And if co-owners, then it’s an undivided right, unless any agreement contrary in force; and rights which further cannot be shared or assigned by either one unless taken consent of the other. 

Right to be Forgotten!

 

DELETE! But What & Why?

 

That’s the dilemma in Right to be Forgotten. Is it Right to Privacy? Or is it an obstruction in Freedom of Speech? 

 

Already Modern Historians have done lot of damage in the World. So, is Right to be Forgotten another trick to obliterate actual Historical Facts whilst rewriting contentious Events?

The Usage of Term Invent!

This short blog contends, why using the term invent for any new word or phrase or expression is basically inappropriate or unreasonable.

As, one might have come across writings alike - ‘…that person actually invented those word(s) or expression(s)….!’  For eg. let’s consider the term ‘poverty porn’. Technically, that’s not invent nor invention or innovation.

Apple’s Privacy Dilemma!

 

This is continuation of my previous blog covering the R.4(2) of new IT guidelines, which also included the Apple’s dilemma of creating back door for unlocking the iPhone in San Bernardino case for National Security. The current blog is related to the scanning of User’s Data for identification of CSAM (Child Sexual Abuse Material) content, but, at the Client’s Side. And would this Apple’s feature negate its long standing repute of adhering to User’s Privacy, come what may? I’ll elucidate this point by point. 

The Anthology in TRIPS

A comprehensive Agreement with the most recent amendments + anthology of different pre-existing IP Treaties / Conventions viz. ICIT (For Integrated Circuit (IC) Design Layout), BERNE (For Copyrights i.e. Literary / Artistic Works), PARIS (For Industrial IP alike PAT/TM/Designs), ROME (For Performance, Broadcasting, Phonograms); constitute TRIPS Agreement. 

WIPO Arbitration w.r.t. IP & its Advantages!

 

As long as there are No Strings Attached….

 

Earlier few blogs briefly elucidated (Policy & Rules) facets of UDRP process for Domain Name Disputes adjudication w.r.t. Trademarks (cybersquatting). Further, WIPO ADR is another way to resolve Disputes w.r.t IP, initiated by the Claimant (one who initiate arbitration) in front of the Tribunal comprising of Arbitrator(s) at the Centre (WIPO) filed, only if & in accordance with the Arbitration Agreement entered between two Parties, which is a must. The compliance of Awards (awarded within three months post closure of proceedings) is given under Article 66 of the Arbitration Rules & shall be effective & binding, just alike any other Arbitration Award, which has limited scope of Appeal, except in cases of correcting technical defects, even at local level.

Singularity in Adjudication!

 

My next immediate blog regarding WIPO ADR Procedures & Rules for IP Arbitration, defines the scope of how adjudicating any matter could become robust via simplified step by step procedures, policies & rules; as, to my understanding, such are missing at other places. This blog elucidates reasons why simplicity & singularity are indispensable in modern times. 

Question of Fact or Law w.r.t. IP & an Alt Proposition!

 

The question of law is decided by presiding officer/judge. Question of fact by circumstantial exhibits. And its conclusion is reached whilst concluding the above two with case precedences aka case laws. For example, can a commonly used initial name be given an exclusive proprietorship rights under trade mark; becomes a mixed matter i.e. both question of law & fact.

Gain-of-Function & Patents

 

Thumb Rule:

Anything Novel Synthetic is Patentable. Natural isn’t as comes under ambit of Discoverable.

 

But when it comes to gain-of-function researches & kindred inventions, I strongly believe that they must be prosecuted as equalled to an invention kindred to Atomic Energy. Alike S.4 of IPA or S.20 of Atomic Energy Act or U.S.C. S.181 etc., wherein any invention is bound to be scrutinized by respective Government & if so found related to, could be withheld or restricted for publishing or grant or is transferred instantly. Thence, similarly, if & when any Patent kindred to gain-of-function research is ever filed, the said member nation must adhere to similar provisions as mentioned supra w.r.t. Atomic Energy, before reaching at the International Filing Process via Paris Convention or Direct (as already elucidated in detail in my previous blog).

Intent in Copyright

 

The foundation principle of law anywhere in short may be considered as, ‘Nothing is an offence until the intention (mens rea) is known, taking into account -> right vs right || right vs wrong || wrong vs wrong in any given circumstances.’ Wordings of my definition differ, but never its principle of working. As long as its context is justifiable & prudent, even if it’s beyond the in verbatim written jurisprudence. So, same goes for IP.

The IT Act/Rules/Guidelines & The Originator

 

With the clause of tracing the Originator R. 4(2) in new IT guidelines (Rules), we revisited the similar era of Apple Encryption case post San Bernardino effect when Apple contended of not being forced for creating any backdoor as that would jeopardize Users’ privacy & could create domino effect all over World against Apple Users. It was case of Right vs Right or Right vs Wrong OR an opportunity to market itself as a prominent leader in End to End Encryption & Users’ Privacy; no idea, but, tracing the Originator has similar meaning hiding behind it.

IP & Pharma amidst Covid

 We must decide what’s more important! To end Covid Biowarfare or to discuss bullish Stocks of some Pharmaceutical Companies all over World. I’m a hard core supporter of IP. But there are times when things need to be seen from an alternate perspective. We aren’t talking about compulsory licences or march in rights or crown use or government acquisition of IP like terms, which all takes time. We are taking about immediate addressing the concern of availability of therapeutic medicines to vaccines to testing kits for Covid all over world.

Hague, PCT, Madrid -> Timeline -> My Dilemma + Proposal

There’re some procedural similarities & differences between PCT, Madrid & Hague System, which the present blog discusses, as how they are poles apart, but, still have similar foundational structure. So far, previous blogs briefly discussed: Online Contracts, parts of IP (Pat/D/TM/C) / IT Act, Domain Arbitrations, Domestic/International prosecution etc.

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.

Dilemma of Software Patents

Few years back, I contended for the need of Software Patents at a moderate level. The present blog contradicts it. So far, in my previous blogs, I’ve covered parts of IP (Pat/TM/D/C) & IT (Acts & Rules), International Procedures/Constraints, Domain Arbitrations etc. The present blog, as stated above, is where I elucidate the Dilemma of Software Patents.

Connection/Disconnection within IP

In earlier blogs I covered some parts of IT Act, IP Act, Online Contracts, its International Procedures. The present blog briefly covers how IP from within is Connected/Disconnected. Upto, 2:2 ratio for (Pat/TM/D/C), I've termed as Disconnected. :) 

1. Compulsory License: In Patents & Copyrights, provision of Compulsory License is present, S. 84 of Patent & S.31 of Copyright. Whilst in TM & Design, there isn’t such provision. So Disconnected.

Biodiversity in Patent

 

So far, in previous blogs, I briefly elucidated some parts, procedures & issues, w.r.t. IT Act, Patent, Designs, Copyrights, UDRP, TM, PCT, Madrid Protocol. So, continuing the trend, would go back & discuss Biodiversity in Patents, in general.

So, if one discovers a plant with medicinal properties, can exclusive rights on it be claimed? Nope!

Online Contracts!

 

So, continuing my journey of elucidating in brief; whereabouts, procedures & issues revolving around IP & IT Acts (minus, monotonous in verbatim, definitions); present blog is w.r.t. Online Contracts.

Licenses, When become Compulsory!

 

In the last few blogs, I briefly discussed certain provisions of IT ACT, IP including PCT, Madrid Protocol, Designs, Copyrights, UDRP Arbitration, What constitutes Originality in the World etc. So, continuing further the said journey, I discuss about the context of Compulsory Licensing.

(66A, 66C, 66D) + Memes + Roasting + Moral Rights

Continuing journey of briefly discussing IP, this another blog is a mere discussion on conjoining (66A*, 66C, 66D) of IT Act, with 52 of Copyright & taking essence & expanding scope of alike Moral Rights in 38B of Copyrights, & intermediary guidelines (R. 3(b)(iv)). And furthermore, also expanding the scope of 106A of U.S. Copyright law. Alike a Performer has Moral Rights, & so as any Author etc., wherein the original context of the act or words or performance cannot be mutilated or morphed or distorted or modified; and, when it comes to Memes, that moral right of refraining someone or something for not preserving the original essence or context, too exists. Same goes with the roasting part.

IP & Originality!

 

In earlier Blogs, I briefly discussed about PCT, Madrid Protocol, UDRP Arbitration, Designs, Copyrights. Continuing the trend, would discuss further the relation between IP & Originality! And what constitutes it!

Was LIKE Button an Invention? Trend these days is, some contend that; An APP or WEB Portal, let’s say, a Social Media Platform, be considered an Invention too? Should it be? When they’re bifurcated to their own individual modules or pieces, then those individual pieces might fall under IP; mostly under Copyrights & Trademarks; but, Invention? The Process or Product itself? I Hope Not!

Copyrights

 

In the last few blogs, I briefly elucidated about UDRP, PCT, Madrid Protocol, Designs & some of Real Time procedures & issues involved. Continuing similar flow, would briefly elucidate about Copyrights. So, when one pens down or digitally enters anything original; it’s implicitly instantly copyrighted. But again, never an easy ride for anyone to circumvent prima facie part through which someone else is protected when registered. So goes different types of rights, from Performer to Author to Broadcaster to Artist to Composer.

Locking of Domain w.r.t. UDRP & Electing Members!

 

The rule in the UDRP to trigger Lock on domain name, immediately after responding of verification by the Registrar to the Provider (Paragraph 4 (b) of Rules) & until pending of the Complaint with the Provider (albeit effect of which is minimum), is somehow alike ex-parte. Of course, the provision of reverse domain name hijacking or the Complaint itself in bad faith is available to the Respondent, to counter Provision of Bad Faith Use, used by the Complainant against Respondent under Rules, & further within a day, the Lock too is removed post dismissal or withdrawal of Complaint.

UDRP

 

UDRP or Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy, the Policy wherein one can resolve domain-name w.r.t. trade-mark based disputes (Paragraph 4 (a) of the Policy), further via cancellation, settlement, transfer, or in court action. This is a mechanism, wherein the Complainant can approach one of the Providers (ADNDRC, ACDR, NAF, CIIDRC, WIPO & CAC), against the Respondent (person being alleged of cybersquatting), in the event if Complainant’s domain-name been used in bad faith by the Respondent, despite of having no rights in the trademark with an intent to sail on the goodwill of the Complainant.

Designs (Edited)

 

In earlier Blogs, I briefly elucidated PCT & the Madrid Protocol. Continuing further, would summarize Designs. IP, albeit prima facie; but, always exceedingly arduous to circumvent or overcome the prima facie part by the one who’s not holding respective IP right. So, in layman’s language, four principles must pass litmus test for being bonafide: Intent <–> Interest <–> Use <-> User. Design means; say let’s consider a Car.

Madrid Protocol

 

Consider Madrid Protocol a Mall with different Shops inside. Similar to PCT, BUT, not the same. There’s difference between similar & same patterns. So, on conceptual level, both are similar as providing one gateway to different outlets, but, differ in its architecture, implementation & rules. If one wants to protect a TM (trademark), globally, can either choose to proceed individually in every Nation, or, can enter this gateway (WIPO) where one would be routed to different channels i.e. designated contractual member nations, part of this treaty.

PCT Saga

 

A Treaty that basically Extends Timeline. The original intent of Patent Corporation Treaty or PCT is to Extend the Timeline w.r.t. giving leverage to thought & action of the Applicant, as whether to expand Scope of its Patent Worldwide or Not; the timeline which in itself vary demographically from 30-31 months period. So rather an Applicant directly approaching convention country for its Patent Application; if & when approached via PCT within one year of filing basic or original Application locally or nationally; leverage given by PCT enables the Applicant to get additional timeline, & further examination reports, to give a thought in detail to ascertain first about the distinctiveness & novelty of the Invention; before spending exorbitant amounts per Nation directly.