GIIP announces Off-Campus Learning Program

(Image taken from here)
The readers of Spicy IP would doubtless have already come across the Global Institute of Intellectual Property (GIIP), an institute that offers courses adhering to international standards on IP generation, protection, commercialization and management. GIIP is soon going to offer what promises to be a very useful course as a natural extension of their instructor-led training programs. Named the GIIP Off-Campus Learning Program (OCL), it is meant for those who wish to gain expertise in IP or outshine their peers in this discipline, especially to further their professional careers.

Nature of Program: The OCL program allows one to learn at his convenience from a location of his choice via GIIP’s interactive online platform. There is a wide range of general and specialized capsules on all aspects of IP and its management in jurisdictions of USA, Europe and India. Practical insights supported by illustrations, case studies and exercises, simulations of IP matters faced by enterprises, along with course-specific workbooks, video or audio lectures by GIIP faculty, access to all webinars for a full year and an opportunity to interact and learn from experienced practitioners collectively form the USP of the program.

A skill development program, case study based learning pedagogy, preparation for the Patent Agent Examination conducted by the Indian Patent Office and the Patent Bar Examination conducted by the US Patents & Trademark Office are some of the highlights of the program. One can also take course credits from the OCL program and transfer them to obtain the Post Graduate Diploma in Intellectual Property Rights and Patent Management offered by GIIP or to any other Certification program offered by GIIP (like this).

Who should take it? The OCL program is designed for working professionals, corporate teams and students. For working professionals, the program can accelerate career growth, while students are offered an edge in the IP industry and job market. One has to be a Technical, Engineering, Law or Management graduate to be eligible for joining the program.

What to do after this? On completion of the OCL program, participants are hired as Patent Engineer, IP Analyst, IP Associate Attorney or IP Counsel at a leading Corporate, MNC, Law Firm or K/LPO like Honeywell, GE, Infosys, Oracle India, HCL, TCS, Reliance Industries , Siemens, Ranbaxy Laboratories, Dabur, and law firms Amarchand & Mangaldas, Anand & Anand, K&S Partners etc.

Program Contents: The OCL program offers a comprehensive range of skill development capsules to cater to the needs of diverse audiences. The industry-endorsed capsules for students, working professionals, R&D professionals, Research scientists and enterprises are:
The IP Nucleus Basic capsule, the stepping stone into the world of IP, having 10 courses;
The IP Nucleus Advanced capsule, specially designed to help individuals understand the intricacies of IP practices, having 15 courses; and
The IP Nucleus Expert capsule, with an Industry Internship program and an Industry endorsed curriculum, designed as a step towards becoming an IP professional, having 18 courses.

Each Capsule will have an online examination that one has to clear at the end. On successful completion of the GIIP OCL Program, one will be awarded a GIIP OCL certificate. All participants of the IP Nucleus Advanced and the IP Nucleus Expert capsules are eligible for GIIP’s placement program.

Registration: One can join OCL by simply filling in the registration form (download from ocl.giipinfo.com or write to ocl@giipinfo.com), choosing your course of interest and paying the requisite registration fee. There is no last date of enrollment into OCL. Any other query should be addressed to GIIP at its website (ocl.giipinfo.com) or via phone (+91-11-3088 4000), email (ocl@giipinfo.com) or a campus visit.

A trademark application gets filed, examined & published within 72 hours at the Chennai Trademarks Registry: Super Efficiency OR Super Corruption?

Earlier this year, Sumathi had mentioned in passing that a certain trademark application bearing number 2000161 has been published in the trademark journal within a record three days of being filed with the trademark office. She had received this information through an email from one of readers. Those of you familiar with the Trade Mark Registry (TMR) must be aware that getting an application published can take anything between a few months to a few years but never has this happened in three days. At that time we did not give much thought to the matter but recently we received an email from Mr.Balakrishnan, a Coimbatore based IP lawyer who has taken the time and the pains to investigate the matter of TM 2000161 and in the process has exposed the stinking corruption at the Chennai TMR, which only recently witnessed the arrest of a high rankingRegistrar on the charges of massive corruption and disproportionate assets.

Mr.Balakrishnan has already filed a complaint with the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and this post is largely based on his preliminary investigation. Let me also clarify that Mr.Balakrishnan is not a party to these proceedings. He just happened to stumble upon this information on our website and decided to investigate a bit further. Before proceeding to the actual content I would like to salute Mr.Balakrishnan for his courage in coming forth with this information. It’s difficult to find lawyers with a spine in this country and it’s extremely heartening to know that we still have some lawyers who hold up the esteem of the entire profession. Let me also clarify that this problem of corruption is limited to only a few rotten apples in the Chennai TMR and not the entire Registry, which I’m sure has its fair share of honest officials.

The controversy in question involves 4 trademark applications of which only two are extremely suspicious.

I.     The first two trademark applications – ‘601 & ‘796

The TM Applicant common to all the 4 TM applications in this case, is a partnership concern based in Chennai, had initially filed two trademark applications, bearing numbers 1705601 and 1795796, on the 1^st of July, 2008 and the 16^th of March, 2009 respectively.

The TM Application 1705601 was for the image on the right, along with the words Vicky and the registration was sought only for ‘Paint Brushes’ in Class – 16. This application was published on the 1^st of August, 2010 and promptly opposed by a party based out of Uttar Pradesh.

The TM application 1795796 was for the same image as above along with the words Vicky but the registration for this application was sought only for Class 35 for retail services and advertising. This application was initially objected to by the TMR and according to the TMR website, this application is yet to be published in the TMR journal despite the Deputy Registrar ordering its publication in the Journal more than a year ago on the 23^rd of July, 2010. The Deputy Registrar will have to answer as to why his orders are not being carried out by his Office.

Both the above applications were filed by the TM Applicant through DePenning and DePenning and are non-controversial but are central to the story because it appears that this failed attempt at registration spurred the TM Applicant to grease a few palms for the expedited route when he filed two new applications in 2010.

II.    The latter two trademark applications that are at the heart of the scam – ‘160 & ‘161

The real controversy begins with the remaining two TM applications which were filed by the TM Applicant himself i.e. without engaging the services of a lawyer. TM 2000160 was filed on 28^th July, 2010 for the mark ‘Vicky’ in Class 35, along with a TM-63 i.e. an application for an expedited examination report. Similarly TM 2000161 was filed on 28^th July, 2010 by the same applicant for the Trademark ‘Vicky’ but in Class 16. Basically the TM Applicant was trying to get registrations for the same old trademarks which were described earlier in this post. Both trademarks were published on the 1^st of August, 2010 in the TM Journal.

According to the TMR website, the Chennai TMR examined both TM ‘160 and TM ‘161 on the very same day that they were filed, at 5:12 PM and 5:15 PM respectively. The reports are available over here and here. As is obvious from both examination reports both examinations were conducted by the same Registrar and similar objections were raised in both reports. The similar objection was the fact that both trademarks were personal names without any distinctive features and that there were already several similar trademarks registered with the same name. In short, it would have been pretty impossible to get both these trademarks registered unless there was overwhelming evidence that they had acquired a distinctive meaning.

According to the official records for both TM ‘160 and TM ‘161, the Chennai TMR conducted oral hearings with the TM Applicants on the 29^th of July, 2010 i.e. just one day after the Examination Reports were generated. The orders are available over here and here.

The purpose of the hearing is to allow the TM Applicant to defend his application against the objections raised in the Examination Report. It seems highly improbable that the Examination Reports which were generated on the 28^th of July, after office hours, could have been delivered to the TM Applicant by the 29^th of July informing him to appear before the Registrar on the very same day with a prepared defence.

According to the official records, orders were issued to have both these applications published in the TM Journal for the purpose of inviting possible oppositions. Both applications were subsequently published in the TM Journal, over here and here on the 1^st of August, 2010 i.e. within 3 days of filing of both the applications.

As per the official record, TM ‘160 was registered as a trademark with a certificate being granted in March this year, while TM ‘161 was opposed by the same party which opposed TM 1705601.

Those of you familiar with the workings of the TMR, must be aware that even under the expedited process, it can take at least one year at the very minimum to reach the stage of publication. A period of just three days to complete the publication process is an unbelievable timeline without any precedent!!!! Even more surprising is the fact that TM ‘160 got registered in a mere 8 months.

The really damaging aspect of this entire case, apart from the expedited three day timeline, was the fabrication and forgery of certain documents that are absolutely crucial to establishing the legitimacy of both trademarks ‘160 and ‘161. It is these forged documents which pretty much nail the guilt of those involved in this highly suspicious transaction:

(i)     The forged affidavits: Since the examination reports of both ‘160 and ‘161 had revealed that both the trademarks lacked a distinctive character because of the significant similarity with existing trademarks and also the fact that they reflected a personal name, the TM Applicant was required to prove distinctiveness of his trademarks by providing the Registry with some evidence to this effect. In order to establish such secondary distinctiveness, some TM Applicants file affidavits swearing that their trademarks are distinctive. In the case of TMs ‘160 and ‘161 two affidavits have been filed but it appears that both affidavits are forged.  

If you have a look at both affidavits for 2000160 and 2000161, available over here and here it is but obvious that somebody had erased the original application numbers which were printed on the affidavit and written in hand the numbers 2000160 and 2000161.

The original affidavit which has been used as a template for the forgery can be accessed over here and was filed by the TM Applicant in response to the examination report generated for TM No. 1795796. Although the entire affidavit has not been made available on the website of the Registry, if you look below the left hand corner of the judicial stamp, you’ll notice the numbers ‘2758/14-7-10’ and the words ‘Vicky Brush Company’. These markings are made by the Stamp Paper Vendor and is indicative of the fact that the stamp paper was sold on the 14^th of July, 2010. These very same markings appear on the forged affidavits for TM Applications ‘160 and ‘161 indicating that they are mere photocopies of the original photocopy. Moreover both the affidavits, bearing the TM numbers for ‘160 and ‘161 are dated the 16^th of July, 2010 despite the fact that the TM numbers ‘160 and ‘161, themselves were generated only on the day of the filing of both applications i.e. the 28^th of July, 2010. The original affidavits for ‘796 were generated on the 16^th of July, 2010 because the TMR had scheduled a hearing for that application on the 21^st of July, 2010.

Normally cosmetic changes such as this would not amount to much but this was a sworn affidavit and to make changes such as this to a sworn affidavit falls within the textbook definition of forgery under S. 464 of the Indian Penal Code. This offence carries a jail term of a maximum two years along with a fine. In this case there are two counts of forgery meaning imprisonment for a period of 4 years.

It is unlikely that the TM Applicant was involved in this forgery business because he would have no reason to forge his own affidavit, he could have just created a new affidavit. The real culprits are most likely from within the trade mark office since they knew that after the CBI complaint they would have to establish the reason for proceeding with TM ‘160 and TM ‘161 despite the fact that both marks received adverse examination reports. This allegation is obviously not conclusive and needs to be investigated further.

(ii)   The orders to publish without any official signature: The second piece of suspicious evidence regarding TM ‘160 and TM ‘161 is the fact that the orders to publish these applications in the TM journal bear no signatures. These orders are available over here and here. In contrast TM ‘796 which was filed by the same TM Applicant was published (in the same issue of the TM journal as TM ‘160 & ‘161) on the basis of a written order bearing the signature of the relevant Deputy Registrar. Both the impugned orders refer to an oral hearing that was conducted on the 29^th of July, 2010 i.e. just one day after the filing of the trademark application. The implication of these orders is the fact that the TMR was satisfied with the evidence produced by the Applicant i.e. ‘the false affidavits’ and thereby proceeding with the next step of the Registration process. Again, the holding of an oral hearing within a day of filing the trademark application is unheard of in the context of the Indian TMR.

(iii)The Fabricated Reply by the TM Applicants: Apart from the affidavit, the TM ‘161 file also contains a reply (available over here), purportedly written by the TM Applicant in response to the Examination Report of the Registrar, defending the TM Application against the adverse Examination Report. NO such order is made available for TM ‘160. However the entire ‘reply’ is hand-written on a simple piece of white paper and is not on the official letterhead of the TM Applicant. Moreover the signature on this reply does not match the signature on the original Affidavit filed by the TM Applicant and unlike all the other documents filed by the TM Applicant this particular reply does not bear the official ‘seal’ of the ‘Vicky Brush Company’. All other documents filed by this particular TM applicant bears’ the official ‘seal’ of the ‘Vicky Brush Company’. It is likely that somebody in the TMR has fabricated this reply, after the CBI complaint filed by Mr. Balakrishnan.

Conclusion: It is tempting to see cases such as these, as victimless crimes, where the TM Applicant has greased a few palms in order to expedite the official process. However in this particular case, the TM Applicant has been given rights which he is not entitled to under the law and it is most likely that the TM Applicant will use this registered trademark to sue the parties who have opposed his other trademarks. Therefore as a result of this one corrupt practice we will end up seeing the judicial system clogged with at least another 4 lawsuits/petitions at the very minimum. There will be victims because of this corruption.

I just hope that the DIPP takes a proactive stand in this case and initiates departmental proceedings against the guilty officers in this case, pending the CBI enquiry. 

Guest Post: Desiboyz in copyright controversy

We have another guest post for you from Tania Sarcar on the 'Desiboyz' title controversy. 

DESIBOYZ IN COPYRIGHT CONTROVERSY

by,

Tania Sarcar

Another movie to be engulfed in the battle of registration of titles is debutant director Rohit Dhawan’s movie Desiboyz starring Akshay Kumar, John Abharam and Deepika Padukone. The movie is slated to be released on Novermber 25th and the aggrieved person, pressing for legal action, is Latur-based scriptwriter and director Shyam Devkatte.

Devkatte has claimed copyright over the title of the movie and has filed a petition before the Bombay High Court seeking criminal action against the director under the Copyright Act and sections of the IPC dealing with cheating, fraud and criminal intimidation. Devkatte claimed to have registered the title Desiboyz with the Film Writers Association in September 2009 and had along with the title also written a script which he had forwarded to two associates of Rohit Dhawan. Recently after seeing the promo of the movie, he had tried contacting Rohit Dhawan but was allegedly abused on the phone and also threatened. He claimed that the titles were same and that Rohit Dhawan had just changed one letter in the title.

On October 14, he lodged a complaint with suburban Amboli police and filed a private complaint before a metropolitan magistrate's court against Rohit Dhawan and the producers of the movie under the Copyright Act. However no action was taken by either. He then filed a petition before the High Court seeking criminal action against Rohit Dhawan and the producers. Through the petition, Devkatte has also asked for a stay on the movie's release and also reasonable damage and compensation.

Previously there have been many such controversies regarding different producers claiming an exclusive right over the same title. Various such matters have been covered by Spicy IP. One such was the dispute over the title of the movie “Thank You” which has been covered by Suchita Saigal where Justice Chandrachud’s ruling in High Definition Television (P) Ltd. v. Association of Motion Pictures and T.V. Programme Producers and Others has been discussed. This case was regarding the issue of applications for interim injunction on titles of movies and in this case the rules of Association of Motion Pictures regarding registering of titles were discussed. Also another case, Kanungo Media (P) Ltd. v. RGV Film Factory, 2007 (34) PTC 591 (Del) was discussed by Mr. Shamnad Basheer where the Delhi High Court observed that, "film titles fall into two categories: titles of series of film and titles of single copyrighted works. Protection is certain as regards titles of series of film, and such titles enjoy standard trademark protection. However, the court found that in order to extend this protection to the title of a single copyrighted work, it must be proven that such title has acquired a wide reputation among the public and the industry - that is, has acquired secondary meaning. Therefore, in order to obtain an injunction the onus is on the plaintiff to establish that its film title has acquired secondary meaning."

In the present case, the film’s title is in dispute. The title was registered with the Film Writer’s Association which takes care of infringement cases through its Dispute Settlement Committee which takes action provided the member is able give adequate proof of infringement/ theft.

If we apply the decisions in the two previous judgments to the present case, as per Justice Chandrachud, the person who registers the title, has to use it within a period of three years from the date of registration. It has not yet been three years from September 2009 when the film was registered. However it is pertinent to note that this falls under the rules of Association of Motion Pictures.

Applying the judgment in Kanungo Media (P) Ltd. v. RGV Film Factory, we can say that there was no circumstance to prove that title registered by Shyam Devkatte had acquired a wide reputation among the public and the industry and a secondary meaning. It was only after the promos of the film were aired by RohitDhawan, that people started recognizing it.

The matter had been posted for hearing by Justice AM Thipsay on the 28th of this month but was adjourned to the 9th of November. The lawyer of Rohit Dhawan is expected to file a reply to the petition filed by Shyam Devkatte by then.

Off-Topic: Call for Papers - Journal of Indian Law & Society

The Journal of Indian Law & Society (JILS) is currently soliciting submissions for its third issue due in February, 2012. The deadline for submissions is 15th November, 2011. Submissions should be mailed at

JILS is a bi-annual, peer-reviewed and student-edited journal on law and society, based at and published from The National University of Juridical Sciences, Kolkata. The Journal solicits articles, notes and comments covering judicial decisions, legislative developments, empirical research on Indian legal system, public policy studies and theoretical analysis from related fields of inquiry. JILS seeks to influence the body of law to make it more responsive to and compatible with the desired societal goals.

Nature Of Submissions

A. Articles (8000-10000 words, inclusive of footnotes): Submissions in this category should provide a comprehensive analysis of a particular issue in the law and society domain. It should review the existing literature extensively and also highlight the specific contemporary developments in the issue being discussed. The authors are encouraged to discuss the challenges surrounding the issue and to suggest changes to overcome the same.

B. Notes (5000-8000 words, inclusive of footnotes): This category is suited for writings on specific themes and submissions dealing with contemporary issues are preferred.

C. Book Reviews (2000-2500 words, inclusive of footnotes): Authors are encouraged to review a book that offers a unique perspective on any issue affecting Indian society and the legal implications it has. It is recommended that the book chosen is a recent publication (within the last two years) in keeping with the contemporary focus of the Journal.

D. Essays (3000-5000 words, inclusive of footnotes): Submissions in this category should provide a concise overview of a specific issue. New ideas and perspectives are encouraged under this category. The author can dispense with an extensive review of the existing literature.

E. Case Comments (2000-3000 words, inclusive of footnotes): Submissions in this category would include a comprehensive analysis of a recent judicial pronouncement and should engage with the underlying theme of law and society. It must critically analyze the law prior to the ruling as well as the subsequent implications of the ruling.

F. Legislative Briefs (2000 – 3000 words, inclusive of footnotes): Legislative briefs should be extensively analysed, helping readers grasp the background, objectives and main provisions of a particular legislation. Preparing a brief requires synthesizing complex data, facts and statistics and they should be clear and concise and credibly sourced, mostly from the government surveys, commission reports, international organisations and civil society. Use of graphs and tables, along with a one-page summary, is encouraged. Briefs must be objective in reporting facts and provisions, but a short section at the end should list down possible problems or inconsistencies to propel further debate.

Submission Guidelines

Covering Letter: All submissions must be accompanied with a covering letter, containing the name of the author/s, institutional affiliation, title and category of the submission and a contact address of the author, including the e-mail address and the phone number. Submissions should be sent as MS word (.doc format) attachments with the title of the article as the file name.

Identification Details: The body of the submission must contain no identification of any kind, including the name and institutional affiliation of the author, which must be provided in the covering letter.

Decision on Publication: The Journal promptly acknowledges the receipt of submissions and a decision on publication takes around 8 weeks. All submissions made to the Journal are double blind refereed. The issue is out in print within 4 weeks of a decision to publish. Requests for expedited reviews can be made when the submission is being considered for publication by other Journals. In such cases, please mention a date by which you expect our response. Relaxation of any rules regarding submissions is subject to the discretion of the Board of Editors.

Style Guidelines

Form of Submission: Submissions must be in electronic form. All submissions must be word-processed, double-spaced in Times New Roman, font size 12 and justified. The prescribed word limits are inclusive of footnotes and contributors are expected to strictly conform to them.

Abstract: All submissions must contain an abstract of not more than 250 words describing the relevant conclusions drawn in the paper. There is no requirement of prior submission of the abstract.

Title: The Journal does not recommend any specific guidelines regarding the titles and sub-titles. However, the main titles must be centered, typed in small capitals and emphasized in bold. The titles must be uniform, concise and descriptive.

Citations: Only footnotes may be used as the form of citations. End notes shall not be accepted. All footnotes must be in Times New Roman, size 10, single-spacing and justified. The Rules of Citation are generally derived from The Bluebook, A Uniform System of Citation (19th Ed.)

Off-Topic: Call for Papers - The Journal of Telecommunication and Broadcasting Law

The Journal of Telecommunication and Broadcasting Law (JTBL) is an international peer-reviewed, student-edited journal of National University of Juridical Sciences, India. Dedicated to pioneer legal scholarship in the field of telecommunication and broadcasting laws and addressing a global scholarly community, JTBL strives to publish relevant research on said disciplines. The Journal encourages deliberations on subjects of interdisciplinary nature and would include review of laws and policies involved in the field.

The Journal of Telecommunication and Broadcasting Law is inviting submissions for its inaugural issue which is due to be published in July, 2012. Interested contributors are requested to send their submissions under the categories mentioned below. For general queries relating to your submissions, kindly write to us at .

NATURE OF SUBMISSIONS

A. Articles (6000-10000 words, inclusive of footnotes)

B. Notes including Policy Notes (4000-6000 words, inclusive of footnotes)

C. Book Reviews (2000-3000 words, inclusive of footnotes)
Please note: Book Review should specify all relevant information relating to the book reviewed such as the name(s) of the author(s) and editor(s), edition of the book reviewed, year of publication, name of publisher and place of publication.

D. Case Notes (2500-4000 words, inclusive of footnotes)
Submissions in this category would include a comprehensive analysis of any judicial pronouncement relevant to contemporary developments in relation with telecommunication and broadcasting industry. It should provide an analysis of the law prior to the ruling as well as subsequent to it. Any inconsistencies with the ruling should be highlighted. E. Legislative Comments (2000 – 3000 words, inclusive of footnotes)
The legislation should be analyzed with a view to provide the background, objectives and main provisions of the legislation to the readers. The comments must be objective in reporting facts and provisions. A section may be devoted to list down possible problems with the legislation or inconsistencies with other laws for further debate. Government surveys, committee reports and data from national and international organisations should be sourced for facts and figures.

STYLE GUIDELINES

1. Format of Submission: Submissions must be in electronic form only. All submissions must be MS-Word-processed. Main text should be in Times New Roman, font size 12 with double line spacing. The footnotes should be in Times New Roman, font size 10 with line spacing 1.15. All pages must be numbered. Endnotes are not allowed.

2. Abstract: All submissions must contain an abstract of about 250 to 500 words describing the relevant points of discussion attempted in the paper and the relevant conclusions drawn.

3. Headings: The main title should be centred, typed in small capitals and emphasised in bold with font size 14. The sub-titles must be left indented, emphasized in bold with font size 12.

4. Citation: The Rules of Citation as prescribed by Oxford University Standard for Citation Of Legal Authorities (OSCOLA), 4th edition are to be followed for references and citations.

SUBMISSION GUIDELINES

1. Co-authoring: is permitted.

2. Last date of submission: The Journal accepts submissions on a rolling basis. The deadline for submissions for the inaugural issue is Sunday, 8th January, 2012.

3. Cover Letter: The cover letter shall contain the name of the author, institutional affiliation, title and category of the submission. Submissions should be sent as attachments (.doc format only) with the title of the write-up as the file name.

4. Contact Address: The Journal accepts only electronic form of submissions which must be mailed to .

5. Identification Details: The body of the write-up must not contain any identification of the author(s) or their institutional affiliation.

CONDITIONS TO PUBLICATION

1. All contributions considered for publication in the Journal will be double blind-refereed.

2. Previously published contributions or those which have been given for publication elsewhere will not be considered unless exceptional circumstances arise. Contributors are asked to confirm that a piece is being submitted exclusively to JTBL.

3. It is the responsibility of the contributor(s) to ensure that all references, acknowledgments, citations are correct and that the submission does not contain any material that infringes copyright or any other rights of third parties and that the piece does not contain any defamatory, obscene, racially prejudicial or otherwise unlawful or litigious material.

4. The contributor(s) grant JTBL as well as their assignee an exclusive licence to publish in hard copy as well as electronically, reproduce, sale and distribute for profitable or non-profitable purposes. The authors will not receive any royalty or share from sale proceeds however, a free copy of the specific issue will be provided to the author.

Searching for Bright Sparks this Festive Season

SpicyIP wishes its readers a wonderful Diwali, often referred to as the "festival of lights" (though, with the sound of firecrackers dominating each season, one might be tempted to rename it the "festival of sounds").

On this festive occasion, might we prod you towards a "green" celebration by reminding you that the brightest light of them all is the light of knowledge. And the most potent sound of them all is the sound of silence. But for those of us still itching to get our hands on those wonderful firecrackers, we could perhaps try out this eco-friendly one. And its patented too: the invention essentially relates to a new device that would send out the same firecracker bursting sounds and lights, but without causing trash and noxious gases that pollute the environment.

The "background to the invention" states:

"People in the countries of Southern Asia are used to letting off firecrackers in order to increase happiness and drive away evil in their celebrations of festivals. But in letting off firecrackers, there would be a great deal of trash generated. Moreover, the noxious gases sent into the air could sometimes be so heavy in density as to force people nearby to attempt to suspend breathing for awhile. And, as we are well aware, many of the accidents and injury cases are firecracker-related. "

While I'm desperately searching for the commercial version of this terrific invention (as many of you know, only a minor proportion of patented inventions actually make the transition to viable commercial products), let me take this opportunity to place an SOS call for more light to be shone on this blog.

Our lights have been dimming of late, and we need some bright sparks to join the SpicyIP team. Therefore, if you think you have what it takes to be a consistent blogger with a keen eye for IP issues and new/creative ways for thinking about them, please send us an email on ipchairnujs [at] gmail.com. Please mention why you think you might be a good fit for the team, and attach some of your sample writings. And of course, do not forget to send us your resume. We prefer those with excellent writing skills, since none of us work on the blog full time and we just don't have the time to edit out bad English.

More importantly however, we prefer lasting lights to momentary meteors that blaze away for a short while and then fade---in short, consistency and regularity in posting high quality stuff is what we're looking for.

Delhi High Court bars the use of 'Krishna' as a trademark to market dairy products

We have another guest post from Tania Sarcar, this time in relation to a judgment of the Delhi High Court on the use of 'Krishna' as a trademark to market dairy products. We had earlier carried a post on the judgment of the Single Judge in the same case.

Delhi High Court bars the use of 'Krishna' to market dairy products

by Tania Sarcar

This post presents a brief note of a recent judgment by the Delhi High Court in the case of Bhole Baba Milk Food Industries Ltd. v. Parul Food Specialities (P) Ltd.

The facts of the case:

The appellants, Bhole Baba Milk Food Industries Ltd., who are manufacturers of milk and milk products since 1992 are also registered owners of the label mark “KRISHNA” which has the pictorial depiction of Lord Krishna standing on a lotus flower which falls in Class-29 of the Trade Mark Act.

The respondent, Parul Food Specialties (P) Ltd., who are also manufacturers of milk products started selling ghee under the brand “PARUL’S LORD KRISHNA”, “Parul’s” and “Lord” having a font so small that only the word “KRISHNA” catches the eye due to its prominence.

The appellants attempted to restrain the respondent from using the word ‘Krishna’ to market their products on the grounds that the word ‘Krishna’ had now acquired a secondary distinctiveness with respect to the appellant’s products, as was evidenced through its sales figures etc.

Single Judge Bench Judgment

At the first stage of the litigation Justice Rajiv Shakhdar, of the Delhi High Court had ruled in favor of the defendants and was of the view that prima facie, in order for a mark to acquire secondary distinctiveness, the consumer should immediately be reminded of the product of the owner of the mark while looking at it. He also held that the name KRISHNA is associated in Hindu Mythology with Lord Krishna and is a household name and it cannot achieve secondary distinctiveness. He also held that it was common knowledge that Lord Krishna as a child was fond of butter and other milk products and used to steal the same. Therefore, in Justice Shakhdar’s opinion, Lord Krishna and milk products go hand in hand as a result of which the Appellants were not entitled to claim monopoly over the name of the deity.

Division Bench

Unhappy with the decision of the Single Judge, the Plaintiffs/Appellants appealed to a Division Bench, consisting of Justice Pradeep Nandrajog and Justice Sunil Gaur.

Agreeing with the views of the Single Judge, the Division Bench reiterated that the name of a deity cannot be monopolized since it was in the public domain and if done so, it would “certainly dilute a proprietary claim projected by any person, in relation to Krishna with dairy products”. They also agreed with the decision of the lower court, directing the respondent to print the words “PARUL’S LORD” with the same prominence as the word “KRISHNA” so that it would not be confused with the products of the appellants.

The Division Bench also came to the conclusion that registration obtained by the appellant is not per se for the word KRISHNA but it is for the word KRISHNA written in a distinctive form. In pertinent part, the Division Bench stated that the “distinctiveness to which the appellant can lay a claim is to what it has got registered as a whole, and therefore such registration cannot possibly give an exclusive statutory right to the appellant qua a particular word of common origin.”

These views of the Division Bench are however tentative and are subject to the outcome of evidence led during trial.

Branded Babies?

I've never bred any babies of my own (well, at least to the best of my knowledge). But have helped several friends in what must be one of the most taxing tasks ever known to mankind: that of finding appropriate names for babies.

While some of us want baby names to be unique, others are content with simply naming them after their favourite gods, goddesses, sport-stars, rock-stars, cine-stars...you name it! And yet others don't give a damn...name and be done with it! After all, as the bard rightly philosophised: "Whats in a name? That which you call a rose, by any other name, would smell as sweet."

Indeed, the naming of babies is a task that is often as complex as the branding of goods. And yet, scant attention has been paid to it in the debates around trademark law and the increasing propensity of trademark owners to control any and all usage of their brand.

A slightly dated report from the Global Post states that the Kiwis have begun regulating the branding of babies. I extract the relevant portions below:

"Celebrities with a penchant for weird baby names (looking at you, David and Victoria Beckham) should avoid having kids in New Zealand.

The country’s Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages has been cracking down on parents who get too creative when naming their kids, Australia’s Herald Sun reports.

The list of weird names for kids that are banned by New Zealand’s names registrar has grown to include Lucifer, Duke, Messiah and 89. Also not approved: Bishop, Baron, General, Judge, King, Knight and Mr., names that were all said to be too similar to titles.

The letters, C, D, I and T were also rejected as first names, the Herald Sun says.

As well, the agency has refused to allow names involving asterisks, commas, periods and other punctuation marks. And three different sets of Kiwi parents wanted to name their children Lucifer, only to have the name choice nixed.

In 2008, New Zealand’s names registrar drew international attention when it approved such non-traditional names as Benson and Hedges for a set of twins, as well as the boys names of Violence and Number 16 Bus Shelter.

But New Zealand isn’t the only country to ban wacky names for kids, the Toronto Globe and Mail reports. In Sweden, name choices are subject to a naming law. While Lego and Google have been approved as names for children, Superman, Metallica and Elvis... were not approved."

All of these instances got me thinking that perhaps, we are not far from the day when a Google or a Nokia lobbies hard for a law to prevent the naming of babies after their zealously guarded brands. After all, there is always the potential danger that when the baby is old enough to run a business, he/she legitimately claims the right to use his/her personal name (eg. Google Singh or Nokia Nair) as part of the business. Illustratively, most trademark lawyers are familiar with Armani's failed attempt at securing the "armani.com" domain name registered by "A.R. Mani", where the WIPO arbitrator held that Mr Mani had a very legitimate interest in using his own name to register a domain.

When this eventuality of a law banning branded babies comes to bear upon us, woe betide the poor parent who is at the receiving end of yet another layer of christening complexity! But for those of our ilk (I mean IP attorneys), we could well be laughing all the way to the bank, as we acquire yet another set of hapless clients, forced to engage us for those dreaded trademark clearance searches.

ps: image from here

An update on the PILs against the IPAB and the Copyright Board

As we had reported earlier, the Division Bench of the Madras High Court had ordered the State Government and the Central Government to co-operate in relocating the IPAB to a new office with adequate space. The State Government came back with a proposal to relocate the IPAB at the TIDEL Park Building which had the required space. The proposed rent was pegged at about Rs. 15 lakhs per month. Apparently the Central Government found this to be too expensive and everything is back to square one.

It’s disappointing to see things moving so slowly. The Central Government just does not seem to understand the matters at issue. For example, a letter from the DIPP lays out the space requirements of the IPAB by comparing it with the norms for the Central Administrative Tribunal and not the Central Public Works Department (CPWD) which in reality are the only norms that are of some relevance. What’s the use of comparing it to the CAT? How does that make any sense?

As for the main question of constitutionality of the IPAB and Copyright Board, we have made zero progress. Some of the important pleadings and correspondence regarding the PIL, are available below:

(i) Counter-affidavits filed by the Central Government in response to the PILs against the IPAB and the Copyright Board;

(ii) The complete report filed by Justice Sridevan with the IPAB;
(iii) Letter sent to the ASG from the DIPP;
(iv) Letter sent to the DIPP to the IPAB; Annexure 1; Annexure 2 and Annexure 3;
(v) Letter from CPWD to the ASG;
(vi) Fair Rent Certificate.

Shah Rukh Khan's RA.One in Copyright Dispute

Shah Rukh Khan’s latest film venture, RA.One, an expensive affair to begin with, just got costlier by Rs. One crore, for a potential intellectual property rights violation.

This isn’t the first time the release of an expected Bollywood blockbuster has been hindered by the prospect of having violated provisions of the Indian Copyright Act. Interestingly in this case, the court did not not stay the release of the film, but rather asked SRK’s company, Red Chillies Entertainment to deposit Rs. One crore in the registry, failing which it would stay the release of the film, which is scheduled to release this coming Wednesday.  

The claim originated from a petition filed by Yash Patnaik, a television writer and producer, who had been in talks with Mushtaq Sheikh, the script-writer for RA.One and had also registered the concept of a futuristic superhero called ‘One’ with the Film Writer’s Association, several years ago. It was argued that Sheikh used the concept discussed with him and sold the idea to Shah Rukh Khan’s production house, without giving due credit to Patnaik. On the issue of whether this was a ploy by Patnaik to extract money from the producers, since he waited till the time of release to make his claim, it was contended that he had held back on instituting a suit, in order to collect sufficient audio-visual evidence to back up his claim.

The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, consisting of Justices Mohit Shah and Roshan Dalvi heard the matter and concluded that ‘“Prima facie, the first plaintiff (Patnaik) has copyright in the concept, including the material, graphic illustrations and drawings, monograms and scenes and pictures of the flying robots in the gadgets,”. The appeared to have upheld the contention that the character in RA.One resembled  Pattanaik’s concept of a superhero in the future, in ‘attributes and appearance’. However, they did not give a final ruling on the issue of copyright infringement but were committed to hearing the matter soon.

The order dated 21st October has not been uploaded on the Bombay High Court website yet (only orders till the 17th of October are available). We will do a more detailed post on the merits of the claim and the reasoning for the order once it is made available.

FICCI launches Online Certificate Course in IP

FICCI has launched an Online Certificate Course on Intellectual Property, for which registrations are scheduled to begin next month. FICCI sends us the following information on the course, and related registration details. Please don’t forget to mention you came via SpicyIP!

---

Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI) has started an Online Certificate Course on Intellectual Property (IP). The objective of the Course is to increase awareness about IP in the Society for the benefit of the Nation at large.

Students from Law, Science and related disciplines, Lawyers, Patent Agents, Professionals from Industry fields, such as Electrical, Computer, Chemical, Mechanical, Research and Development and other scientific domains, enforcement personnel, etc may register for the course.

Industry oriented Study Material has been prepared by well known experts representing eminent law firms and academic institutions.

Features like FORUM, Weekly updates on IPR to registrants and One Day interactive Session with IP Experts to address doubts/issues of participants makes the course interactive.

Course Coverage

Patents and International Filing System, Trademark, Copyright, Design, Geographical Indication, Biodiversity, International Arrangements and IPR Enforcement: Infringement and Remedies.

The study material is all inclusive covering overview, prosecution, enforcement, appeals, remedies, best strategies and practices, case studies, Intellectual Property as a collateral, International conventions/treaties/agreements on concerned Intellectual Property etc.

Course Duration: 3 Months

Online Certificate Course on IPR will be conducted twice a year. The course will commence from 1^st January 2012. The registration for the same will start from 1^st November 2011.

For further details, the readers are requested to visit the website - - www.ficciipcourse.in or e-mail at ipcourse@ficci.com .

Of ties, school ties and alumni

School ties are easy enough to get rid of. Mine was navy blue, with sky blue stripes on it. Not very pretty, but I have still kept it, grudgingly, to remind me of those horror-some years. But college ties are a completely different story. As I was to discover in the three years after school. It’s been a while since, but college is still not out of mind. (image from here)

But enough about me and my collection of ties. We can talk about that some other day also.

Today’s piece is about that Allnutt hangout (Rival College Warning), which was in the news because some ex-Alls decided to set up an alumni society which included the Hallowed Name of the College.

Okay, enough quibbling (the Allnutts are famous enough to have had a stamp issued after them, in, like, 1981): this alumni society aka St. Stephen’s College Alumni Association, one of whose members included sitting Member of Parliament and alumnus Sandeep Dikshit, ended up being sued by the college itself, for a case of passing off from the college itself. The Delhi High Court, which has had its own share of Stephanians at the bar and on the bench, was called upon to sort the issue out, and came out with a very sensible decision recently, which you can read here.

During the course of arguments, the defendant Alumni Association offered to change its name, and presented a bunch of options, including the Association of Old Stephanians. It also offered to add a disclaimer to its website, in keeping with the college’s request, to explicitly state that this was not an officially recognised Association, and so forth.

The college put its foot down, saying the Alumni Association, despite comprising former students of St. Stephens College could not use the words "St. Stephens College" "St. Stephens" or "Stephanians" in their name. The court made some basic issues clear:

1. Constitutional right to form an association:
The individuals involved in the case (Sandeep Dikshit et al) were undisputedly former students of the college. They have a fundamental right, guaranteed by Article 19 (1)(c) of the Constitution to every citizen, to form an association. “Hence, they were well within their constitutional right in forming an association even if that association is to consist wholly of ex- Stephanians.”

2. Naming the association:
This argument is tautological, but bear with the court, it has a point to make: Membership to the Alumni Association is open only to those who have been students of the college. Old students of the college call themselves stephanians. Hence, “there should be no valid objection to their using the word stephanian as a part of the name of the society since being an old stephanian is the only common link amongst the members of the society.... Everyone, who has studied at St. Stephens College, Delhi can claim, as a matter of right, to describe himself as a stephanian and this right comes to him on account of having been a student of the college.”

3. Passing off unlikely:
This was self-evident but it took a court to say it out loud: The Alumni Association’s disclaimer placed on its website would be sufficient to establish that there was nothing official about it. Equally, the college had every right to put a similar disclaimer on their website, claiming no recognition of official status, etc.

“Considering the background, education, level of awareness and credentials of those who have studied at St. Stephens College, Delhi, it is most unlikely that they can be misled into believing that Association of Old Stephanians is the officially sponsored/recognized/affiliated alumni Association of St. Stephens College, Delhi.”

Beyond the murky politics that are alleged to have prompted the case, the court brought to light a couple of interesting issues

No commercial purpose:
First, the court highlighted that the defendants here were not seeking to exploit the name of the college for commercial purpose, which tilted the balance considerably. This was in response to the plaintiffs citing an interim order dated 06th June, 2002 passed by the Delhi High Court in Suit No. 1061/2002 President & Fellows of Harvard College vs. Mr Harbans S. Bawa.

In the Harvard case, the defendant was attracting prospective students by use of the slogan "If you can’t go to Harvard--we bring Harvard Education to you". He had obtained Harvard teaching material and intended to use that material as a part of its course. The Court had, in that case, felt that if the defendant was not restrained from doing so, the public at large was likely to be drawn in by the apparent misrepresentation of the defendant.

Waiving exclusive right to name?
Second, the defence attempted to draw the court’s attention to several institutions using the name “St Stephen’s” in connection with educational institutions across India, to argue that the college had effectively “waived its right to exclusive use of the name St. Stephens College”. They also alleged that the Alumni Association was being targeted only because they had “criticized the functioning of the present principal of the college”. The college hastily countered this, saying that these institutions were using the name with the consent of the college.

When asked if the college, being itself also a society registered under Societies Registration Act, had passed a resolution authorizing these institutions to use the name St. Stephens in their name, no such resolution/authorization was acknowledged.
----

Alumnae of my own college are referred to - occasionally - rather indelicately, by a word that sounds terribly similar to the Hindi word for garlic. I am very confident that that acronym will never make it to the top 100 most popular names for alumnae associations.

Reflecting on the Transparency Crusade

The genesis of SpicyIP in 2005 had strong roots in the fervent desire to weed out corruption at Indian IP offices, by interalia, fostering greater levels of transparency. While we've witnessed some modest success along the way, it really falls several notches short of what we initially set out to do. All of us have day jobs/preoccupations that cast serious limitations on the time that we have at our disposal, but that is no excuse.

The road to transparency has been a long and tortuous one...and one that saw us pick up a few friends on the way, but several enemies (and to this extent, it might well have been the road to perdition!). It dawned on us quite late in the day that not everyone is partial to sunshine, particularly in India, where fairness creams command sizeable market shares and tan remains a bad word. But we continue with our quixotic quest...

All of this is to provide some background for a recent article in the latest issue of the Managing Intellectual Property (MIP), where I reflect on the various transparency initiatives over the years and its overall impact. The full text of the article is reproduced below.

My gratitude to Shan Kohli, a trainee solicitor at a leading London law firm for helping me list out the key transparency initiatives in a table that was annexed to the published article.

THE BENEFITS OF A SUCCESSFUL CRUSADE

The clarion call for transparency in Indian intellectual property blew forth from the bugle of an unknown blog several years ago. Today, the transparency mission has some of the most committed crusaders, ranging from IP practitioners to civil society activists to government officials. Indeed, the past few years have witnessed a surge in IP information publicly available in India, information that took a sizeable amount of time and money to procure in previous years.

A lot of this had to with the initiatives ushered in by PH Kurian, a zealous controller general who blazed the patent office with bold reforms, upsetting the powers that be. Unfortunately, his blaze was rather meteoric and he was edged out before he could complete his term in office. Despite the obvious refrain that he was returning to his home state upon the request of the state government, most in the IP community knew better. A lamentable loss for the Indian IP community, but one hopes that the spirit of his reformist movement finds continuity in his successor.

The transparency trajectory of the Indian patent office is outlined in the table opposite. As one can see, initiatives have been increasing at a laudable rate over the last few years, bringing more matters into public purview. All of this is likely to have a long-term impact on the Indian IP ecosystem.

Cracking Corruption

Transparency is one of the most effective anti-corruption tools. A sentiment of particular interest to a country where anti-corruption has become the fashion of the season. Egged on by the sacrifice of an aged Gandhian who threatened to fast unto death until the government passed a meaningful anti-corruption law, many have awakened from their slumber to hitch a ride with the anti corruption bandwagon. If one were to rate Indian government offices on a corruption index, my guess is that the Indian IP offices would rank quite high.

About a year back, I was asked by a top Indian Foreign Service (IFS) officer at the UN: Is our IP office still as corrupt as it used to be? More recently, in March this year India’s Central Bureau of Investigation arrested ND Kasturi, the deputy registrar of trade marks in Chennai for possessing assets well in excess of her earnings. Files from the IP offices have routinely gone missing. In a recent case, the government admitted to losing 44,000 trade mark files.

Although corruption is a complex institutional problem requiring a multi-pronged solution, one way to redress this malaise is by simply being more transparent. As Justice Brandeis of the US Supreme Court rightly remarked: “Sunlight is the best disinfectant”.

More Power to the IP owner

Apart from its potential to reduce corruption, an increase in transparency fosters several other benefits. For one, all IP stakeholders including the public at large benefit from free information that they can readily access. Indeed, the very rationale for a patent grant is that the informational content is readily available to study and benefit from.

Further, IP applicants can now track their cases by browsing the Indian Patent Office (IPO) database without relying on attorneys who were prone to charging fees for such information in the past. The present IPO database permits clients to track the entire progress of their application, including the presence or otherwise of any oppositions. In this way, a more transparent IP information system forces attorneys to be more accountable to their clients.

Fostering Meritocracy in the Profession

In the past, attorneys would charge a heavy sum for any IP information, even for something as simple as whether or not a patent was granted. In fact, the reputation of an attorney turned largely on how quickly and how well he or she could procure information that the public did not have access to. The good attorneys were those with the contacts.With increased transparency and availability of information, however, that breed is slowly dying. Replacing them is an attorney that is no longer concerned about the covert nuances of information procurement; rather, he is one that is adept at analysing raw IP information and providing creative advice and strategy to clients.

One might state that an increase in transparency converts almost immediately to a rise in meritocracy, fostering IP attorneys who pit their wits against each other in a game that is as fair as it gets. It also means that access to the upper echelons of the profession is not reserved for those that have fathers or godfathers in it, but is open to anyone with a half-decent brain, willing to slug it out.

Of course “contacts” will continue to remain important, but they will hopefully be relegated to secondary status.

The Rise of IP Analytics

An increase in information and raw IP data has also spurred a new kind of IP analytics service, where companies cleverly analyse patent information and provide competitive intelligence. Not only does this throw up employment opportunities, it also helps innovators acquire more sophisticated information on the patent and innovation landscape.

A Favourable Legal Framework

At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that the transparency battle in India was aided in large part by the fact that the IP statutes provide a robust enabling scheme for the provision of IP information. One might argue that the Indian patent statute is one of the widest in terms of the range of information that it calls for from each IP applicant. Section 8 of the Indian Patents Act stipulates that patentees have to submit information pertaining to their foreign filings in respect of the same invention.

Section 146 (read with Form 27) mandates that patentees submit yearly information on how their patents have been worked – number of products sold and value of sales, and whether the local demand has been adequately met. Recently online blog SpicyIP (of which I am part) highlighted the fact that several patentees were not complying with Form 27 filing requirements.

We were aided in this investigative task by invoking the Right to Information Act, under which the government is to mandatorily disclose information to the public. Born essentially out of civil society activism, the RTI Act aims to make the government more accountable and reduce corruption. Its statement of objectives reads: “Whereas democracy requires an informed citizenry and transparency of information which are vital to its functioning and also to contain corruption and to hold Governments and their instrumentalities accountable to the governed.”

The Act has been deployed quite effectively to force the disclosure of vast tracts of IP information, and has, within a short span of time, helped created a more transparent landscape for IP information.

Lingering Problems
However, all is not rosy. Despite the theoretical provision of information, there is much to be said for the accuracy of information obtained. Several errors permeate each of the IP databases that the public can access.

Recently, in TenXC wireless v Andrew Comm Scope, a party filed a patent certificate downloaded from the IPO website to further its case in a court of law only to find that the certificate itself was the wrong one. It was not the final set of claims as issued by the Patent Office, but a prior set.

Conclusion

Despite the above shortcomings, an increase in transparency is a boon to all IP stakeholders. To IP users, it means lower costs, more informed decision-making and greater accountability from attorneys. To IP attorneys, it translates to a rise in meritocracy and an ability to serve clients without placating government officials. To the public at large, it means a more accountable government agency and a healthier democracy.

The battle for transparency has been a long, but fulfilling one. Its success owes in large part to the active partnership of a vibrant media, courageous attorneys, well informed IP users, fiercely honest government officials and a progressive judiciary.

One can only hope that this partnership is leveraged in the days to come to address the various other challenges plaguing the Indian IP system.

Annexure: Key Transparency Initiatives of the IPO

May 19 2008:
Basic information relating to patent applications (bibliography, abstract, specification and drawings) are made available through the patent office website. Copies of granted patents, controller’s decisions and published patent applications are also made available.

December 24 2009:
Circular CG/PG/2009/179 is issued, which requires all patentees and licensees to furnish information in Form 27 on the working of patents as prescribed under Section 146 of the Patents Act read with Rule 131 of the Patents Rules. The circular mandated submission of the information by March 31 2010.

January 12 2010:
Circular CG/PG/Office order/2010/233 is issued stipulating that the latest updated patent specifications will be available (under Rule 27 of the Patent Rules) for inspection and copies of the same will be provided to the public. This circular clarifies that the right procedure under Rule 27 is to provide the specification as on the date of a Rule 27 application and not the specification as filed along with the original patent application. Until the circular was passed, the usual practice of the patent office, under Rule 27, was to provide the public with only a copy of the patent specification, as filed, even if it had been changed.

March 7 2010:
The Indian Patent Office revamps its Indian Patent Information Retrieval System (IPIRS) (now known as IPAIRS) in order to provide an extremely useful search feature on the status of pending applications.April 16 2010 Patent office issues an order stating that all correspondence between a patent applicant and the patent office (during the course of prosecution) must be made available to the public.

June 23 2010:
Intellectual Property Office makes available to the public complete details relating to Trademark Registry. This includes access to pending trade mark applications, registered trade marks including the prosecution history, examination report, copy of the application, e-register of trade marks, copy of the trade mark certificate and opposition details.June 24 2010 Details of prosecution history, complete specification and examination reports of published patent application and all details including e-register in case of granted patents are published on the patent office website.

January 12 2011:
Trademark Registry makes registered trade marks freely searchable through an online database.

April 18 2011:
The Patent Office begins hosting scanned copies of entire patent files on its IPAIRS (patent office information database) system. The scanned copies include all correspondence between the Office and the patentee, all forms, abstracts and specifications filed by the patentee with the Office.