Sunday, February 10, 2013

Brand Protection And Management In India

Brand protection and management in India is a new concept. As more and more companies and individuals have started using information and communication technology (ICT), brand protection and management in India has become essential.

Brand protection and enforcement is generally managed by the intellectual property (IP) laws of India, especially Trademarks law of India. The Trademarks registration procedure in India is governed by the Trademarks Act, 1999 of India.

Recently ICANN has initiated the procedure to allot new GTLDs. The process is still on and objection and dispute resolution for ICANN’s new GTLDs registrations can still be undertaken by individuals and companies. The trademark and brand protection under new GTLDs registration by ICANN are complicated in nature. Even stakes are very high in the new GTLDs allotment. There is a dire need to have an effective brand enforcement policy in India on the part of Indian entrepreneurs and brand stakeholders.

At Perry4Law and Perry4Law’s Techno Legal Base (PTLB) we have been providing exclusive techno legal brand protection and enforcement services in India. Besides we are also one of the most prominent IPRs law firms of India. Our specialty includes online brand protection and management in India and abroad.

We use only legally permissible and ethical methods to ensure online brand protection and management in India. In recent times, online brand and reputation protection has got nasty and many online brand and reputation companies are using illegal and unethical means to protect brands of their clients.

Instead of engaging in illegal and unethical brand protection and management methods, stakeholders must engage in constructive, productive and sound planning and strategy making.

You may contact us for professional brand protection and management services in India in general and techno legal services in particular.

Saturday, February 9, 2013

Trademarks Registration Procedure In India

The trademark law of India can be found in the form of the Trade Marks Act 1999. To give a better and detailed understanding of the trademark and brand protection law in India, Perry4Law and Perry4Law’s Techno Legal Base (PTLB) would discuss the same in this article.

The same shall include the required documents and formalities for trademark registration in India and the procedure for registration of trademarks in India. In order to provide the maximum possible information at a single place, we would incorporate necessary hyperlinks within this article itself. This way we can avoid repeating the same legal principles again and again.

Intellectual property rights (IPRs) services in India are well known. The same includes trademark related legal services as well. There are many good trademarks law firms in India in general and IPRs law firms in India in particular. We at Perry4Law also provide world class techno legal IPRs services in India and abroad.



Perry4Law and PTLB believe that this article, along with the hyperlinks, covers the most comprehensive techno legal guide prescribing the trademarks registration procedure in India.

If you are interested in seeking our professional techno legal services in this regard, you may contact us with your requirements.

Sunday, February 3, 2013

Financial Times And Times Of India Would Fight Trademark Battle In Supreme Court Today

Trademarks, brands and trade names have assumed great significance in today’s world. They are also essential part of intellectual property rights (IPRs) that must be adequately safeguarded.

With information technology supplementing the sale and distribution of goods and services world over, protection of trademarks has become really difficult. This is the reason why trademarks must be protected globally as trademark protection is territorial in nature.

Similarly, online brand protection in India has become a must these days. The companies around the world are so particular about protecting their brands that they at times cross the limits of lawful acts. Trademark and brand protection under new GTLDs registration by ICANN would further complicate the scenario.

Trademark registration in India is governed by the Trademarks Act 1999 of India. A registered trademark is valid for a period of 10 years that can be renewed for another 10 years at a time. Further, international registration of trademarks under Madrid Agreement and Madrid Protocol can also be explored by applicants. However, the Madrid Agreement and Madrid Protocol and its applicability and implementation in India are still in a flux.

One such trademark issue that is presently contestable is pending between Financial Times and Times of India. The dispute pertains to use of the words/brand financial times. Both parties are asserting their rights to use the name financial times. This has become a two-decade old trademark dispute that has now come before the Supreme Court of India for final adjudication.

The UK based Financial Times is planning to bring online and facsimile editions in India. It has already received clearance from the Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) and in-principle approval from the Registrar of Newspapers for India (RNI) in 2009. However, it could not start the editions here as Times Publishing House, a Bennett Coleman & Co Ltd (BCCL) firm, obtained a stay from a Karnataka court immediately after the Financial Times received the approvals. FT had moved the apex court against this order.

Good growth of e-commerce in India is also encouraging UK’s Financial Times to offer subscription for its online edition and applications for tablets. This would also extend the growth and reach of UK’s Financial Times in all parts of the world, including India.

In late 1980s, UK’s Financial Times had entered into a content sharing arrangement with the Times of India Group. But, the arrangement did not work and Financial Times applied for a trademark registration in India in 1987. However, it did not apply for the RNI registration of the newspaper title that time.

Friday, February 1, 2013

Objection And Dispute Resolution For ICANN’s New GTLDs Registrations


It has been now notified by ICANN that the objection period has been extended to 13 March 2013. Once the objection filing period closes, all objections received will move through a dispute resolution process which will take approximately five months to resolve in most circumstances.

If you need professional legal services for making or defending various objections and disputes under the new GTLDs process, you may contact us if you deem it appropriate.

This dispute resolution mechanism has been incorporated into the new GTLDs process to safeguard the interests of brand, trademark and other rights holders. Any objection by a right holder would be analysed by a pre defined and qualified panel of experts in the relevant subject area. Further, even dispute resolution service providers have also been notified by ICANN and all disputes would be referred to these providers alone.

Objection can be filed in the categories of String Confusion, Legal Rights Objections, Limited Public Interest and Community. If you want to file a formal objection to a new GTLD application, you must contact the appropriate dispute resolution service provider and file your objection electronically. The language to be used is English. If your objection falls in different categories, you have to file each objection separately and pay the accompanying filing fees for each.

While filing such objection(s), you must add your name and contact information as the objector along with a statement as to why you believe you meet the standing requirements. Further, a description of the basis for your objection must be given that must include a statement giving the grounds on which you are objecting and a detailed explanation of the validity of your objection and why it should be upheld. Do not forget to add copied of relevant documents that support your objection. Objections are limited to 5000 words or 20 pages, which ever is less.

You may also be on the receiving end. You may have to defend the objections raised by others against your new GTLDs applications. Within thirty days of the closing of the objections filing window, ICANN will post a Dispute Announcement and notify the providers to begin the objection proceedings. If you are an applicant and have received notice from a provider that you have had an objection filed against your application, you will have 30 calendar days to file your response. If you do not respond within 30 days, you will be in default and the objector will prevail.

If your application has been objected to, you can work to reach a settlement with the objector. This would result in either a withdrawal of the objection or a withdrawal of your new GTLD application. You can also file a response to the objection and enter the dispute resolution process. You can withdraw your new GTLD application, in which case the objector will prevail by default and your application will not proceed.

Perry4Law would like to remind that if you fail to file a response to an objection, the objector will prevail by default. So you must defend and oppose any objection raised by a third party.

Perry4Law and PTLB wish all the best to all parties to the new GTLDs process.

Wednesday, January 30, 2013

Renewal Of An Expired Trademark In India And United States

Trademark law of India is passing through an interesting and developmental phase. Recently Samsung has raised the issue of international exhaustion of a trademark under Indian trademark law. Similarly, trademarks registrations in India have also increased as India is becoming a favourite destination for commercial activities world over.

Trademark registration in India is regulated by the Trademarks Act 1999 of India. A registered trademark is valid for a period of 10 years that can be renewed for another 10 years at a time. Further, international registration of trademarks under Madrid Agreement and Madrid Protocol can also be explored by applicants. However, the Madrid Agreement and Madrid Protocol and its applicability and implementation in India are still in a flux.

There may be cases where a trademark holder fails to renew his/her/its trademark in time. Renewal of an expired trademark is the only option left in such cases. In India even if the mark has been expired, one can apply for its re-registration. If someone else applies for registration of expired trademark as per the prescribed procedure, owner of expired trademark can file objections at the registry, tribunal or appropriate forum.

In United States (US), to keep the registration alive or valid for all trademarks registrations, except for non Madrid Protocol based registrations, the registration owner must file specific documents and pay fees at regular intervals.  Failure to file these documents will result in the cancellation of his/her/its registration.

For Madrid Protocol Based Registration, after the protection is granted to the international registration and a U.S. registration issues, to keep protection in the U.S., the U.S. registration owner must file specific documents and pay fees at regular intervals. Failure to file these documents will result in the cancellation of his/her/its U.S. registration and the invalidation of protection of the international registration by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).

Under Section 8 of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §1058, a §8 Declaration of Continued Use is required to be given by the trademark owner. The Declaration is a sworn statement, filed by the owner of a registration that the mark is in use in commerce. If the owner is claiming excusable nonuse of the mark, a §8 Declaration of Excusable Nonuse may be filed. The purpose of the §8 Declaration is to remove marks no longer in use from the register.

The USPTO will cancel any registration on either the Principal Register or the Supplemental Register if a timely §8 Declaration is not filed by the current owner of the registration during the prescribed time periods.  The USPTO has no authority to waive or extend the deadline for filing a proper §8 Declaration. Registrations finally cancelled after the expiry of permissible period due to the failure to file a §8 Declaration cannot be reinstated or revived.  A new application to pursue registration of the mark again must be filed.

Holders (owners) of registered extensions of protection to the U.S. (also called §66(a) registrations, registrations resulting from 79’ series applications, international registrations extended to the U.S.) who wish to maintain the protection granted their mark in the U.S. pursuant to the Madrid Protocol must file an affidavit or declaration of use in commerce or excusable nonuse to avoid cancellation of protection in U.S. Such affidavits are required pursuant to Section 71, 15 U.S.C. §1141k, of the Trademark Act.  The USPTO has no authority to waive or extend the deadline for filing a proper §71 Declaration.  Registrations finally cancelled after the expiry of permissible period due to the failure to file a §71 Declaration cannot be reinstated or revived.  A new application to pursue registration of the mark again must be filed.  

The holder of a registered extension of protection of an international registration to the U.S. must file an application for renewal of the international registration with the International Bureau (IB). Renewal of international registrations is governed by Article 7 of the Madrid Protocol and Rules 29 - 31 of the Common Regulations under the Madrid Agreement and Protocol.

A renewal can be filed during the six months before expiry of the period of protection or in the six months following the expiry of the current period of protection with the payment of a surcharge.

The term of an international registration is ten years, and it may be renewed for ten years upon payment of the renewal fee.

Perry4Law hope this information would be useful to all concerned stakeholders.

USPTO Grants Apple Trademarks For Its Retail Outlets Designs And Layout

Apple has been vigorously protecting its brand and trademark around the world. In one such example, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) accepted Apple's request last week for trademarks on the minimalist design and layout of its retail outlets.

With a booming e-commerce in India, Apple must be planning to protect its brand and trademark in India as well. Apple has already showed its displeasure for the Asian region, especially in China. In 2011, authorities in the Chinese city of Kunming stopped 22 fake Apple stores from illegally using the company's trademarks after Apple lodged a complaint with authorities.

Since trademark is territorial in nature, Apple must also protect its interests in the Indian territory. Intellectual property rights (IPRs) in India are well known and India has a strong trademark law in the form of Trademarks Act, 1999.


Apple said in its application in May, 2010 that it was not claiming color as a feature of the mark. The mark consists of the distinctive design and layout of a retail store, it said.

Apple must be very careful while engaging in e-commerce activities in India. There are well recognised legal requirements to start an e-commerce website in India and the legal formalities required for starting e-commerce business in India. Similar regulatory requirements do exist in other countries as well.

For instance, Apple was recently fined in Beijing Court for unauthorised e-book sales. Similarly, there are many cyber laws due diligence requirements in India that companies like Apple must comply with in India in order to engage in legally sustainable e-commerce business activities.

There are many techno legal compliance requirements that e-commerce portals, including Apple, Amazon, E-Bay and others, must comply with. At Perry4Law and Perry4Law’s Techno Legal Base (PTLB) we believe that cyber law due diligence, Internet intermediary liability and cyber due diligence for Indian companies must be kept in mind by various e-commerce websites and players.

At the end of the day managing techno legal IP a requirement is of great importance to all concerned who are eying upon India as a market.

Saturday, January 26, 2013

Does Indian Trademark Law Recognise International Exhaustion Or National One?

The dispute titled Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. & Anr. v. Kapil Wadhwa & Ors has finally reached the corridors of Indian Supreme Court. Unsatisfied with the decision of a Division Bench of Delhi High Court, Samsung has filed an appeal before the Supreme Court of India.

Briefly speaking, Samsung sued Kapil Wadhwa and others for unauthorised sale of Samsung printers imported from foreign markets into India. Furthermore, Samsung also accused Kapil Wadhwa and others for indulging in the behaviour of meta-tagging and deep hyperlinking with Samsungs website for the sale of alleged imported printers.

A single Judge of Delhi High Court held in favour of Samsung whereas a Division Bench of Delhi High Court partially overruled the decision of the single Judge. The Division Bench upheld the judgement of single Judge to the extent of injuncting Kapil Wadhwa and others from engaging in the act of meta tagging and hyperlinking.  Feeling aggrieved Samsung has now approached the Apex Court of India. The Supreme Court has issued notices to the concerned parties in this regard.

Samsung is insisting that the sales by present defendants/traders is an infringement of its Trademark, whereas local traders are claiming that they are well within their rights to sell goods legally bought abroad and imported into India. The question boils to the crucial point whether Indian Trademark law endorses international exhaustion principle or nation exhaustion criteria.

Now the Supreme Court of India would analyse this issue and the same would be settled for the larger benefits of various stakeholders. Perry4Law would update in this regard the moment Supreme Courts judgement would be pronounced.