Skip to main content

IPO Realized and Re-classified TM

By
A notice dated 23-08-2010, gives out re-classification of Trademarks. This notice suggests that

Pre-Exiting Marks -

1. Marks already registered in class 42 as on date will remain registered in class 42, irrespective of which services their classes now fall in.
2. However, this will not preclude proprietors in class 42 to voluntarily apply for conversion into separate classes under Rule 101 of the TM Rules.
3. Renewal of such registered marks (in class 42) will also be made in the same class.
4. Marks already advertised in the journal in class 42 shall proceed to be registered in the same class, and upon registration, shall be treated in the same manner for the purpose of registration, classification and renewal, as the existing registered trademarks.


Pending Applications –

1. With regards those marks awaiting examination, the Examiner is expected to inform the applicant of the appropriate class/es into which their goods fall, and make amendments or restrictions accordingly.
2. Where the application is to be split into multiple classes, the priority date of the application shall stay.
3. Where applications have been examined and responded to already, there will be a reexamination to check for classification of services, which the Examiner will inform the applicant about.


So re-classification of Pre-existing registrations seems not mandatory, it remains some work for the Examiner though, who will have to examine each application in any of the new classes in light of registrations in class 42 as well.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

IPAB has allowed an appeal and granted patent to Pfizer for Tofacitinib and its salts

By
                                                    In a decision dated 21st August 2020 IPAB vide its  Order  has allowed an appeal and granted Patent  to Appellant M/s. PFIZER PRODUCTS INC., USA  for Tofacitinib and its salts. The appeal is against the   order dated 3 rd  September 2015 passed by the Controller of Patents under Section 15 of the Indian Patents Act, whereby the Appellant’s Indian patent application no. 00991/MUMNP/2003 was rejected on the ground that it is hit by section 13(1)(b) and being non-patentable under section 3(d). The Appellant requested for an urgent hearing of the matter and IPAB considered the request for urgent hearing and passed the present order.  This Patent application claimed the compound 3-{(3R,4R)-4-Methyl-3-[methyl-(7H-pyrrolo[2,3-d]pyrimidin-4-yl)-amino]-piper...
Post a Comment
Read more

Tata's Herbal Tea fails to get patent protection

By
The patent office has refused to grant a patent to Tata Global Beverages (formerly known as Tata Tea) for its 'invention' regarding a process for preparation of flavoured herbal tea. Based on the opposition filed by Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL) and TATA Tea failed to provide sufficiency of disclosure of the invention the Controller of Patents refused to grant patent.   Tata Global  Beverages, the patent application has claimed a new flavoured herbal tea composition comprising 1% to 8% of Darjeeling Broken, 10% to 50% of flavour concentrate and the rest being tea particles. Tata Global Beverages had submitted the patent filing without appropriate clarification for the unique taste for the tea composition. It was unable to find out the technical advancement of the application as compared to the existing knowledge. Thus controller had to refuse the grant of patent. Source:  http://www.financialexpress.com/article/markets/commodities/tata-global-bev...
Post a Comment
Read more

Honourable Justice Manmohan Singh Tenure as Chairman of IPAB (Intellectual Property Appellate Board) extended for Another three months

By
  The Supreme Court on September 16, 2020 has extended the tenure of Honourable Justice Manmohan Singh as Chairman of IPAB (Intellectual Property Appellate Board)  for another three months.  Justice Manmohan Singh was appointed on July 2017 for a term of three years.  However as per the rules governing the appointment his term would come to an end on attaining retirement age of 65 years on 22nd September 2019. Since Government has not appointed any Chairman thereafter, on a Petition by International Association for Protection of Intellectual Property (AIPPI) the Supreme Court has extended his term for another year i.e, till 21st September 2020 as the Petitioner claimed that IPAB will be Defunct with his retirement thereby causing hardship several litigants. The Central Government has notified in March 2020 that Justice Singh will continue as the chairman of IPAB up to September 21, 2020, or until further orders, whichever is earlier.  Now with this extension, Ho...
Post a Comment
Read more