Suit For Infringement Of Registered Trade Mark Is Maintainable Against Another Registered Proprietor Of Identical Or Similar Trade Mark

Clinique Laboratories LLCand Anr. Vs. Gufic Limited and Anr. MANU/DE/0797/2009

IPR Law- Suit for infringement by a registered trade mark owner against a registered trade mark holder: Conditions-The present dispute was between the registered trade mark of the plaintiff as well as defendant. It is interesting to note that before filing the suit the plaintiff i.e. Clinique had filed a cancellation petition before the Registrar of Trade Marks, India, against the defendant for cancellation of the defendant’s trade mark CLINIQ. As per the Section 124(1) (ii), of the Indian Trade Marks Act, 1999 a suit is liable to be stayed till the cancellation petition is finally decided by the competent authority.

However, under Section 124(5) of the Act, the court has the power to pass interlocutory order including orders granting interim injunction, keeping of account, appointment of receiver or attachment of any property.

In this case, the court held that a suit for infringement of registered trade mark is maintainable against another registered proprietor of identical or similar trade mark.

It was further held that in such suit, while staying the suit proceedings pending decision on rectification/cancellation petition, the court can pass interim injunction restraining the use of the registered trade mark by the defendant, subject to the condition that the court is prima facie convinced of invalidity of registration of the defendant’s trade mark. In this case the court granted an interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff till the disposal of the cancellation petition by the competent authority.

Speedy disposal of Intellectual property rights cases

BajajAuto Limited Vs. TVS Motor Company Limited JT 2009 (12) SC 103

 Dispute over Patent for the Use of Twin-Spark Plug Engine Technology – Speedy disposal of Intellectual property rights cases- The Supreme Court of India by this landmark judgment has directed all the courts in India for speedy trial and disposal of intellectual property related cases in the courts in India. In two-year-old dispute involving two companies, which have been locked in a patent dispute over the use of a twin-spark plug engine technology, the Supreme Court observed that suits relating to the matters of patents, trademarks and copyrights are pending for years and years and litigation is mainly fought between the parties about the temporary injunction. The Supreme Court directed that hearing in the intellectual property matters should proceed on day to day basis and the final judgment should be given normally within four months from the date of the filing of the suit. The Supreme Court further directed to all the courts and tribunals in the country to punctually and faithfully carry out the aforesaid orders.

Trademarks : Iceland v. Iceland : The battle for exclusivity

Iceland (the country ) is a leading exporter of frozen fish and seafood to several countries in the EU. Recently, native companies like ‘Clean Iceland’ and ‘Iceland Gold’ have faced trouble in marketing their products due to confusion over the name which clashes with ‘Iceland Foods’ – a renowned frozen food supermarket chain that has subsisted since the 70’s.

‘Iceland Foods’ for several years used to be under the control of Icelandic investors and later Icelandic banks. As the spokesperson for the retailer said, “the relationship came to an end with a £1.5bn buyout of the company in 2012, but Iceland the company has continued to have a good relationship with Iceland ,the country through the ownership of three Iceland stores there, export sales of Iceland products to other retailers throughout the country, and sponsorship of the Icelandic national team in this year’s European football championships.”

‘Iceland Foods’ is currently a UK-based but South African owned supermarket chain.

The Icelandic government has begun legal proceedings to ensure that the trademark of ‘Iceland’- that is exclusively owned by the supermarket chain is cancelled. These steps have been taken primarily to protect native companies that are unable to promote themselves abroad in association with their place of origin, as is their right, for it is a place that they are rightly proud of and which enjoys a positive national branding.

The supermarket’s founder and chief executive, Malcolm Walker, said: “A high-level delegation from Iceland Foods is preparing to fly to Reykjavik this week to begin negotiations, and we very much hope for a positive response and an early resolution of this issue.”

The negotiations are hoped by both sides to bring an end an issue that has the potential to erupt into a long-term battle. According to Iceland Foods, they have no desire to stand in the way of a country that is making use of their own name to promote their goods as long as it does not conflict with the long standing business that the supermarket chain had established over the years.

The Icelandic government has also been clear on its stance and it does not intend to force the supermarket to register a new name, it is only seeking to end the company’s right to assert the Iceland trademark to block native companies from using “Iceland.”

Administrative Trademark Decisions May Preclude Infringement Litigation

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on March 24, 2015, that Trial Trademark and Appeal Board (“TTAB”) decisions “can be weighty enough” to preclude a district court from litigating the likelihood of confusion between trademarks in a subsequent infringement suit. The decision in B&B Hardware, Inc. v Hargis Industries, Inc. may not settle the nearly 20-year dispute between the owners of the SEALTIGHT and SEALTITE marks; however, the ruling is likely to increase the importance of TTAB proceedings. In certain circumstances, federal district courts may be bound by TTAB determinations that trademarks are confusingly similar under the doctrine of issue preclusion. Issue preclusion prevents the same issues from being litigated more than once, saving time and resources. 

As the Court explained, “[t]he full story [of the parties’ dispute] could fill a long, unhappy book.”  By 2003, the year B&B filed its opposition with the TTAB to stop Hargis from obtaining a federal trademark registration for a SEALTITE mark, the parties had been litigating trademark infringement claims for eight years.  B&B, the owner of a federal registration for SEALTIGHT for metal fasteners used in the aerospace industry, asserted that Hargis’ SEALTITE mark for fasteners used in building construction created a likelihood of confusion.

B&B won the TTAB opposition proceeding, and Hargis was denied federal registration of the SEALTITE mark. The TTAB determined that the SEALTITE mark was likely to cause confusion with the prior-registered SEALTIGHT mark. The TTAB made the determination based on a multi-factor likelihood of confusion analysis that examines the similarity of the marks, the goods, the customers and the trade channels, among other considerations.  

In this case, the TTAB only decided the narrow issue of the right to own a federal trademark registration. In contrast to a federal court, the TTAB cannot order a party to stop using a mark.  Following its loss at the TTAB, Hargis continued use of its SEALTITE mark. In subsequent infringement proceedings, B&B argued that the TTAB’s finding of a likelihood of confusion between the parties’ marks should stand, and that Hargis should not be able to re-litigate the issue. Both the district court and the Eighth Circuit rejected B&B’s argument and found that issue preclusion did not apply.

The Supreme Court reversed the Eighth Circuit and held that “[s]o long as the other ordinary elements of issue preclusion are met, when the usages adjudicated by the TTAB are materially the same as those before the district court, issue preclusion should apply.” The Court gave several reasons for this decision, including its observation that “the same likelihood-of-confusion standard applies to both registration and infringement.”

The case is now remanded to the lower court to determine if issue preclusion should apply on these specific facts, and thus the fight over the SEALTIGHT and SEALTITEmarks is likely to continue. The Court also explained that “for a great many registration decisions [from the TTAB] issue preclusion obviously will not apply because the ordinary elements will not be met.”

For example, the Court recognized the ordinary elements will not be met when the owner of a mark uses its mark in ways that are materially different from the trademark uses disclosed in a trademark application for registration. The TTAB decision will not have a preclusive effect “if the TTAB does not consider the marketplace usage of the parties’ marks[.]”

The impact of B&B Hardware on brand owners may be minimal. TTAB proceedings are routinely suspended for federal litigation involving the same parties and the same marks; however, parties that participate in a  TTAB case will need to carefully evaluate the potential for issue preclusion in a subsequent action. Indeed, as the Court explained, “[w]hen registration is opposed, there is a good reason to think that both sides will take the matter seriously.”

For trademark owners that disagree with a TTAB decision, they can pursue a de novo review of the TTAB decision before either the Federal Circuit or a U.S. District Court. Otherwise, there is a possibility that issue preclusion may impact subsequent infringement litigation involving the same marks.

http://www.natlawreview.com/article/administrative-trademark-decisions-may-preclude-infringement-litigation

No copyright or trademark in Yoga, pranic healing asanas, rules HC

Exclusive rights over yoga and pranic exercises, which are derivatives of ancient technique of yoga in India, cannot be claimed under the Copyright Act, the Delhi High Court has held.

The court made the observations while rejecting the plea of Philippines-based Institute for Inner Studies seeking to restrain some persons from teaching the 'asanas' (postures) claimed to be developed by the founder of the institute.

The court relied upon the position of law on the matter in the US and noted that the court there had denied protection to Yoga asanas in case of Bikram Choudhary who is also teaching modern yoga techniques in the US.

A bench of justice Manmohan Singh also held that the expression 'Pranic Healing' cannot be monopolised as trademark by the institute.

"The expression 'Pranic healing' as on the date of the application for the registration was prima facie non distinctive and was the name of the art or technique of doing exercise which was a facet of Yoga.

"The expression was not capable of distinguishing the services of the plaintiff from others due to its wide spread use in the field dating back from centuries ago," the bench said in its 150-page judgement.

The court delivered the judgement on a petition filed by the Institute, which was established by Late Samson Lim Choachuy, Master Choa Kok Sui, on April 27, 1987 and has trusts in various cities in India and the sub-continent.

The institute had moved the high court seeking prohibitory orders against one Charlotte Anderson and others from practicing pranic healing and conducting courses of the asanas adapted by the Master "without proper guidelines and issuing certificates or using literature" of the Master.

"The trade marks which have secured by the plaintiffs in India are all secured post the year 2000 as is evident from the list.

"If the expression Pranic Healing was the name of the art or technique of Yoga in the year 1906 finding place in the books in the field of Yoga, it prima facie appears to be highly doubtful as to how the expression is either inherently distinctive or for that matter capable of distinguishing the goods of one person from that of another.

"Having not made a truthful statement as to proprietorship of the mark pranic healing, the plaintiffs have secured the registration of the expression from the Registrar of the trade mark without informing about the correct proprietorship of the mark applied for on the date of the application."

 Source:http://ibnlive.in.com/news/no-copyright-or-trademark-in-yoga-pranic-healing-asanas-rules-hc/445376-3.html

US Bullying at TPP Negotiations for Big Pharma Profits. Intellectual Property Rights and the Sale of Generic Drugs

Outrageous US bullying by US Trade Representative Stan McCoy on intellectual property and health. McCoy puts profits of pharmaceuticals ahead of the lives of people.

“The world should stand up to the United States.  US corporations are not more important than people’s lives.”

A key dispute in the TPP negotiations is the patents on pharmaceutical drugs and medical procedures.  Long patents inflate the profits of the pharmaceutical industry by not allowing less expensive generic drugs on the market.

This means that people around the world will not be able to afford critical, often life-saving, drugs and medical procedures.  It also means that countries like Japan, Australia and New Zealand that have national health care systems will see the cost of healthcare rise to a breaking point, undermining some of the best health systems in the world.

Stanford McCoy of the US Trade Rep. His bullying tactics seek to prop up inflated pharmaceutical profits at the expense of thousands of lives.

In order for the US to get its way,Stan McCoy, Assistant US Trade Representative for Intellectual Property and Innovation, is chairing the meetings on intellectual properties and medicines.  He has been using bullying tactics to force countries to agree to positions that will harm people in the countries negotiating the TPP, including the US.

“The US has adopted a strategy of exhaustion in its bullying of negotiators on the crucial intellectual property chapter to force countries to trade away health in the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement negotiations in Salt Lake City,” according to Professor Jane Kelsey from the University of Auckland, New Zealand, who is monitoring the negotiations. ”The US has stepped up its aggression as they move towards their ‘end point’ of the TPP ministerial meeting in Singapore from 7 to 10 December.”

Margaret Flowers, MD a health policy expert from the US says

“The Office of the US Trade Representative is putting the interests of trans-national health corporations before the needs of people. If the US position is forced through, the TPP will extend patents for medications, medical devices and even procedures for exorbitant lengths of times. This will inflate prices, keeping treatments out of reach for those who need them. This will cause unnecessary suffering and death, especially for the most vulnerable populations, and will undermine health systems around the world and at home.”

“This is a loaded game,” Professor Kelsey said. “McCoy sets the agenda and timetable. Negotiators are working from morning until late at night and preparing to work all night, if necessary. ”This is a crucial period for New Zealand and a number of other countries,” Kelsey observed. The text published by Wikileaks last week shows they have tabled an alternative to the US proposed text that has been repeatedly rejected.”

“New Zealand’s trade minister Tim Groser and his counterparts from the other ten countries must tell the US to stop this behaviour now,” Kelsey said. Flowers added: “Countries negotiating with the United States should not allow themselves to be bullied but should stand up to the United States.  It is looking very unlikely that President Obama will be able to get TPP through the Congress. Why would any country negotiate against the interests of their people?”

The US has around twenty people in Salt Lake City for the intellectual property chapter, who can rotate. Some countries have only one delegate for crucial talks on intellectual property on medicines. Their negotiations on medicines have been extended beyond the dates that were scheduled before negotiators came.  They have continued despite the fact that some health negotiators, especially from poor countries, could not extend their stay.

This follows a pattern of abuse over recent rounds reported in Inside US Trade and other media, where McCoy has acted as a gatekeeper, deciding what proposals from other countries are allowed into the text and what are not.

“This is an early warning of the extreme bullying that can be expected in when the trade ministers seek to close the deal off in December,” Professor Kelsey warned.

Source:http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-bullying-at-tpp-negotiations-for-big-pharma-profits-intellectual-property-rights-and-the-sale-of-generic-drugs/5359221

An end to trademark grabbing in China

Will the introduction of a new Trademark Law in China address the issue of trademark grabbing by unauthorized Chinese parties, 

At the end of August, the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress adopted the third amendment to the Trademark Law of the People’s Republic of China, which will enter into force on May 1, 2014.What is the implications of the new law and does it address the concerns of trademark holders as to the rampant instances of trademark grabbing by unauthorized Chinese parties?

Challenges under the current trademark law

The actual trademark law, and the related case law of Chinese civil courts as well as the practice of the relevant administrative bodies in charge of trademark protection in China have clearly failed in preventing and punishing a most common form of trademark infringement in China, namely that of the so called trademark grabbing together with the related fall out of trademark trolls actions against foreign investors in China.

Trademark Grabbing

Under Chinese trademark law, only a registered trademark enjoys protection and the first person or entity to register it becomes its lawful owner, even if that trademark has already been used by others in China. Known as “trademark trolls,” certain Chinese companies or individuals are known to actively follow a strategy of registering intellectual property rights in China that arguably belong to their foreign competitors. Aware of the very strict “first to file” principle, they identify, apply and register trademarks belonging to competitors who have forgotten or not yet taken steps to register them.

The actual law and the related practice of all relevant civil and administrative bodies cannot prevent such occurrences. The usurped right holder’s only actual recourse is that of filing a trademark cancellation action and wait years for the hostile trademark to be cancelled, if this is actually really going to happen. The problem for the rightful trademark owner is that in the meanwhile, any act of manufacturing, selling, importing and offering for sale of his products with that stolen trademark, will constitute an act of infringement. The result: the grabber, aware of this, may file a civil or administrative enforcement, thus damaging the foreign company’s business and reputation. There have been indeed several of such trademark troll cases in China in the last years.

No right to prior use

The current legal system does not recognize any legal right to the prior use the foreign holder has made in China of that trademark before the registration of the same obtained by the usurper. The system does lack indeed a legal structure to balance the possible injustice created by the strict observance of the principle of “first to file”.

Trademark grabbing particularly affects medium and small foreign enterprises in China. Lack of knowledge of the trademark system of this country leads often to ineffective trademark filing policies. The loopholes left by unsystematic trademark filings are cleverly exploited by individuals (professional grabbers), competitors, and by local business partners. The latter may initially even do it in good faith, but may later discover that this is a very good bargaining weapon and a preventive tool in case they decide to leave the partnership and become competitors.

Seen in this perspective, trademark grabbing can indeed cause a business to be prevented or to be forced to leave the Chinese market in consequence to the “legal” loss of its brand and the related goodwill.

What solutions does the new Trademark Law hold?

The fact that trademark grabbing has actually reached levels that negatively affect fair competition and distort the principles backing the first to file system upon which the Chinese trademark law is based, has been now fully acknowledged and concrete changes of policy are now visible in the new trademark law.

The first acknowledgement of the existence of an unfair exploitation and abuse of the rule of first to file is the first time ever embodiment of the principle of good faith/bad faith in the trademark Law. Article 7 of the Trademark Law now expressly provides that the application for registration and use of a trademark shall be based on the principle of good faith. Such principle alone can constitute now a solid legal ground to file a trademark cancellation. Such wasn’t the case in the past, due to the lack of a legal base upon which to support a bad faith registration claim.

Aside from reinforcing the legal grounds for filing cancellations against the grabbed trademarks and speeding up the timing for completion of cancellation procedures, a most important change of policy and an exception to the “first-to-file” principle, is now contained in the new trademark law. For the first time in the history of the trademark law of China, if we exclude the case of unregistered well-known trademark, a right of prior use of a trademark in China is recognized under certain conditions, with a positive fall-out for the rightful owner in cases of trademark grabbing.

Article 59 of the third amendment of the trademark law provides that if someone has used a mark identical or similar to a registered trademark, in respect to identical or similar goods, before the date of filing of the latter trademark, and under the condition that the prior mark has meanwhile obtained a certain degree of reputation in China due to its use, the trademark registrant has no right to prevent the prior user from further employing such mark within the original scope of its use. At most, the trademark registrant may impose to the prior user the addition of an indication of distinction to the prior mark.

The norm goes even further by protecting the prior use of designs and shapes which may later form the body of a registered trademark or 3D mark. According to the same article 59, the exclusive right owner of a registered trademark may not prohibit others from the rightful use of the generic names, models or designs of the goods as included in the registered trademark, including registered 3D marks.

Even if the trademark grabber dared filing an enforcement lawsuit against the prior user, not only he would face the risk of rejection of his claims based on art. 59, but will also be subject to another risk related to the non-use of the stolen trademark. In fact, article 64 of the new trademark law provides that the alleged infringer, in this case the prior user, can raise non-use as a defense in a civil lawsuit for trademark infringement and the plaintiff has the burden to prove that he has used the trademark during the last three years from the date of the lawsuit.

If the Plaintiff fails to prove the use of the trademark as requested, the defendant will be exempted from the payment of any damages. Considering that in force of article 59 the prior user can continue to use its mark within its original scope of use, a lawsuit in such a case would be of no consequence for the prior user. Such situation is actually the most typical in cases of trademark grabbing. Most grabbers will in fact not use the trademark, given that the only purpose of stealing is to prevent the filing and use of the trademark by the foreign prior user.

A welcome addition

These new norms are a welcome addition to the Trademark Law. The prior user will have thus the right to continue to use his unregistered marks in China while attempting the cancellation of the stolen trademarks. This will give to the prior user and rightful owner of that sign to prepare and implement cancellations strategies without stopping his business in China.

At the same time, this norm should also discourage the trademark grabbers, especially the professional ones since they normally just grab marks but do not use them. In this respect, a further restraint from grabbing is provided by the new article 64, especially considering that most grabbers never use their trademarks and with such awareness will likely refrain from civil enforcement.

Sourcehttp://www.globallegalpost.com/global-view/an-end-to-trademark-grabbing-60583530/#.UmtsQXCky9Q

Nestle Owns Maggi said IPAB over Trademark Dispute

Trademarks are invaluable assets of every business. These indicate source of origin of goods and services and help the consumer’s in distinguishing goods and services of one person from that of another. Trademark indicates toward a superior quality to which the consumer associates the product with. They promote businesses and help in generating goodwill and brand value and it is on account of this inherent quality that they have emerged as one of the most sought after assets of the 21st century over which diverse claims are raised every day before the various Judicial and Quasi-judicial forums of the country.

In fact, the Indian Trademark Office is flooded with Oppositions to various Trademark Applications seeking registration of trademark for diverse categories of goods and services. One of the most recent Trademark disputes that had been decided by Quasi-Judicial Forum is that of the dispute over Trademark 'Maggi' between Switzerland based Multinational Giant Societe Des Produits Nestle and Mumbai based Swaraj Industrial and Domestic Appliances Pvt. Ltd. The Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) decided the dispute and rejected the trademark application of Swaraj industry for the registration of mark 'Maggi for various classes of goods including Home appliances, mixers and grinders.

'Maggi' is popular trade name / trademark held by Nestle for selling variety of food products around the world. This trade name has acquired distinctive character and has been in use in India since 1974. The dispute between Nestle and Swaraj industries over the trademark 'Maggi' began in 1990 when Swaraj Industries filed application for registration of mark 'Maggi' as trademark for home appliances, mixers, and grinders produced by it. Nestle Company resisted this application and claim by Swaraj industries over the mark 'Maggi'. Nestle filed opposition to the trademark office where the Senior Examiner rejected the claim by Nestle Company over the trademark 'Maggi' and held in favour of Swaraj industries thereby allowing the application for registration of trademark Maggi for Swaraj industries goods.

The Senior examiner had accepted applicant /swaraj industries argument that deception and confusion was least likely to be caused in the minds of consumer in relation to the source of origin of goods on account of trademark 'Maggi' being used by the companies for different class of goods. The senior examiner held that goods in question were quite distinct from that of Nestle and also held that Nestle could not establish its trademark was well known.

Swaraj industry had submitted before the Examiner that they had been using the mark since 1984 and the mark had acquired distinctive character with respect to their goods. Nestle on the other hand submitted that the term 'Maggi' was not a word found in dictionary and was in fact derived from the surname of the company founder Julius Maggi. Nestle also submitted that that Maggi as brand had been listed as a Super brand by many journals and crores of rupees are annually spent on the promotion of Maggi products with which people identify the company with. Nestle also submitted that trademark Maggi was being used by the company around the world since 1887 and was used in India since 1974. Nestle also submitted that it had registered Maggi as a trademark for various food product produced by it since 1970.

Nestle appealed against this order of senior examiner before the IPAB challenging the stance taken by the senior examiner of trademark office. IPAB thereafter set aside the order of the examiner and held that in favour of Nestle.

IPAB held that in case the application for registration of "Maggi" as trademark for home appliances by Swaraj industries is allowed then it was in all likelihood to cause deception and confusion in the minds of general public about the source of origin of goods. IPAB said that the goods for which Swaraj industry had claimed trademark protection were indeed "allied and cognate". IPAB said that the appellants/Nestle goods under the trademark "Maggi" are food and snack items that are purchased by the common man and the household goods of the respondent would make the common man think that the goods of the respondent emanate from the appellant source.

IPAB also observed that the respondent (Swaraj industries) had not achieved the burden of establishing the proprietorship, usage and reasons for the adoption of the trademark "Maggi". IPAB also said that respondents did not prove that such adoption would not cause deception and confusion in minds of general public in case the mark is already is vogue or is in use in another classes of goods.

Thus, IPAB set aside the order Senior Examiner and held in favour of Nestle thereby asserting the country strong initiative to protection of trademarks in India.

http://www.lawsenate.com/news/nestle-owns-maggi-said-ipab-over-trademark-dispute.html

Five Things About Intellectual Property That a Startup Should Consider

Intellectual property rights (IPR) system traces its roots back to 3200 BC. Renaissance Northern Italy is thought to be the cradle of IP system. The first copyright was issued to a printing press invented in the 16th century while the first patent was issued in Florence in 15th century to Filippo Brunelleschi for a floating architectural crane. Trademarks are the oldest category of IPR.

Any organization that is planning its entry into the market should definitely keep IPR in mind. Because the benefits will not just make you richer but can far outweigh the other tangible benefits you get from your business.

Here are five points for a startup to keep in mind :

1. Single intellectual property right is enough to launch your venture

A strong single IP right can give an edge to your new venture and also makes your entry into the market comparatively easy. IP can build a fortress around the organization and protect it from competition. To leverage IP correctly, it is important to know the IP focus of an organization. For example, if you are a technology driven startup, then patents will play a major role besides copyright, trademark & industrial design. If the startup is in the business of movies, then copyright is the king. If the startup is related to games or animation then industrial design along with copyright will take prime position.

Google’s first patent, US6285999, filed on Jan 9, 1998 called Page Rank was a link analysis algorithm. The patent was assigned to Stanford University and not Google in the beginning, as this technology was developed by Sergey Brin and Larry Page when they were PhD students at Standford. Google had exclusive license rights on the patent from Stanford University. Later on the founders purchased the rights from the University for 1.8 million shares of Google in exchange of use of patent. Later in 2005 the University altogether sold the shares for $336 million. Both the institute (assignee) and students (inventors) rightfully exploited their IP rights to build today’s tech giant, Google. The Page Rank IP also holds a trademark protection – an example of a single invention being protected by two different types of IP.

2. DEVELOP YOUR IP PORTFOLIO

It would be a good idea for startups or any business, to align core competencies of business with their IP strategy. This helps to build a strong IP portfolio. Almost all patents of Google are in ‘computing, calculating and counting’ domain. Thus Google follows a very focused innovation and IP generation process.

For example: In the computing space, Google has registered a patent to detect events of interest in context of network traffic, registered as US7970934B1. In this case Google has registered the patent which forecasts the traffic that will come to the Google Search page to search information about any event of interest, like an earthquake. This helps them efficiently manage site traffic and improve user experience.

3. BE AWARE OF IPR OF OTHERS

It is advisable for startups to know the IPR of others to avoid infringement. Remember ‘law does not forgive ignorance’, so no point pleading ignorance in case of a lawsuit.

In October 2006 when Google acquired YouTube, organizations like Viacom Mediaset and the English Premier League filed lawsuits against YouTube for violation of copyright. Viacom said that more than 150,000 unauthorized clips of material owned by Viacom were viewed on YouTube. And Google had to payup for this unauthorized use of Viacom’s IP right.

4. OBSERVE YOUR COMPETITION

Besides an internal focus, it is desirable to keep an eye on your competitor’s IP development. Patent analytics and business analytics can help know the technology trend and market scenario of competitors.

Google keeps a close watch on what Yahoo!, Microsoft, eBay, Amazon, Facebook, Hulu and Washington Post among others are what they are doing. Known as competitive intelligence, Google tracks its competitor’s technology development closely to ensure they are not caught unawares. For example, when Google launched Google Docs it was in direct competition to Microsoft Office’s Word. This gave users the advantage to directly work on a word file online without have to download it to make any changes. This move by Google has impacted the need for users to have a licensed copy of MS Word on their devices to work.

5. COMPETE WITH YOURSELF

To grow, compete with yourself and develop new technologies or brands which will satisfy your customer. When Larry & Sergey founded Google in 1998, they started with their core product — search engine. Later they built the revolutionary email platform – Gmail, creating threat for Yahoo! and have now ventured into cloud based applications that threatens Microsoft.

The creations by Google are result of out-of-the-box thinking which resulted in disruptive innovations. This intellectual input by inventors at Google is rightly protected by IP regimes. And Google is able to commercialize these inventions appropriately and at the right time.

Source: Gouri Gargate, Yourstory. in

Agarwal and Company Law Offices LLP.