Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: medical degrees act 1916 section 2 definitions Court: intellectual property appellate board ipab Year: 2009 Page 1 of about 9 results (0.038 seconds)

Jun 26 2009 (TRI)

Novartis Ag Vs. Union of India Through the Secretary and Others

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

Decided on : Jun-26-2009

..... public. it is sufficient if the information given in a prior art document enables a skilled person in the art to prepare the same substance. further section 2(1)(l) of the act which gives the definition of ??new invention ? means ??any invention or technology which has not been anticipated by publication in any document or used in the country or elsewhere ..... trials if it is effective at the dose tested against the illness for which it is prescribed. ? the meaning of ??bioavailability ? by the dorlands illustrated medical dictionary was given as ??bio-availability : the degree to which a drug or other substance becomes available to the target tissue after administration. ? the goodman and gilmans ??the pharmacological basis of therapeutics (8th ed ..... and adding meaning of ??therapeutic ? it gives a meaning of ??efficacy ? as healing of disease ?? having a good effect on the body. the dorlands illustrated medical dictionary defines bio-availability as ? the degree to which a drug or other substance becomes available to the target tissue after administration. ? the respondents also have cited the reference of the book ??the pharmacological ..... preparing the beta crystalline form of imatinib mesylate. such process patent compared with a product patent being a lesser degree monopoly, grant of such a patent, in our opinion would not attract any of the provisions of section 3 of the act in the instant application and is also expected to limit any possible abuse to ensure that and gleevec should .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 12 2009 (TRI)

M/S Merck Kgaa Vs. M/S Galaxy Hompro and Another

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

Decided on : Jun-12-2009

..... and they are entitled to claim to be the proprietor of the trade mark and the registration is in accordance with the provisions of section 18(1) of the act. 3. aggrieved by the said order, the appellants filed an appeal before the honble high court of delhi. the same was numbered as ..... cm(m) no.587 of 2001. the appeal was, thereafter, transferred to the intellectual property appellate board as per the provisions of section 100 of the trade marks act, 1999 and re-numbered as ta/179/2003/tm/del. 4. the appellant is a globally renowned pharmaceutical corporation engaged in the business ..... been proved by the first respondent. 10. the registration of the trade mark ??recibion is in contravention of the provisions of sections 9,11,12 and 18 of the act. the sales figures relating to the sale of the products bearing the impugned trade mark is very less. the counsel also submitted ..... applying the principles laid down by the supreme court in cadila case whereas the degree of burden to prove or establish likelihood of confusion in cases of drugs is much less as compared to the trade marks used in non-medical goods. (g) the second respondent erred in granting registration whereas it ought ..... del-8313 and allowing the application no.517814 in class 5 to proceed to registration under the provisions of the trade and merchandise marks act, 1958 (in short the act). 2. the first respondent herein filed an application for registration of the trade mark ??recibion under application no.517814 in class 5 in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 31 2009 (TRI)

Novo Nordisk Health Care Ag Verseus the Assistant Controller of Patent ...

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

Decided on : Mar-31-2009

..... also lacking in novelty anticipated by more than dozen documents, together with the objections that most of the claims are neither patentable under section 3 nor allowable under section 2(1)(j) of the act. 3. the appellant for the first time filed a response to the fer almost at the end of the period, viz., on 7-6-2007 giving elaborate observations over ..... the complete specifications and also pointed out that the cited prior art by the respondent does not anticipate the invention and therefore the invention claimed in the claims is fully definitive and is technically well supported by necessary descriptions. the learned counsel for the appellant ended his argument by stating that the impugned order be set aside and the patent may ..... of being heard and of making representations on his own behalf". 20. perusing some of the famous reported cases on principles of natural justice, we notice that in ross v. medical university of south carolina, 328 s.c. 51, 68, 492 s.e.2d 62, 71 (1997), the south carolina supreme court held that ??law requires an administrative agency or authority ..... defend its case by presenting its views and observations. moreover in the impugned order the respondent has categorically refused to grant the opportunity of hearing to the appellant under section 80 of the act by taking the plea that there was inordinate delay in resubmission. the impugned order under consideration has been undisputedly made without affording an opportunity of being heard to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 17 2009 (TRI)

M/S Lek Pharmaceuticals D.D. Vs. the Assistant Controller of Patents a ...

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

Decided on : Apr-17-2009

..... in the fer the respondent has raised the major technical objections as below: (i) claim 25 falls within the scope of sub-clause j of section 2(1) of the act. (ii) novelty is anticipated by refer to wo 0193859, us 2002/010357, us 5682726, wo 97/03958, de 2625164, gb 1376362 and ep 1241110. ..... claim of the complete specification has been published in any specification or other document referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of the said section, the controller shall communicate the gist of specific objections and the basis thereof to the applicant and the applicant shall be afforded ..... that such reference shall be made in order in which the request is filed under sub-rule (1); (ii) the period within which the examiner shall make the report under sub-section (2) of section 12, shall ordinarily be one month but not exceeding three months from the date of reference of the application ..... appellant argued that during the examination of the patent application, the applicant for patent is entitled to an opportunity of hearing under section 14 or under section 80 of the act or at least under rule 129 of the patent rules, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the rules), should the respondent decide ..... making representations on his own behalf". perusing some of the famous reported cases on principles of natural justice, we notice in the case of ross v. medical university of south carolina, 328 s.c. 51, 68, 492 s.e.2d 62, 71 (1997), the south carolina supreme court held that, ?? .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 24 2009 (TRI)

M/S. P.K. Overseas Vs. M/S. Mahaveer Rice Traders

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

Decided on : Dec-24-2009

..... which it has not discharged. it is beyond our comprehension as to how this impugned registration was granted or obtained. the requirement of sub-section (2) section 31 of the act was not fulfilled as the respondent did not establish that the mark had become distinctive by use at the date of registration. likewise right ..... for more than two decades and registration thereof, they have become well-known trade marks within the meaning of clause (zg) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the act. the applicant is stated to be the prior adopter, true and lawful proprietor and promoter of the said trade marks, which are recognised ..... are unable to agree that the applicants trade mark is a well-known trade mark within the meaning of clause (zg) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the act. 19. now we would come to the issue as to whether the registration of trade mark of respondent no.1 is in contravention ..... to be used by the applicants, that if the applicants do not use the mark, they must have at that time of the registration some definite and present intention to deal in certain goods or description of goods and not a mere general intention of expanding their business at some future ..... of the act. 13. learned counsel for the respondent placing reliance upon the order of this appellate board in (i) afrox ltd. and anr. v. asugar engineering services and anr., 2005 (31) ptc 207 (ipab), (ii) medical technologies ltd. v. neon laboratories pvt. ltd. and anr., 2009 (40) ptc 576 (ipab), (iii) unreported .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 27 2009 (TRI)

Smt. Raj Rani Aggarwal, Proprietor of M/S Bios Laboratory Vs. M/S Paru ...

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

Decided on : Feb-27-2009

..... have re-advertised the application, on notice from the applicant. the registrar of trade marks has a discretionary power under sub-sec (2) of section 20 of the act either to notify on re-advertise the correction or amendment in the application where an error in the application has been corrected or the application has been permitted to be ..... ) hon'ble ms. s. ushai, technical member: the instant application has been filed for rectification of the trade mark under no. 812628b under section 47/57/125 of the trade marks act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the act). 2. the applicant is engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of medicinal and pharmaceutical preparation under the name and style of m/s ..... mark heightex label the respondent no. 1 had dishonestly adopted the trade mark. (c) the impugned registration offends the provisions of section 11 of the act as the goods are same and the trade marks are also similar which, therefore, would definitely cause confusion and deception among the public. (d) the respondent no. 1 has not used the impugned trade marks for a ..... and they carry on the business of manufacture and are dealer of all types of drugs in allopathic, ayurvedic, homeopathic, biochemical and all types of pharmaceuticals, medical, chemical preparations and compounds, drugs and formulations. they are well known and reputed company carrying on business under various trade marks including heightex having sales in various parts of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 11 2009 (TRI)

Thayar Food Products, Rep. by Its Partner A.R. Ananda Krishnan Vs. M. ...

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

Decided on : Sep-11-2009

..... per the dictum of lord tomlin the following factors are to be considered for allowing registration under section 12 of the act; i) the extent of concurrent use; ii) the quality and the area of trade; iii) the degree of confusion likely to ensue from the resemblance of the marks, which is to a large extent ..... having the mark removed from the register, or persons who would be substantially damaged if the mark remained. it is very difficult to frame a narrower definition than that. ? 24. the object of rectification is to purify the register which is a public purpose. the applicants locus standi is determined on the ..... would cause deception and confusion among the trade and public and liable to be cancelled as it is in violation of the provisions of section 9 (2) (a) of the act. (iii) the impugned trade mark is identical with the applicants trade mark and the goods are similar which is likely to cause ..... the marks in suit was registered, subject, if necessary, to any conditions and limitations. 28. the onus of establishing a case for registration under section 12 of the act lies on the applicant, by proving their honest adoption. in the instant case, we do not find any reason given by the respondent for ..... result of use before the date of application or is a well known mark, such registration will be in contravention of the provisions of section 9 of the act. the applicants claim user since december 1995 which has not been satisfied. the main contention of the respondent was that one mr. m .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 21 2009 (TRI)

Mr. S.K. Janimiya Vs. Narendrer Pal and Another

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

Decided on : Aug-21-2009

..... applicant/appellant is seeking to amend the date of use to set up a fresh claim of prior user which cannot be allowed. if allowed, it would definitely cause injury to the other side. though this issue has not been dealt with and no reasoned order given by the deputy registrar, we are considering the ..... appellate board and had not given any reasons as to how the same is applicable in the instant case. the respondent no. 2 had also not considered the provisions of sections 9 and 11 of the act. the impugned order, therefore, be set aside and the appeal allowed and the application to proceed for registration. 19. we ..... mark of the respondent no. 1 is prior in use. identical marks which tend to cause confusion cannot be allowed. the objection under section 11 of the act is, therefore, allowed. 26. having answered the issues in favour of the respondent no. 1, we accordingly uphold the order dated 13.12.2007. ..... on form tm-16 has, therefore, to be rejected. 25. the other issue is whether the registration would be in contravention of the provisions of section 11 of the act. the marks are identical and the goods are the same and also the trade channels are same. the products being medicine more care is to ..... . in this case on hand, the respondent no. 1 though has not placed any valid document to prove user from the year 2000 except for some medical magazines from the year 2002, but as the appellant have themselves claimed to be proposed user on 31.05.2001 we are of the view that the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 17 2009 (TRI)

K. Manivannan Vs. Shri M. Mani, Proprietor

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

Decided on : Apr-17-2009

..... is claimed in applicants patent, was not open to public because of the fact that the said application had been deemed to have been abandoned under section 21(1) of the act. there is a definite change in the constructional features of the helical assembly of his clients invention, which makes the whole subject matter completely different from that of the earlier ..... granted in the name of valasumani lathe works, sivagiri, erode district, tamil nadu, (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) registered under section 64 of the patents act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the act) filed by the applicant. 2. the brief facts of the case are that the respondent had applied for a patent for an invention titled ??improved threshing and separating ..... for the respondent further submitted that the inventive step in the respondents threshing machine is that the rotor has atleast 10 thresher vanes positioned at an angle of 20 degree on each line having 5 to 6 circumferentially spaced lines for positioning the said vanes and atleast 4 hay thrower vanes have been positioned straight for throwing out the ..... given below:- ??effects of publication: (i) after publication of the application for patent the depository institution will make the biological material (mentioned in the specification) available to the public (ii) the patent office will make the specification (complete as well as provisional, if any), and drawings filed in respect of the application available to the public on payment of the .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //