Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Landmark Case Studies of IPRs
Landmark Case Studies of IPRs
PuttuGuruPrasad,
M.Com.,M.B.A.,L.L.B.,M.Phil.,PGDFTM.,
AP.SET.,ICFAITMF.,(PhD)atJNTUK.,
SeniorFacultyforManagementScience,
S&HDepartment,VVIT,Nambur,
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
DIAMOND v. CHAKRABARTY
Bowman
The
Monsantooriginally
The
In
In
The
The
Commentators
noted,
however, that the Court's ruling
was narrow in scope, and did
not set a broad legal precedent
with respect to the applicability
of the doctrine of patent
exhaustion
to
selfreplicating technologies
Abbott
Background
Abbott
Labshad a patent on a
specific drug calledOmnicefused to
combat ear infections. Lupin Limited
had a court rule that a generic form of
Omnicef it produced did not infringe
on Abbott's patent since their process
to make the drug was different.
After
Case
For
Decision
Despite
Importance
This case further
The
Kartick
Confectionery (hereinafter
referred to as K) started manufacturing
a similar look-alike product, namely,
toffees
under
the
trademark
HORLIKS infringing the trademark
rights enjoyed by 'HORLICKS'.
K also reproduced the label of H
thereby amounting to the infringement
of the copyright of the latter.
With
Accordingly
the
court
restrained
K
from
manufacturing
and
selling
toffees or other related goods
under the trademark HORLIKS
or under any other name that
is similar in expression to Hs
trademark HORLICKS.
Further
This
is a landmark case
decided by the Delhi High
Court which for the first
time upheld the moral
right of an author for his
work under the Indian
Copyright Act.
Amar
It
This
The
Further
The
Thus,
It
further
held
that
the
authorities not only violated
the plaintiff's moral rights
with respect to the mural but
also violated the integrity of
the work in relation to the
cultural heritage of the
country as such.
Hence,
This
Colgate
Palmolive
Co.
Limited (hereinafter referred to
as the plaintiffs) is a company
that has been manufacturing
and
marketing
dental
products in India under the
well-known
trademark
'COLGATE' since 1937.
The
Further
In
They
contended
that
the
defendants had infringed their
trademark and copyrights.
And further that they were
indulging
in
unfair
competition by trying to sell
their products using the brand
name of trademark COLGATE.
On
The
However,
Further
Thus,
Title
35
U.S.C.
101
provides for the issuance of
a patent to a person who
invents or discovers "any"
new
and
useful
"manufacture"
or
"composition of matter."
Respondent
filed
a
patent
application relating to his invention
of
a
human-made,
genetically
bacterium
engineered
capable
of
breaking down crude oil, a
property which is possessed by no
naturally occurring bacteria.
A
patent
examiner's
rejection
of
the
patent
application's claims for the new
bacteria was affirmed by the
Patent Office Board of Appeals
on the ground that living
MR.
The
application
asserted
36
claims related to Chakrabarty's
invention of "a bacterium from
the
genus
Pseudomonas
containing therein at least two
stable
energy-generating
plasmids, each of said plasmids
providing a separate hydrocarbon
degradative pathway.
"1This
human-made, genetically
engineered bacterium is capable of
breaking down multiple components
of crude oil.
Because of this property, which is
possessed by no naturally occurring
bacteria, Chakrabarty's invention is
believed to have significant value
for the treatment of oil spills.
three types:
First, process claims for the method of
producing the bacteria;[447 U.S. 303,
306]
Second,
and third,
themselves.
claims
to
the
bacteria
The
Chakrabarty
appealed the
rejection of these claims
to the Patent Office Board
of Appeals, and the Board
affirmed the examiner on
the second ground.
3Relying
The
Prof&Lawyer.PuttuGuruPrasad,
M.Com.,M.B.A.,L.L.B.,M.Phil.,
PGDFTM.,AP.SET.,ICFAITMF.,(PhD)atJNTUK.,
SeniorFacultyforManagementSciences,
VasireddyVenkatadriInstitureofTechnology
Nambur,Guntur,A.P
Cell:9394969898,9059457336
Email:pgpjntuk@gmail.com
MyBlogLink:puttuguru.blogspot.in