PROTECTION OF IPR

FOR PATENT OF DENTAL STRIP

- Kiran Kumar Kumawat (21090)

- Hemant Mahajan (21098)
- Sarvesh Rathi (21157)
- Saurabh Dalal (21182)
- Simaran Malik (21198)
- Teesha Patil (21222)
Product Description

• A jelly type dental strip which will help to maintain oral hygiene

• It would be stuck to our teeth and over time it will dissolve in the mouth and will work for the teeth as a mask
and help avoid bad breath.
 How to Protect

• Do not disclose the invention in public domain before filing a patent application, failing which the innovation
loses its novelty, develop the idea and produce a model related to it. Keep a bound notebook to prove the
same.

• Ensure that it must be -

o Novel (Invention)

o Involve an inventive step and should be non-obvious

o Capable of industrial application

o Not fall under section 3 and 4 of Patent Act, 1970.

 How to Protect

• Perform in-depth patentability search on Intellectual Property India (ipindiaservices.gov.in) (optional but
saves a lot of time for further process)

• File it in Indian patent office as provisional or complete patent application (physical or electronic filing)

• The entire process can take anywhere between 3-5 years, filing and securing it with patent office is important
to protect it (its validity for 20 years is counted from the date of filling) and giving its credit and financial
benefits to the right person.

• File it for international uses w.r.t PCT, WIPO and in respective non-member countries.

• Annual renewal fee for the patent should be made.

• After 20 years, it goes to public domain, hence, it cannot be protected after that period.
 Filing the patent application in India

No Stages of the patent process Form No.

1. Application for grant of patent Form 1

2. Provisional/complete specification Form 2

3. Statement and undertaking under section 8 (this is only required where a patent Form 3
application is already filed in the country other than India)

4. Declaration as to inventorship Form 5

5. Forms submitted only by start-ups and small entities. Form 28

6. Authorizing patent agent (applicable only if you opt for an agent to help file the patent) Form 26

7 Request for Examination of patent (Within 48 months from filing date) Form-18

Patent application is published automatically within 18 months, Form-9 to publish it earlier (Within 1 month)
Patent officer will examine with respect to patent act and rules and issues First Examination Report (FER) followed by
resolving any objections (within 6+3 months) and finally granting or rejecting the patent, followed by publication of grant
of patent
Decision of Controller is final for any pre grant or post grant opposition
 GUCCI Am., Inc. (Plaintiff)
VS.
GUESS?, Inc.

Commercial Dispute
- Kiran Kumar Kumawat (21090)
- Hemant Mahajan (21098)
- Sarvesh Rathi (21157)
- Saurabh Dalal (21182)
- Simaran Malik (21198)
- Teesha Patil (21222)
 INTRODUCTION

• Gucci is an Italian fashion brand and Guess is an American

fashion brand, both that are revered in the industry

• Gucci is the plaintiff accusing Guess of stealing its designs for

a shoe and some aspects of its logo
 The Dispute
Gucci sued Guess on the basis of the following claims:
• A trademark counterfeiting claim based on Guess's use of Gucci's
Green–Red–Green Stripe (“GRG Stripe”) design
• A trademark infringement claim based on Guess's use of the GRG
Stripe, Script Guess, and Square G designs
• A related trade dress infringement claim based on Guess's use of the
Quattro G design
• Claims for dilution, false designation of origin, and unfair
competition based on Guess's use of all four designs. Gucci also
seeks cancellation of Guess's “4G Square Repeating Logo”
trademark based on abandonment.
 TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT

Trademark infringement is the unauthorized use of a trademark or service

mark on or in connection with goods and/or services in a manner that is
likely to cause confusion, deception, or mistake about the source of the goods
and/or services.
 MAIN ISSUE

• Guess has been accused of specifically ripping off four designs: Gucci’s green
and red stripe; the interlocking “G” pattern; the square “G” and the brand name’s
delicate script font.

• The CEO of Guess Inc.  claims that Gucci has taken too long to file a lawsuit.
The counsel for Guess claimed that Gucci cannot claim infringement because the
company “sat on its rights” for at least seven years before deciding to sue.
 The Decision
Decisions varied across different countries
• 2009- The first legal dispute between the two sides took place in 2009 before the New York Federal Court. The
reason for this was a shoe model by Guess, which was designed very close to the design of a Gucci shoe. Especially
the interlocking G-logo used on these shoes was the trigger for Gucci to file a lawsuit – it looked very similar to their
own worldwide known logo. The allegations were product piracy, unfair competition and trademark infringement.
• 2012- Gucci emerged as a winner with a compensation of $ 4.7 million – still much less than the $ 221 million they
had hoped for.
• 2013- China, Gucci was victorious. In both cases Guess was convicted of trademark infringement and unfair
competition
• 2015- France. Guess was victorious, The Paris Tribunal de Grande Instance dismissed any allegation of trademark
infringement against Guess and furthermore declared the Community trademark of the G logo of Gucci as invalid
• 2015- in Australia, Gucci was victorious, Guess was convicted of trademark infringement and unfair competition
 Grounds for Rejection/Approval

• The Court of Milan ruled that Gucci’s ‘diamond pattern’, ‘floral motif’ and ‘square G’ marks were
rather common in the world of fashion and found that Guess’ ‘G’ logo and ‘four G’ logo were different
from Gucci’s ‘G’ logo and ‘interlocking double G’ pattern, respectively.

• USA, Australia, and China ruled in favor of Gucci whereas the courts in Italy and France decided to
rule in the favor of Guess.

• The difference in the rulings came due to the Europeans courts upholding a ruling from the EU Fourth
Board of Appeal which held that “the average consumer normally perceives a mark as a whole and
does not analyze its various details – only rarely having a chance to compare marks directly, and so
having to rely on an imperfect recollection.”
CONCLUSION
This was a highly complex case whose ruling was decided by the rules and regulations
of the countries that the case was being fought in. It shows that one must be aware of
what grounds they are contesting the case in before appealing internationally.

As of 2018, both the companies agreed to a settlement outside of the court and decided
to put an end to 9 years of court battles.
THANK YOU!