PLAYSCHOOLS AT WAR OVER TRADEMARK

Source:http://punemirror.indiatimes.com/pune/civic/playschools-at-war-over-trademark/articleshow/60723989.cms

District Court has for now restrained the smaller player from using logo or teaching material of the chain

 

A chain has sued a smaller entity for using its registered trademark, logo and training material. On one side is Shanti Juniors pre-school — an Ahmedabadbased chain which has several playschools in the city — while on the other, there is EJuniors pre-school based out of Dhayari. Shanti Juniors has filed a suit in the district court.

 

The bone of contention is the tie up between the two, which eventually went sour and the franchisee partner started operations in the same space under a different name. Owners of Shanti Juniors, which also has branches in several other cities across India, have told the court that sometime in 2013 they got into an agreement with Vinit Parkar to start a franchise in Dhayari. Parkar paid them Rs 2.5 lakhs for it. They said that they "had developed a pre-primary training programme and curriculum for specialised training in the segment of Toddcare, nursery, junior and senior kindergarten under the brand name, Shanti Juniors". They also stated that Shanti Juniors is a registered trademark.

According to Shanti Juniors, Parkar had approached the chain in April 2016, saying he was no longer interested in continuing with the franchisee as it was not profitable, and that he wanted to start a new business. So, the agreement between the two was cancelled and it was decided that the Parkar would not use the Shanti Juniors logo and brand name.

However, earlier this year, the chain's management claimed they found that Parkar had started a school called E-Juniors Pre-School in the same premises using their trademark, and that Parkar was "trying to make illegal profit by making unlawful use of goodwill, reputation and methodology" of Shanti Juniors.

Owners of E-Juniors denied all the allegations, saying they were not using any material, name or logo of the Shanti Juniors. They also told the court that their teaching programme was very different from the giant's.

The  court, however  felt  that  there  were  similarities  in  the  two. District  judge  Jayraj  Wadne  recently  observed, "The  advertisement  displayed  for  E-Juniors  pre-school  are  deceptively  similar  to  the  registered  trademark   of  plaintiff (Shanti)." The  court  also  took  note  of  the  photographs  given  by  Shanti  Juniors  to  establish that E-Juniors  was  using their material.

Shanti's  management  sought  that  the  court  should  order  a  shutdown  of  E-Juniors. However, Judge Wadne, who was hearing the application for  injunction, refused to allow that. The judge recently ordered that E-Juniors must stop using material, trademark and logo of Shanti Juniors till the suit is decided. The case is scheduled for hearing next on October 10.

Over 1,400 flour mills face closure threat over GST levy on branded packs

Source : http://www.business-standard.com/article/economy-policy/over-1-400-flour-mills-face-closure-threat-over-gst-levy-on-branded-packs-117091900306_1.html

Earlier, the GST Council had announced "nil" duty on loose and "registered but without trademark" branded packs, which prompted many registered trademark brands to surrender their licenses to come out of the tax net. These mills have neither registered their brand with the local or national authorities nor received any "trademark" to recognise their brands. However, they continued to sell their product under a brand that they claim to be the local one.

 

To arrest this trend of flour mills surrendering their licensed brands to avoid tax payment, the GST Council on September 9 clarified that "brands registered as on May 15, 2017, will be considered for five per cent of GST irrespective of whether or not such brand is subsequently deregistered". The GST Council further clarified that even brands registered under the Copyright Act, 2017, would attract five per cent GST.

 

"The clarification in September brings all brands under the GST levy of five per cent with retrospective effect from July 1, the date of the implementation of the GST. Since flour mills have already sold their product with "nil" duty, it is difficult to collect GST on the product they have already sold to consumers. They would have to pay GST from their pocket, which would force at least three-fourths of flour mills to shut down," said D Manikchand Gadiya, managing director of North Karnataka Roller Flour Mills, which sells besan (gram flour), atta (flour), and maida (wheat flour) under the "Diamond" brand.

 

Approximately 1,400 flour mills across the country are processing wheat for selling in loose with some private label. Since the Food Safety Standard Authority of India (Fssai) has mandated to print details of ingredients along with contact details of the manufacturers and distributors on the packet, printing of these details is treated as "actionable claim". This means consumers can approach the manufacturers and distributors for claiming damages in case of any quality deterioration resulting in an effect on their health.

 

"We are not sure whether the applicability of GST rate is with retrospective effect from July 1. We would await a clarification on the same. If the GST is made effective from July 1, it would be very difficult for mills to sustain their businesses. The industry wants a clear definition of branded and unbranded products," said Veena Sharma, the secretary of Roller Flour Millers Federation of India.

 

Industry sources estimate around 2,000 roller flour mills working across the country, of which around 600 may have a registered trademark. The remaining 1,400 roller flour mills are engaged in the production of atta, maida, and besan for selling in loose for bread and other processed food manufacturers.

 

In a letter addressed to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Manikchand said, "It is impossible to survive with five per cent of GST as these local brands do not carry any premium over loose products. These are sold under small packets, which become easier for transport and handling for both producers and consumers. The name contained on the packet is just an identification of the packet. Hence, a clarification is needed whether a trademark holder can also produce non-registered brand."

 

Many flour mills have shut down their factories due to concerns over business viability. They claim margins of two-three per cent for processing wheat to manufacture flour. Industry sources said that a large multinational company with nationwide brand presence has written to the GST Council and also the finance minister over the fear of massive tax evasion due to the sale of packaged flour, maida, and besan without GST. 

 

"It is very difficult to survive with five per cent of GST levy. It will have a massive impact on flour mills," said Gopal Lal Seth Mohata, the president of the Maharashtra Roller Flour Mills Association.

 

 

One-Click Purchase is no more a monopoly in World

Amazon looses its exclusive hold on one of the most contentious patents of the internet age. A simple non-obvious invention which even a novice programmer  can reproduce, that paybacks a company a hefty amount of money is no more the golden egg laying hen for the ecommerce company. Of course the idea is not big indeed, but to be a first in applying patent sets amazon rule the ecommerce market. Thanks to the Indian Patent Act, Section 3, 1970 ,which denies the grant of patent on mathematical or business method or a computer programe per se or algorithms. A victory won by expedient paperwork and not by a really appreciable groundbreaking work is now giving the company's rival a breath of freedom.

In interview with Mr. Roshan , COO of Siddhast IP Innovation "The companies now have to focus on giving customer , a satisfactory services rather than winning its competitors by such stupid and scrupulous means of just protecting a simple button." exclaimed IPR expert.

one click patent US5960411 i.e Method and system for placing a purchase order at website

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 1-Click, also called one-click or one-click buying, is the technique of allowing customers to make online purchases with a single click, with the payment information needed to complete the purchase having been entered by the user previously.[1] More particularly, it allows an online shopper using an internet marketplace to purchase an item without having to use shopping cart software. Instead of manually inputting billing and shipping information for a purchase, a user can use one-click buying to use a predefined address and credit card number to purchase one or more items.

Contents

Patent

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued US 5960411 for this technique to Amazon.com in September 1999. Amazon.com also owns the "1-Click" trademark.

On May 12, 2006, the USPTO ordered a reexamination[2] of the "One-Click" patent, based on a request filed by Peter Calveley.[3] Calveley cited as prior art an earlier e-commerce patent and the Digicash electronic cash system.

On October 9, 2007, the USPTO issued an office action in the reexamination which confirmed the patentability of claims 6 to 10 of the patent.[4] The patent examiner, however, rejected claims 1 to 5 and 11 to 26. In November 2007, Amazon responded by amending the broadest claims (1 and 11) to restrict them to a shopping cart model of commerce. They have also submitted several hundred references for the examiner to consider.[5] In March 2010, the reexamined and amended patent was allowed.[6][7][8]

Amazon's U.S. patent expired on September 11, 2017.[9]

In Europe, EP application 1134680 on 1-Click ordering was filed with the European Patent Office but refused.[10] A related gift-ordering patent was granted in 2003, but revoked in 2007 following an opposition.[11]

In Canada, the Federal Court of Canada held that the One click patent could not be rejected as a pure business method since it had a physical effect. The Court remanded the application to the Canadian patent office for a reexamination.[12]

Licensing

Apple Inc.

Amazon.com in 2000 licensed 1-Click ordering to Apple Computer (now Apple Inc.) for use on its online store.[13][14] Apple subsequently added 1-Click ordering to the iTunes Store[15] and iPhoto.[16]

Barnes & Noble

Amazon filed a patent infringement lawsuit in October 1999 in response to Barnes & Noble offering a 1-Click ordering option called "Express Lane." After reviewing the evidence, a judge issued a preliminary injunction ordering Barnes & Noble to stop offering Express Lane until the case was settled.[17] Barnes & Noble had developed a way to design around the patent by requiring shoppers to make a second click to confirm their purchase.[18][19] The lawsuit was settled in 2002. The terms of the settlement, including whether or not Barnes & Noble took a license to the patent or paid any money to Amazon, were not disclosed.[20]

In response to the lawsuit, the Free Software Foundation urged a boycott of Amazon.com. The boycott was lifted in September 2002.[21]

TeacherLists

TeacherLists, an online supply list solution, made one-click back-to-school supply list shopping available through major retailers in 2017.

ipinitial

siddhastlabs

Siddhast is an Intellectual Property and Information technology service provider .Just trying my hands dirty to post