Friday, December 8, 2017

What is e-Residency?

The Republic of Estonia is the first country to offer e-Residency—a transnational digital identity available to
anyone in the world interested in administering a location-independent business online.
E-Residents can:
·         Establish an Estonian company online within a day
·         Administer the company from anywhere in the world
·         Conduct e-banking and remote money transfers
·         Have access to international payment service providers
·         Digitally sign and transmit documents and contracts
·         Manage accounting records and declare Estonian taxes online

The director of a Shirebrook company that makes and sells car mats has received a suspended jail sentence after admitting 13 offences under the Trade Marks Act.

Lee Radford, 46, of Brook House, Long Lane, Shirebrook, who was the company secretary and is now the only director at Cyberspares Limited, on Leen Valley Drive, was prosecuted following an investigation by Derbyshire County Council’s trading standards team.

His company was also prosecuted and admitted the same set of charges.
Following a tip off from trading standards at another authority, Derbyshire County Council trading standards officers made a test purchase of a set of Honda Type R car mats costing £24.99 from Cyberspares Ltd in November 2015.
The embroidered badge on these mats turned out to be fake and a search of the Cyberspares Ltd factory, based on Rotherham Road, New Houghton, near Pleasley, was carried out in May last year.
During the search, Derbyshire trading standards officers seized 14,860 car mat badges and a computer connected to an embroidery machine which made the badges.
At a previous hearing at Chesterfield Magistrates Court in April this year, Radford pleaded guilty to 13 charges under the Trade Marks Act 1994, on behalf of himself and the company.
Brands which had their registered trademarks illegally reproduced by Radford and Cyberspares Ltd included VW, Audi, Honda, Mercedes Benz, John Cooper and Vauxhall. It is illegal to copy these logos as the brands are registered trademarks and can only be reproduced with the owning company’s consent.
Trading standards officers were confident that Radford knew what he was doing was wrong as they had advised him on the law in 2010 and he had earlier agreed to compensate BMW for the misuse of its logo.
At Derby Crown Court on Thursday (7 Dec) Judge Cooke sentenced Radford to eight months in prison, suspended for two years. He was also given a three month curfew order requiring him to remain at his home between 8pm and 5am each day and ordered to pay the county council’s court costs of £4,906.
Cyberspares Ltd was fined £1,000 for each of the 13 offences.
Judge Cooke also ordered the forfeiture of all of the trade-marked badges and associated badge-making equipment which had been seized previously by trading standards officers as part of the investigation.
A key part of the case was action under the Proceeds of Crime Act – which is designed to make sure that crime does not pay. Enquiries were made to identify the proportion of illegal sales going back to 2011, and as a result Radford was ordered to repay £271,482 - the amount he is estimated to have benefited from his crime.
Judge Cooke gave him three months to repay the money or face a prison sentence of 30 months in default.
Derbyshire County Council Cabinet Member for Health and Communities Councillor Carol Hart said: “Illegally using trademarks without the consent of the company which owns them is serious and we were confident that Radford and his company knew what they were doing was wrong.
“Despite a previous warning, this practice continued and I am pleased that our trading standards officers pursued this and were successful in their prosecution.
“I hope this serves as a warning to others who do this or are considering it. We always follow up tip-offs like this and the consequences are serious.”
Radford and Cyberspares Ltd admitted the following charges:
• One charge relating to the sale of a set of car mats, bearing a sign identical or likely to be mistaken for the Honda UK registered trademark, contrary to the Trade Marks Act 1994.
• Three charges relating to the application of car logos to embroidered badges which were to be put on car mats.
• Eight charges relating to the possession of various counterfeit badges consisting of car logos contrary to the Trade Marks Act 1994.
• A final charge relating to the equipment Radford and Cyberspares Ltd had adapted to copy car badges and embroider them on their machines.

Wednesday, December 6, 2017

And the Award goes to Naruto..... A Monkey??!!!

Yes, Peta’s 2017 Person of the Year is Naruto, the monkey who clicked his selfies…
Naruto, the monkey who had picked up a camera and inadvertently clicked pictures of itself, has been named 2017 Person of the Year by the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. The animal rights organisation said it was honouring the Indonesian black macaque to recognise that “he is someone, not something”.
~~Reported by
The whole story begins, when our innocent Naruto unintentionally (I know Naruto, it was intentional, as you know for yourself that, you are super cute and handsome...look at your smile…”cho chweet”) captured his own pic using equipment belonging to the British nature photographer David Slater.

There started the dispute, actually a copyright dispute.

~~From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia it can be read as follows:

The disputes involve Wikimedia Commons and the blog Techdirt, which have hosted the images over Slater's objections, and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), who have argued that the macaque should be assigned the copyright.
Slater has argued that he has a valid copyright claim based on the fact that he engineered the situation that resulted in the pictures, by travelling to Indonesia, befriending a group of wild macaques, and setting up his camera equipment in such a way that a "selfie" picture might come about. The Wikimedia Foundation's 2014 refusal to remove the pictures from its Wikimedia Commons image library was based on the understanding that copyright is held by the creator, that a non-human creator (not being a legal person) cannot hold copyright, and that the images are thus in the public domain. In December 2014, the United States Copyright Office stated that works created by a non-human, such as a photograph taken by a monkey, are not copyrightable. A number of legal experts in the US and UK have nevertheless argued that Slater's role in the process that led to the pictures being taken may have been sufficient to establish a valid copyright claim, stating that this is a decision that would have to be made by a court.
In a separate dispute PETA has tried to use the monkey selfies to establish a legal precedent that animals can be declared copyright holders. Slater had published a book containing the photographs through self-publishing company Blurb, Inc. In September 2015, PETA filed a lawsuit against Slater and Blurb, requesting that the monkey be assigned copyright and that PETA be appointed to administer proceeds from the photos for the endangered species' benefit. In 2016, a judge ruled that the monkey cannot own the copyright to the images. PETA appealed, and in September 2017, all sides agreed to a settlement in which Slater will donate a portion of future revenues on the photographs to wildlife organizations.
Slater stated in July 2017 that as a result of the pictures having been made freely available for commercial re-use on Wikimedia Commons and the PETA lawsuit, he had lost "£10,000 or more in income" and that it was "killing his business" as a wildlife photographer.

And the whole dispute ended up well, by allowing the photographer the copyright, for the selfie of Naruto.
And here comes another news that Naruto wins PETA’s 2017 person of the year title.
Naruto… you heard the news right??..Congrats Bro!!..

The famous grinning selfie taken by Naruto David J Slater/Caters News Agency


Friday, December 1, 2017

Ferrari "Testarossa" - The Great Importance For Trademark Owners Of Making Proper Use Of Trademarks

The facts of the case

Ferrari is a world famous Italian manufacturer of sports cars and is, inter alia, the owner of the German mark with priority of 22 July 1986 which is registered for goods in class 12, in particular “Apparatus for locomotion by land, air or water and parts thereof; engines for land vehicles; car accessories, namely trailer couplings, luggage racks, ski carriers, dirt traps, snow chains, wind deflectors, headrests, safety belts, child safety seats.”

Ferrari had already built a racing sports car called “Ferrari 250 Testa Rossa” in the 1950s. In 1991 Ferrari last built a model with the type designation “Testarossa”. This model achieved worldwide fame through the American television series “Miami Vice” in the 1980s and became an icon among motorsport fans. The “Testarossa” series model was one of the most common and most frequently produced of Ferrari with approximately 7,000 pieces worldwide. In recent years, the “Testarossa” sports cars have often been the subject of articles in well-known print media.

Ferrari offers its customers in its “Ferrari Classiche” division the maintenance, repair and restoration of used vehicles. The original spare parts for the “Testarossa” model, which are needed for this purpose, are manufactured by Ferrari itself. The maintenance, repair and restoration of the “Testarossa” vehicles is also offered in Germany via its partners. The corresponding spare parts for the sports car model “Testarossa” are supplied by the UK-based supplier distributed via the internet. In particular, this dealer offers so-called “service kits” consisting of various individual parts, among others under the name “Testarossa TR 85 Kits”,”Testarossa TR 90 Kits” and “512 TR Kits”.

The “Testarossa” mark is included in several invoices of the British supplier and is also used on various “Testarossa” operating and repair manuals. In addition, Ferrari issues certificates of authenticity for used “Testarossa” vehicles, which increase the resale value of the vehicles through its Ferrari Classiche department. The certification service is available from each national dealer. The designation “Testarossa” is given on all invoices for certification and on the certificate of authenticity itself.

Finally, the Ferrari runs a program for its own used cars on its website “” in the section “Ferrari approved”. This includes various guarantees, inspections or technical inspections and preparations for the sale of the vehicles. The used vehicles are offered for sale there as well as through official contractual partners of Ferrari.

A German entrepreneur who runs a company for toys applied for the German mark “testarossa”, inter alia, for drilling machines, tools, bikes and e-bikes as well as household appliances and fishing-gear. Ferrari opposed this mark with the consequence that the applicant has filed this cancellation action against Ferrari´s “testarossa” mark based on non-use.

The reasoning

While the EUIPO’s cancellation division had confirmed the right-maintaining use of the parallel trademark “Testarossa” (IR 910752) for “automobiles” (also this decision is not yet final), the German first instance court has decided that Ferrari has not sufficiently made use of its trademark and that therefore Ferrari must agree that its trademark has to be cancelled.

Pursuant to Sections 49 (1) and 55 (2) No. 1 of the German Trademark Act anyone may request the cancellation of a registered trade mark on grounds of revocation if the trade mark has not been used after the date of registration within an uninterrupted period of five years. German law requires that the trademark must have been used seriously in Germany by its proprietor for the goods or services for which it is registered. The use of the trade mark registered for goods or services is only sufficient if the use of the trade mark corresponds to the main function of the trade mark, i.e. to guarantee the origin identity of the goods or services to the trade by enabling it to distinguish these goods or services from goods or services of other origin. It is sufficient for this purpose, but it is also necessary, that the trade mark is used in a customary and economically reasonable manner for the goods or services for which it is registered. A symbolic use solely for the purpose of safeguarding the rights conferred by the trademark is not sufficient.  The court decided that it is not the case here.

The Düsseldorf first instance district court decided that the trademark of Ferrari has to be cancelled (Decision as of 2 August 2017 – Case no. 2a O 166/16 – juris). However, the decision in not yet final.

The repair, maintenance and certification services offered by Ferrari did not suffice the legal requirements of a customary use. The court ruled that the evidences submitted by Ferrari only proved that the repair, maintenance and certification services had been rendered under the mark “Ferrari”. It is not sufficient that the services are provided for Testarossa models without using the term Testarossa as a proof of origin for the services.

As on the marketing material and business letters the term “Testarossa” was only referenced in a purely descriptive matter but not as a proof of origin – the letter heading bore the term “Ferrari” – the court rejected that this as a prove a use.

Also, according to the court, the trade with used Testarossa sports car cannot be considered as a use of the trademark according to the court as the trademark rights have already been exhausted.

While the trade with spare parts may generally suffice as a proof of use for the trademark provided that it bears the trademark, this has not been the case here. According to the court the evidence submitted by Ferrari did not suffice as the spare parts either bore different terms such as “T/Rossa” or “Tr” which varied significantly from the registered trademark or only generated very limited revenue which the court did not consider to prove serious use.

Furthermore, the mere image advertisement on the internet is not a use of the trademark in the sense of the law as it only referred to Testarossa sports cars for which the trademark rights had been exhausted.

Moreover, contrary to the opinion of Ferrari, the court decided there are no indications that the Court of Justice of the European Communities by its decisions on the new understanding of functions of trademarks (ECJ – L’ Oréal/Bellure; ECJ – Google France and Google; ECJ 2011 – Interflora) has in any way altered its case law in relation to the requirements for an appropriate right-maintaining use of a trademark.

Importance for trademark owners

This decision emphasizes how important it is to use the trademark appropriately and that the legal requirements are strong. The mere reputation may not be enough. Especially in relation to well-established and famous brands with a long history but for which the core product is not manufactured anymore, it is even more important to take any steps necessary to maintain the trademark rights. This may include, inter alia, a new registration with a new five year grace period.

Copyright 2017 K & L Gates


"Marriages are settled in heaven and they are performed on earth."
Whether and where a marriage can be dissolved is a matter in the domain of the earthly law governingthe spouses. But the matrimonial laws are not common everywhere in the world and they differ from country to country. The problem arises when the parties have their domicile in one country and one of them obtains matrimonial relief in a foreign country. In India, marriage can be solemnized through customary or statute laws of law. In other words, Indian people have different personal laws and are migrating to different countries either to make their permanent abode there or for temporary residence. It is worthwhile to understand the concept of "domicile". Domicile determines the law that will be applicable to an individual. A person may be resident and citizen of a country, while his domicile is somewhere else. The general rule is that "domicile is where the heart is". In general, we can say that in the case being considered by us, the couple remains domiciled in India even though they might have moved their residence to some foreign land. The domicile may be India even if the person after moving to the foreign land acquires foreign citizenship. This is often true because first generation migrants from India retain India in their heart. After moving abroad, there are occasions when relations between the husband and wife turn sour. At such a time, either the husband or the wife (or sometimes both) wish to get divorced. If the divorce is by mutual consent, there are hardly any legal issues involved. However, if one wants divorce and the other person does not, the courts get involved. Often it seems natural to get divorced from the country where one is living especially if that country's divorce procedures are easier and less time consuming compared to India. The big question at this point is whether such a decree of divorce is valid. Generally foreign court judgment is not conclusive proof and binding of Indian court because every marriage of India are solemnized under personal/customary ritual or provision of civil statute so as question of divorce are determined concerned statute. Therefore, foreign court has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition according to the concerned Indian Act under which admittedly the parties were married. However, the relevant provisions of Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Code) are capable of being interpreted foreign court judgment with its own six pillars. Under Section 13 of the Code, a foreign judgment is not conclusive as to any matter thereby "directly adjudicated upon" "between the parties" if: (a) it has not been pronounced by a Court of competent jurisdiction; or (b) it has not been given on the merits of the case; or (c) it is founded on an incorrect view of international law or a refusal to recognize the law of India in cases in which such law is applicable; or (d) the proceedings are opposed to natural justice, or (e) it is obtained by fraud, or (f) it sustains a claim founded on a breach of any law in force in India. It is thus clear that in order to make a foreign judgment conclusive in India; it must be shown that it complies with all the above mentioned six conditions. There is no compliance of any one of these conditions; then, foreign judgment will not be conclusive and consequently not legally effective and binding in India. A decree of a foreign Court is normally recognised by a Court in another jurisdiction as a matter of comity and public policy. But no country is bound to recognise and give effect to a decree of a foreign Court if it is repugnant to its own laws and public policy. So far as India is concerned, a judgment of a foreign Court creates estoppel or resjudicata between the same parties provided such judgment is not subject to attack under any of the Clauses (a) to (f) of section 13 of the Code.


If parties obtained divorce by mutual consent and therefore the courts of India do not want to interfere with it. Since either party obtained divorce through mutual consent from any foreign country it implies that your ex spouse participated in the divorce proceedings. So he/she cannot now challenge the judgment of foreign court in an Indian court. The judgment of foreign court is final. There is no requirement of any validation of your divorce from an Indian court. As a corollary thereto, you are free to remarry. The well-accepted universal principle of law can be stated as � If someone has accepted the authority of a court, it cannot be open to the person to later question the authority of the court.


1. The person who did not apply for divorce did not attend the divorce proceedings in the foreign court; and
2. The person who did not apply for divorce attended and actively participated in the divorce proceedings in the foreign court


It is not uncommon to hear about cases either the husband or the wife filed for divorce in a foreign court, while the spouse did not attend the proceedings either due to notice not being served or due to some other reason. In such a situation, the case of Y. Narasimha Rao And Ors vs Y. Venkata Lakshmi And Anr is relevant clearly discussed as follows. "The jurisdiction assumed by the foreign court as well as the ground on which the relief is granted must be in accordance with the matrimonial law under which the parties are married. The exceptions to this rule may be as follows: (i) where the matrimonial action is filed in the forum where the respondent is domiciled habitually and permanently resides and the relief is granted on a ground available in the matrimonial law under which the parties are married; (ii) where the respondent voluntarily and effectively submits to the jurisdiction of the forum as discussed above and contests the claim which is based on a ground available under the matrimonial law under which the parties are married; (iii) where the respondent consents to the grant of the relief although the jurisdiction of the forum is not in accordance with the provisions of the matrimonial law of the parties." Gist of the Supreme Court can be described as follows: If marriage solemnized of any Indian law,
(a) the foreign court that grants divorce must be acceptable under provision of concerned personal or civil statute; and
(b) the foreign court should grant divorce only on the grounds which are permissible under provision of concerned personal or civil statute.
The two conditions make it almost impossible to get a legally valid divorce from a foreign court since no foreign court is an acceptable one provision of concerned personal or civil statute of India and also because no foreign court is likely to consider the provisions of concerned personal or civil statute of India before granting divorce.


A. Men and women must be domiciled and permanently resident of that foreign land and the foreign court should decide the case based on concerned personal or civil statute of India B. Both parties voluntarily and effectively attends the court proceedings and contests the claim on grounds of divorce as permitted under the provisions of concerned personal or civil statute of India. C. Mutual consents to grant of divorce


Both parties contesting the divorce actively attends the divorce proceedings in the foreign court, the chances of either parties able to later successfully approach Indian courts against an unfavorable judgment of the foreign court are very low. Indian courts, or for that matters courts anywhere in the world, do not wish to encourage court- mocking. The well-accepted universal principle of law can be stated as � If someone has accepted the authority of a court, it cannot be open to the person to later question the authority of the court.


If a man has obtained divorce decree from foreign court without proper ways:-
1. If he remarries, he may be prosecuted for bigamy.
2. Wife (divorced as per foreign law) may file for maintenance.
3. In case the man dies without making a will, the first wife will have the right to her share in the property of the man while the second wife will get nothing because her marriage will not be considered legitimate. If a woman has obtained divorce decree from foreign court without proper ways:- If she remarries, her new husband may be prosecuted under section 497 of Indian Penal Code under which he may face imprisonment of five years. The wife will, of course, be liable for punishment under section 494 of Indian Penal Code for bigamy.


If marriage was solemnized under Indian custom or Indian statute, then must seek solution for divorce through Indian court alone. Foreign decree of divorce is valid in India as following two aspects
A. When the couple decides to take divorce by mutual consent and
B. When the person who is contesting divorce attends divorce proceedings and the foreign court grants divorce on grounds that are permitted grounds of provisions of concerned personal or civil statute of India.


What is a TRADEMARK?

A TRADE MARK (popularly known as brand name) in simple language is a visual symbol which may be a word signature, name, device, label, numerals or combination of colours used by one undertaking on goods or services or other articles of commerce to distinguish it from other similar goods or services originating from a different undertaking. In other words, A TRADE MARK is a word, phrase, symbol or design, or combination of words, phrases, symbols or designs is used in the course of trade which identifies and distinguishes the source of the goods or services of one enterprise from those of others.
What are procedures for registration of TRADE MARK?
In India, the procedures of Trade mark registration are covered under the provisions of The Trade Marks Act, 1999 and The Trade Marks Rules, 2002. Mumbai, Delhi, Kolkata, Ahmadabad and Chennai are respective jurisdiction of trade mark registration office in India.
What you mean TRADE MARK SEARCH?
Any person may request the Registrar to cause a search to be made in respect of a trade mark relating to specified goods or services to ascertain whether any mark is on record which resembles the trade mark in respect of which the request is made. Before filing an application for a trademark registration, it is highly advisable to conduct a comprehensive trademark search. A basic trademark search includes registered trademarks and pending applications for trademarks in India.
If there is no objection and /or opposition raised, then process of registration of trademark usually takes 1-1.5 years and incase of any objection/opposition proceedings it usually takes approx 3 years.

What are documents needs for Trade mark Registration?

1. Proprietorship concern: Full name and address of the proprietor and true copy of related documents.
2. Partnership concern: full name and address of all partners and true copy of related documents.
3. Company concern: full name and address of all directors and true copy of related documents.
4. If you have claimed that the proposed mark is used since before application, please provide evidence for your claim.
5. Please provide label (25 number) of the proposed Trade mark(Label size 9cm x 5 cm )



Mumbai: The Taj Mahal Palace secures India's first trademark registration for its iconic hotel building and dome

        Since 1903 its striking dome has been the triangulation point for the Indian Navy to guide them in to harbour, a steadfast symbol of the city’s resilience and a benchmark for Indian hospitality. Setting another first for the industry, The Taj Mahal Palace, Mumbai has secured image trademark rights for its elegant hotel building and its characteristic dome from the Government of India.
         The distinctive red-tiled Florentine Gothic dome, which crowns the elegant Indo-Saracenic arches and architraves of the hotel, sits 240 feet above street level. The hotel’s architects modelled this closely on the dome of the Victoria Terminus (now Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus), when the hotel opened on 16 December 1903.

Commercial use of the images of its iconic dome and grand exterior will now be on prior written consent from Taj Hotels Palaces Resorts Safaris only.

 News Courtesy :