Indian Patent Law Challenged by Swiss Pharmaceutical Company

Novartis, a Swiss drug manufacturing company, faced defeat in the Madras high court of India in an attempt to amend Indian Patent law. Novartis sought protection against the manufacture of generic goods and incremental changes to existing drugs. Indian patent law limits patent protection in the pharmaceutical field to only entirely new compounds and does not extend to minor changes in existing drugs. The drug company argued that Indian patent law violates the standards agreed upon by the World Trade Organization (WTO), known as Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), but the court held that the current Indian law does not violate the Indian Constitution and that any judgement on TRIPS needs to be made by the WTO.

The TRIPS agreement allows for flexibility in the drug patent laws to promote affordable access to medications in developing nations. The agreement offers special consideration to developing nations with health emergencies, such as AIDS/HIV and malaria. But, pharmaceutical companies argue that this flexibility results in reduced revenue and less money available for investment in research and development. Many agencies, like those that provide low-cost healthcare and domestic Indian drug makers, are applauding the decision by the Indian court. They argue that if patents were granted to cover minor changes in existing drugs, then the ruling may affect hundreds of HIV infected people in developing nations who rely on generic drugs produced in India. This outcome is sure to have a global impact as the case affects not only people in India, but also people in Africa, Brazil, Thailand, multi-national agencies, and other non-governmental agencies who rely on India’s less costly drugs.

Johnson & Johnson sues Red Cross

Johnson & Johnson, Co. sued the American Red Cross (ARC) for the relief agency’s use of Johnson & Johnson’s trademarked red cross logo. The ARC used the logo on the agency’s distribution of first aid kits, hand sanitizers and medical gloves that were sold to the public. In the lawsuit, Johnson & Johnson seeks an injunction to prohibit the sale of those items to such vendors as Wal-Mart and Target, an order to turn over all unsold goods to Johnson & Johnson, and an order to turn over all profits made from the sale of the products in question.

This lawsuit marks the end of a long-standing cooperation that existed between the large band-aid maker and the humanitarian agency. Johnson & Johnson has owned the trademark for the logo since 1887 and sold first aid and wound care products under this logo. In 1895, the founder of the ARC reached an agreement with Johnson & Johnson acknowledging the company’s exclusive use of the logo, but the ARC was allowed to use the mark for non-profit services. The two sides were able to conduct business without dispute until the present lawsuit. The president of the ARC issued a statement expressing that the money the ARC receives from sales goes toward humanitarian efforts and helping Americans cope with disasters. Therefore, he stated that the ARC is on solid legal ground to overcome this lawsuit based on the agreement with Johnson & Johnson. The ARC also is defending its use of the logo on the basis that the congressional charter issued to the ARC in 1900 does not allow the agency to engage in commercial activities competing with private businesses; therefore, the use is non-commercial.

Apple Hit With Patent Infringement Suit

On Monday, August 6, 2007, Florida-based SP Technologies filed a patent infringement suit against Apple, Inc. (Apple), the second intellectual property lawsuit to target Apple's new iPhone. SP Technologies alleges that the iPhone's keyboard infringes U.S. Patent No. 6,784,873 ("the '873 patent"), which issued in 2004. The '873 patent discloses a device with an "input area [that] may contain a keyboard which is an image map".

The '873 patent may refer to almost any 'soft keyboard' included in various existing PDAs and similar devices. The lawsuit indicates that SP Technologies seeks reasonable royalties from Apple. Critics say that the timing of the lawsuit is suspicious, as it singles out the iPhone and attempts to capitalize on the success of the iPhone.

To make matters even more interesting, the listed inventor on the patent, Peter V. Boesen, is facing more than four years in jail for health-care fraud. Additionally, Boesen has filed a number of patent suits in the past, including suits against LG, Kyocera and Canon.

Potential Trademark Dispute Involving Harry Potter

While Harry Potter makes a splash in the box offices and book stands, the author, J.K. Rowling, might face a trademark infringement action for use of the word "muggles." For those who do not know, a "muggle" is the term Rowling uses to describe human beings with no magical powers. However, Jim Salzer of Venture County, CA has the rights to the "muggle" mark because he at one point owned and operated a restaurant-nightclub called “Café Muggles” and thus obtained trademark protection for the mark. Salzer tried selling the rights to Warner Brothers, the owner of the Harry Potter movie series, for one million dollars several years ago but the media giant declined the offer.

Warner Brothers might second guess their decision to pass on the offer with the grand opening of Harry Potter theme park that is scheduled to open in Orlando in 2009. Any advertising or marketing ventures to promote the mark by Warner Brothers will need to be done in a way to avoid infringing the "muggle" mark because Salzer’s mark identifies "Retail Gift and Novelty Store Services, and Restaurant and Night Club Services" as the designated goods/services covered by the mark. As of now, Salzer has not contested use of the mark in books or movies, but he and his attorney have stated that they are monitoring the situation.

Shaolin Temple Fights Back

The monks of the world famous Shaolin temple, the birth place of Shaolin Boxing, filed for protection of the Shaolin mark. The monks of the temple want to curb misuse of the mark by international traders who are using it for commercial purposes. Nestled in the foothills of central China, the temple was established in 495 A.D. It is believed that the monks of the temple combined the principles of Buddhism and the Chinese martial arts that evolved into Kung Fu to create Shaolin Boxing. Since then, the temple has been made famous by dozens of Kung Fu movies.

The monks believe that it is their historical responsibility to protect the Shaolin culture and thus registered “Shaolin” and “Shaolin temple” in many countries, such as China, India and USA. The abbot issued a statement expressing that the temple plans to take action against anyone who abuses the Shaolin trademark for commercial purposes without any authorization. In addition, the temple has enlisted a firm to protect the reputation of the temple and prevent abusive commercial use.

Jolie Drops Protest to "Shiloh" Trademark

Trademark applicant Symine Salimpour's got into a legal dispute with perhaps the most famous mother on the planet. Fortunately for Salimpour, the dispute concluded almost as quickly and quietly as it began.

Salimpour, a fragrance designer for her own fashion company, claims that she began development of a fragrance two years ago. Salimpour selected the brand name "SHILOH" for the fragrance. Salimpour filed a trademark application with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) on June 19, 2006 – a date that was a mere three weeks after Angelina Jolie-Pitt gave birth to her daughter, Shiloh. After learning of the trademark application, Jolie-Pitt filed an opposition in the USPTO on January 31, 2007 and alleged that Salimpour should not be entitled to trademark the name "Shiloh".

Jolie-Pitt's opposition lacked merit because, although Shiloh is not a surname, marks that are primarily surnames are treated the same as descriptive marks under U.S. trademark law. In addition, Salimpour is not using the mark in connection with a surname. Jolie-Pitt's opposition did not last--she dropped the challenge on June 15, 2007. A relieved Salimpour is now arranging for the first shipment of Shiloh, the perfume, not the toddler, to the United States.

Pepsi and Coke at it Again, This Time for ... Patent Infringement?

Everyone knows about the long-standing battle between PepsiCo and Coca-Cola Co. Which company's beverages taste better? Which company manufactures more flavors of soft drinks? Which company has more market share? It may be easy for one to see how the two soft drink makers have issues with the use of each other's trademarks. However, who would have thought that the two beverage leaders could be in court for patent infringement?

In a lawsuit filed over two years ago, Cola-Cola Co. alleged that PepsiCo infringed one of Coca-Cola Co.'s patents. The patent in question relates to a dispenser bag that is designed to hold different beverage syrups. The dispenser bag, mainly used in restaurants, is placed inside a cardboard box and ensures that as much syrup as possible is used, thereby decreasing costs to the restaurants and other merchants.

Prior to this particular suit, Coca-Cola Co. had successfully sued PepsiCo for PepsiCo's use of the collapsible dispenser bags. But as the adage goes, the third time was a charm for PepsiCo, as the U.S. District Judge who presided over the case found that substantial differences exist between Coca-Cola Co's patented dispenser bag and PepsiCo's third attempt to design around the patent.
Although PepsiCo may have won this battle, the larger beverage war continues.

Levi's Sues Ralph Lauren for Trademark Infringement

Popular jeans maker Levi Strauss & Co. ("Levi") owns the oldest known apparel trademark in the United States, a mark that dates back to 1873. Levi's mark covers an "arcuate" stitching design located on the back pocket of Levi's jeans. Even though the mark is over 130 years old, perpetual use on goods in commerce throughout its lifetime retains the enforceability of the mark.

In a civil lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court, Levi is claiming that the sportswear company Polo Ralph Lauren Corp. ("Ralph Lauren") is infringing Levi's arcuate trademark. Levi alleges that Ralph Lauren manufactures and sells jeans having stitching designs that are confusingly similar to Levi's arcuate trademark.

Levi is seeking unspecified damages as well as a court injunction to stop Ralph Lauren from producing the infringing jeans. Levi and Ralph Lauren are attempting to reach an amicable agreement, as Levi has yet to serve the complaint.

Aside from this lawsuit, Levi has been active in efforts to police its trademarked design. In the last two years alone, Levi has sued five other jeans makers with pocket stitching designs similar to those on Levi's jeans.