India and Switzerland sign MoU on Intellecutal Property Rights

India and Switzerland on Tuesday (Aug 7, 07) signed a MoU on safeguarding IPRs. The agreement envisages setting up of a joint committee to develop a dialogue on issues of IP.

India has already entered into bilateral cooperation agreements on IPRs with UK, France, USPTO, European and Japan Patent Office. The cooperation as per these agreements is in the areas of capacity building, HR development and public awareness programs. Matters such as legislation, policy and enforcement are outside the purview of these cooperation instruments.

According to the MoU, a joint committee will be set up to develop a dialogue on issues of intellectual property (IP) that will encompass:

• Exchange of views, information and experiences regarding the protection of intellectual property at the national level, furthermore, creating dialogue related to international issues concerning IP.
• Serve as a forum for consultations to address specific issues in the area of intellectual property in the bilateral relations of the parties.
• Development of continued institutional cooperation for regular technical exchanges between IP institutes in the two countries.
• Exchange of experiences between India and Switzerland in training on intellectual property and development of appropriate modules and curricula for such trainings and introduce Joint studies on specific IP issues.
• Exchange of experiences and best practices regarding the raising of public awareness on the role of IPRs.
• Discuss strategies aimed at preventing the manufacture, distribution, sale and consumption of counterfeit and pirated products as well as at raising public awareness of the damages caused by counterfeit and pirated products.
• Exchange of experience and dialogue on cooperation in the area of protection of geographical indications. Moreover, exchange of experience and dialogue on cooperation in the area of protection of traditional knowledge.
• Both sides agreed that the Joint Committee would meet once a year in India or Switzerland alternately.

J&J sues Red Cross over commercial use of TM Symbol

Johnson & Johnson (J&J) on Wednesday (Aug 8, 07) sued the American Red Cross in federal court in Manhattan over the use by the relief group and its partners of J&J's trademark red cross logo on first aid kits, hand sanitizer and medical gloves sold to the public.

Both had shared the red cross symbol amicably for more than 100 years J&J on its commercial products and the American Red Cross as a symbol of its relief efforts on foreign battlefields and in disasters like floods and tornadoes.

American Red Cross was founded in 1881 but did not receive a charter from the US Congress until 1900. J&J has used red cross symbol since 1887 on a wide range of products, including wound care products and first-aid kits, gloves, bandages and cream. J&J entered into an agreement with American Red Cross in 1895. The agreement acknowledged J&J's exclusive right to red cross as a TM for chemical, surgical and pharmaceutical goods of every description.

In 2004, the American Red Cross began licensing the symbol to commercial partners selling products at retail oufits. Those productsinclude humidifiers, medical examination gloves, nail clippers, combs and toothbrushes. J&J objected their deviation from a longstanding partnership and collaboration around the use of this TM and their push to commercialise this TM in the for-profit arena. This objection is resulted in the form of current TM law suit.

J&J said a deal with the charity's founder in 1895 gave it the "exclusive use" of the symbol as a trademark for drug, chemical and surgical products. It said American Red Cross had violated this agreement by licensing the symbol to other firms to sell certain goods.

Madras High Court suspends hearings in Novartis' Glivec Patent case

Madras High Court granted the interim stay on Thursday (Aug 9, 07) restrained the IPAB from hearing an appeal filed by Novartis against the rejection of its patent appliction for a blood cancer drug. It adjourned further hearing of the Novartis case to September 10 in response to an appeal to challenge the IPAB's order dismissing its plea to exclude technical member S Chandrasekar from the bench hearing its appeal against the rejection of the patent application.

Novartis is petitioning the High Court for a new technical member 'S Chandrasekar', because they disagree with the appointment of the former Controller General of the Indian Patent Office to the IPAB. Novartis had objected to the inclusion of Chandrasekaran in the IPAB bench on the ground that he had "disabled himself" to hear the firm's appeal against the rejection of the patent application as he had deposed in a counter-affidavit filed in the Madras HC. Novartis also contended that he had disabled himself as he had taken a stand in the matter by filing the deposition, and as such he would not be free from bias.

HISTORY OF THE CASE

Novartis' Glivec is patented worldwide. However, the invention of Glivec’s base compound, Imatinib mesylate, was patented in 1993, and is therefore not eligible for a patent in India, which joined WTO only in 1995. Novartis is seeking patent protection for a crystalline form of Imatinib mesylate, which was patented in 1997. Madras Patent Office rejected Novartis’ patent application for Glivec in January 2006, arguing that the Basel-based drug maker’s innovation did not meet the requirements of section 3(d) of Indian Patent Act— a legal provision unique to India, which stipulates that modifications of known medicines cannot be patented unless they make the drug significantly more effective. Madras pat office said the creation of a new form of Imatinib mesylate was not a major innovation. To this Novartis replied that the base compound had no clinical value in the beginning as it could not be administered to patients.