This is the official blog for Biswajit Sarkar, Advocates - IP Attorneys . We are a leading IP law firm in India, now growing as a full fledged law firm . The firm exclusively deals with Patents, Trade Marks, Designs, Copyrights and allied matters. The extensive legal practice of the firm encompasses International Trade related matters, corporate matters, foreign collaboration, and joint ventures. For more details, please visit our website www.biswajitsarkar.com .
tattoos have been a fashion statement, but in future tattoos can me much more
than that. Google owned Motorola Mobility has recently filed a patent in USPTO for
an electronic neck tattoo that can serve as a lie detector. The tattoo can be pasted
on the neck or worn on collar or on a band around the user’s neck. The patent
application highlights that “the electronic skin tattoo can include a galvanic
skin response detector to detect skin resistance of a user; it is contemplated that a user may be nervous or engaging in speaking
falsehoods may exhibit different galvanic skin response than a more confident,
truth telling individual.”
The tattoo can
mainly serve as supplementary microphone and can be paired with various
electronic devices such as smartphones, tablets etc.This means that the user can
easilycommunicate through mobile phone by a voice command without having to
press any button. The tattoo can run on rechargeable batteries or can usesolar
panel technology, capacitive technology, nanotechnology or electro-mechanical
technology as explained in the patent application.
drawing from patent application of Google’s neck tattoo by Motorola
The patent which
is titled "Coupling an Electronic Skin Tattoo to a Mobile Communication
Device” is primarily meant for nullifying the background noise when a caller
speaks from a crowded surrounding. The tattoo worn on the neck can improve the
voice quality by making the caller more audible to the person on the other end
of the call through a noise-cancelling system.
the tattoo could also be worn by animals, although we are clueless as to how it
could help an animal. But for now we are sure that this new wearable technology
will make one think before lying.
In a recent turn
of events, Gucci an Italian fashion and leather goods brand has opposed a UK
trademark application for a device mark claiming it to be similar to their famous
GG logo. But the registrar ruled that the said device mark lacks resemblance to
the GG logo and the mark does not conflict Section 5(3) (of UK Trademark Act) for
protectionof well-known marks. The applicant’s device mark was also applicable
to similar goods such as clothing line etc.
Courtesy: Gucci accessories, lyst.com
registered its GG logo via Community Trade Mark registration in EU and UK. In
UK it is a registered mark for over 50 years which was described as two G’s
facing each other creating a symmetric mirror image. The basis of opposition by
Gucci was based on this description. But the registrar disagreed on Gucci’s
claim stating that the applicant’s device was more analogous to ‘human torso’.
He also argued that the consumers will pay more attention to the device per se
and the perception to the similarity of the marks will be little.
provided many evidences to prove its point, registrar stated that the Gucci has
failed to prove that Gucci’s device mark has brought a significant distinction
to their brand and products upon use. This led to Gucci’s unfortunate loss in
So the question here
is how much is too much? What amount of similarity between the device marks
makes them similar and deceptive? Although, it is also important to note that
Gucci has been changing its GG logo for the purpose of rebranding and
advertising, so will a differently arrangeddouble ‘G’ applied for the similar kind goods create confusion among
consumers as a rebranded Gucci’s logo? Perhaps this question can be best
answered by the consumers themselves.