“Financial Times” belongs to nobody !!!

NO one has registration for the mark “Financial Times”.

The recent decision of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) over the Financial Times (FT) trademark, is probably one of the most important judgements in the recent past. The distinction drawn by the IPAB between ‘use’ and ‘reputation’ will probably have an effect on several similar cases pending before different forums.
Arun Mohan, an IP lawyer practising before the Madras High Court has sent us this guest post providing a different perspective on the matter. 
A recent order of the IPAB in rectification petitions for the mark “Financial Times” has thrown forth several interesting propositions. The dispute is between the Financial Times UK(FTUK), which runs the well known publication Financial Times globally, and Times Publishing House Ltd which runs the well known Indian publication Economic Times within which it also runs a supplement called Financial Times. FTUK claims user from the 1948, and Times claims user from the 1980s. Given them being in the same market with considerable success, a dispute was but inevitable. There are also injunction proceedings pending before the Courts. The injunction proceedings however, are not relied nor referred in the conclusions of the IPAB.
There were cross-rectifications which are as follows:
1. Times filed rectifications against FTUK’s registration of the marks “Financial Times” and “FT” in classes 9 and 16.
2. FTUK filed rectification against Time’s registration of “Financial Times” under class 16.
The order at its outset clarifies that it is decided under the 1958 Act. The Order opens with an interpretation of the Hon’ble Madras High Court’s order in the Rhizome matter. FTUK had raised an objection that Time’s rectification cannot be entertained as it was under secs 9&11 of the Act, which runs contra to the Rhizome order. The Board found that given the wide statutory discretion vested in it under secs 46 and 56 of the 1958 Act (comparable to sec 57 of the 1999 Act) it had authority to consider Time’s application inspite of the Rhizome order. However, despite such specific preclusion of sec 9 & 11 of the Act, and its conspicuous absence in recent IPAB orders, it must be admitted that the spirit, purpose and language of the sections prevail across all recent IPAB orders including the present one.
Subsequently, the Board in deciding FTUKs registrations for the mark “Financial Times” observed that FTUK has proved its trans-border reputation, intention to enter India and that the mark “Financial Times” has become distinctive of FTUK. The Order then detracts to say there is a ‘hitch’. It finds that FTUK claims user since 1948, and was in fact referred to in various articles in the Indian Express in 1948. However, it finds that such ‘mention’ is not ‘use’ and only shows ‘reputation’. It then goes on to find that a mention of a 1981 conference titled “Financial Times Conference” tantamounts to use. The Board concludes that since FTUK cannot prove its exact user date of 1948, the mark stands to be cancelled. This appears to me to be a rather unique distinction between reputation and use. It is possible to have reputation without use? It also creates a rather dicey position for holders of marks of yore. To go back in time of several decades to establish exact user date in the event of a challenge is rather daunting. A probable midway solution could have been to order amendment of the user date rather than cancel the mark itself, when there are such clear cut findings on reputation and distinction. In respect of FTUK’s registration for the mark “FT”, the Board found that since FTUK did not claim use prior to application, there was no reason to cancel the same. This causes us to consider that if the Board accepts the validity of “FT” from its application date, then “Financial Times” must have been “used” atleast since such application date of “FT”, and could have considered directing the registry to amend FTUK’s user detail for the mark “Financial Time”. When there is no finding of fraud, and there seems to be reputation in and around the claimed user date, it appears perplexing why such an old mark stands cancelled on a technicality, more so when it’s concurrent acronym is allowed to stand.
The Board in deciding Time’s registration of “Financial Times” stated that Times was aware of FTUKs existence and had entered into syndication agreements with FTUK for articles from the Financial Times. Further, the Board makes an observation that in businesses such as automobiles and newspapers, one cannot claim to ignorant of a rival’s business. In any event, the circulation and sales figures provided would be applicable only to the Economic Times, and would not support Financial Times. Therefore, it also cancelled Times registration.
The position today therefore, is that no one has registration for the mark “Financial Times”. The Boards findings on FTUK not establishing its user date would again be tested in the Courts, and we will have to wait and see if the Courts arrive at a different conclusion in the injunction proceedings. (courtesy: preddy85@gmail.com via googlegroups.com)

Time: This is normal, I want people to see it

The more people see it, the more it'll become normal in our culture.

The more people see it, the more it’ll become normal in our culture.

Time‘s editor Rick Stengel has defended the magazine’s latest cover featuring a mother breastfeeding her 3-year-old child.

The May 21 issue includes a profile of Dr Bill Sears and leads with a shot of 26-year-old Jamie Lynne Grumet feding her son Aram.

Grumet told the magazine that she was breastfed until she was 6 years old, and added: “I grew up this way and never thought about raising my kids differently.

“People have to realise this is biologically normal. The more people see it, the more it’ll become normal in our culture. That’s what I’m hoping. I want people to see it.”

Broadcasters MSNBC and ABC chose to censor the image when discussing it during some programming.

Following the controversy surrounding the image, Time editor Stengel said: “It’s certainly an arresting image. It’s an image to get people’s attention about a serious subject.

“Some people think it’s great and some people are revolted by it. That’s what you want, you want people talking.”

Indian Politicians on Twitter:Modi Express #1

As the state of Gujarat commemorated its 52nd Gaurav Diwas (Foundation Day), the Modi Express on Twitter celebrated another milestone when it crossed the make of 600,000 ‘followers’ in record time! This once again reaffirms why he is truly called the ‘King of Social Media’ among the politicians!
This mammoth increase among Narendra Modi’s followers comes at a time when he featured on the cover page of Time Magazine, which lauded the decade of peace and development in Gujarat. Other luminaries who have come on the cover include Mahatma Gandhi, Sardar Patel and Lal Bahadur Shastri. Incidentally, he is the only Indian Chief Minister and the first BJP leader to feature on the list. Roughly at the same time, Brookings Institution, one of Washington DCs oldest and most reputed think tanks carried a comprehensive story by William Antholis, its managing editor. Brookings lauded the atmosphere of development that prevailed in Gujarat.

Modi-1st Indian OBC leader in TIME

Soon after Narendra Modi was featured on the cover of Time magazine last month, his media managers went into overdrive saying the Gujarat chief minister was the firstIndian OBC leader to get this distinction.

Surprising this from a former poster-boy of Hindutva who has shunned the caste tag for wider acceptance in the majority community.

But as he faces assembly polls later this year – and aspires for a larger national role later – Modi is clearly positioning himself as an OBC leader for two reasons. First, he is wooing the OBCs to offset a deviant Patel vote-bank. At another level, he is pitching himself against two possible NDA contenders for prime ministership – Bihar CM Nitish Kumar and MP CM Shivraj Singh Chouhan – both OBC leaders. The strategy makes sense. OBCs constitute about 30% and Patels around 20 % of the population in Gujarat.

Kudos,Pulitzer awardee Michael & Ken gave prize money ($10000) to train fellow journalists !!!

Mark Horvit, for the Investigative Reporters and Editors organization, published a blog post on Monday about two Pulitzer Prize winners doing something rare and positive for the journalism industry.

Besides writing an award-winning piece that gained national recognition and awards, Michael Berens and Ken Armstrong decided to give back.  They took their $10,000 prize money and paid for IRE training for their colleagues at The Seattle Times.

Horvit quotes Manny Garcia, the IRE Board President, “Mike and Ken have always been unselfish with their time and talent,” Garcia said. “They both exemplify what IRE is all about: equipping and training journalists world-wide to produce important investigative work. It speaks to their character and the quality news organization that is The Seattle Times.”

According to Horvit’s article, these two men are the second major award winners to do this sort of philanthropic work in the last few years.

This is important news to include these days. Why?  The news about the news doesn’t always have to be critical, or negative or controversial.  Gestures like this will keep journalism moving forward, steadily toward improvement.  Reporting, writing and investigating are skills that canalways be improved upon.  I’ve re-discovered that just by keeping this blog.   These two men, decided to invest in the important work that investigative journalists do every day.  Honing their skills, and now making that practice available to others in the business through this training, is invaluable to the industry.

Journalism is not only learning about what we report, but how and why we report.

There is a quote by Thomas Griffith, a former editor for Time, Inc., “Journalism is in fact history on the run.”   That would be something difficult to chase without the necessary skills.  Berens and Armstrong are setting a good example in this industry and they are providing those skills to their fellow staffers.  Kudos to them. (courtesy: WatchingTheWatchdog)

TIME: Anjali & Mamata are amongst 100 most influential on Earth

They are the people who inspire us, entertain us, challenge us and change our world. Meet the breakouts, pioneers, moguls, leaders and icons who make up this year’s TIME 100

Anjali Gopalan

I met Anjali Gopalan in 1995, when I was researching a new disease whose name was spoken only in whispers in India. At the time, doctors and nurses in some Delhi hospitals would not touch people infected with HIV. Gopalan not only touched them; she took them into her home and danced with them. She escorted me to the hidden places where gays and lesbians met: in Nehru Park on Sunday evenings and at a party where men arrived garbed as Bollywood heroines from the 1950s and ’60s. It was a threatened world, and Gopalan had returned home from Brooklyn to protect it.

Through her work at the Naz Foundation, Gopalan, 54, has done more than anyone else to advance the rights of gays and the transgendered in India, successfully petitioning the courts to get rid of a British-era law against sodomy. But her work isn’t just in courtrooms. She also runs a home for HIV-positive orphans.

Gopalan has brought about a revolution in the status of sexual minorities in India — and has done so joyously, dancing.

Mamata Banerjee

Though much of Indian society remains hidebound in patriarchy and tradition, strong women still prevail in the nation’s political life. Mamata Banerjee rose to the fore last year when she and a movement she built from the grassroots wrested control of her home state of West Bengal, ending 3 ½ decades of sclerotic communist rule. Banerjee, 57, spent years struggling on the margins, her Trinamool Congress Party a feisty rabble compared with the leviathan of West Bengal’s communists. Referred to by her supporters as Didi, or “elder sister,” she was labeled by critics as a mercurial oddball and a shrieking street fighter. But ultimately she proved to be the consummate politician. Through successive elections, Banerjee steadily expanded her power base while chipping away at those of her opponents. Her lower-middle-class background was no obstacle in a country notorious for its dynasties. In New Delhi’s back rooms, where political horse trading is the name of the game, she excelled. On the streets, she out-Marxed the Marxists. And as chief minister of her home state, she has emerged as a populist woman of action — strident and divisive but poised to play an even greater role in the world’s largest democracy.

(courtesy: Suketu Mehta, Ishaan Tharoor & TIME)

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2111975_2111976_2112141,00.html #ixzz1sPMvUW00