The “Scheme for Facilitating Startups Intellectual Property Protection (SIPP)”

The SIPP scheme launched in 2016 promotes and mentors innovative and emerging technologies among startups and assist startups in protecting and commercializing it. It gives them access to high-quality IP services by appointing facilitators. The office of CGPDTM shall reimburse professional charges for startups.

The scheme stands extended up to March 2023 vide public notice dated 30th April 2020 and eventually certain aspects of the scheme have been amended. Particularly, if a startup files a complaint against a facilitator refusing to provide any services to the startup or in case of any other professional misconduct, the CGPDTM can remove the facilitator from the panel without serving notice.

The inclusion of the terms “without notice” has a reason. The public notice dated 17.03.2017 provides instances where the registered facilitators have been ignoring facilitation. It warned the facilitators that any act of denial of facilitation shall be considered as an act of misconduct and it shall lead to removal of their name from the list of facilitators and subsequently, action for removal of their name from the registered list of patent/trademark agent.

ISSUE:

  1. How lawful is to remove facilitators “without notice” under the present scheme, as amended, based on the experience gained from the misconduct of some facilitators since 2016?

Let’s discuss!!!

(Post your comments, opinions and thoughts in the comment section below)

About Sushmita Ray 2 Articles
Sushmita Ray is a 2020 graduate from KIIT School of Law, KIIT (Deemed to be) University, Bhubaneswar, Odisha and have successfully completed 5-year Dual Degree Integrated Course, B.Sc.LL.B (Intellectual Property Laws Hons.). She has interned with various reputed IP firms in their Patents and TM Prosecution department. She is also participant and winner of various National, Regional and Cluster level competitions.

1 Comment

  1. According to my observation, I do not have a conclusive view on whether the removal of the facilitator from the panel without notice is reasonable. However, with the deepest respect I believe that the amended scheme is not justifying this action of CGPDTM. Moreover, I suspect that the office of the CGPDTM drafted this scheme to justify a predetermined conclusion drawn from effective implementation of the scheme (2016, 2017-2020).

    To discuss this further please leave a comment below.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*