Trade Mark includes a device,word, letter, numeral, sound, smell, shape of goods, packaging, combination of colors orany combination therefore allowing consumers to distinguishbetweengoodsoriginatingin different sources.
A variety of intangible creation of human imagination.
Trademark- forever.</li></li></ul><li>World's first Trademark<br />Mark -<br /> Use since - 1600<br /> Registered - 1876<br /> Owner - Bass & co<br /> Country - UK<br /> Goods - Alcoholic Beverages<br />
Requisites of a Trade Mark:<br /><ul><li> Marks should have a distinctive feature.
Combinations of one or more of these elements - Eg. </li></li></ul><li>Non- Conventional/non- Traditional Trade Marks<br /><ul><li> Combination of colours or even a single colour in combination with a word or device.
Shape of goods or their packaging.</li></ul> Eg. Pepsi Bottle<br /><ul><li>Sound marks when represented in conventional notation or described in words by being graphically represented. </li></ul> Eg: YAHOO’s sound mark<br />
NON-REGISTRABLE MARKS<br /><ul><li>A mark by its very nature deceivesthe public or cause confusion.
A mark which is likely to hurt the religious susceptibilities.
A mark which contains scandalous or obscene matter.
Theshape of goods which is purely functional of necessary to obtain technical result or which gives substantial value to the goods.
The mark consists of or comprises aname, portrait or signatureidentifying a particular living individual.</li></li></ul><li> <br />Contd...<br /><ul><li>Chemicals names and International Non–proprietary names.
Surnames, personal names or other common abbreviations are non- registrable.
Marks when devoid of distinctive character or not capable of distinguishing.
Identical or Similar marks are non- registerable.</li></ul> <br />
THE MARK WHEN IT DECEIVES THE PUBLIC OR <br />CAUSE CONFUSION.<br />Eg:AQUAFENA for AQUAFINA<br />Case Study 1:<br />S.M. Dyechem Ltd v Cadbury (India) (Ltd)- <br />The marks PICNIC & PICNIK were in dispute<br />Glaxo Smith Kline Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Unitech Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.<br /> The mark FEXIM for PHEXIM were in conflict.<br />Test to determine similarity:<br />Nature of the marks<br />Degree of resemblance- visual, phonetic and also similarities in ideas<br />Nature, purpose and character of goods<br />Class of purchasers<br />Trade channels<br />
Case Study 2:<br /><ul><li>Use of the word “Patent” or “Trademark”: </li></ul> Case: Anneliese Hackman’s Appln. (1963) 63 Bom LR 650, the use of the word “PATENTEX” over contraceptive pills was held to be deceptive<br /><ul><li>Marks that guarantee: </li></ul> Case: Vitasafe Tm (1963) RPC 256-“Vitasafe” for vitamin preparation was refused on the ground that it guarantees which is then interpreted as deceptive.<br /><ul><li>Marks containing false or misleading matters: </li></ul> Case: Eno v. Dunn- Marks which are not strictly true.<br />
Contd….<br /><ul><li> Marks used in illegal business.
Marks suggesting geographical origin.</li></ul> Eg: Scotchlite<br /><ul><li> Mark that consists of or comprises a name, portrait or signature identifying a particular living individual, except by that individual's written consent. (Section 14 of the Trademark Act, 1999).</li></ul>Cases: <br /> 1. Jane Austen for toiletries (Jane Austen Tm 2000)<br />2. Diana, Princess of Wales (Diana, Princess of Wales, Tm 2001)<br />
THE MARK WHEN IT IS LIKELY TO HURT THE RELIGIOUS SUSCEPTIBILITIES<br />For example:<br /><ul><li> Attukkal Bhagavathy Temple issue- The mark which had a temple deity’s picture and the title “Sabarimala of Women” as a under class 42 over temple services, worship services etc., was highly contended on the ground that a mark shall not be registered as a trade mark as it contains matter likely to hurt the religious susceptibilities of the Hindu’s.
Jesus Jeans over clothing</li></li></ul><li>The mark if consists of scandalousorobscenematter<br /><ul><li> "Scandalous," means "shocking to the sense of propriety, offensive to the conscience or moral feelings or calling out for condemnation." </li></ul> <br /><ul><li> Political imagery
Illegality</li></li></ul><li>POLITICAL IMAGERY:<br /><ul><li>Portrait and signature “Grover Cleveland” for cigars (Banner Cigar Mfg. Co., 1909 C.D. 9, 10-)
Queen Mary on underwear-(Martha Maid Mfg. Co., 37 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 156 (Comm’r Pat. 1938)
Obama Bin Laden</li></ul> RELIGIOUS TERMS AND ICONS:<br /><ul><li>MESSIAS for wine and brandy.In re Sociedade Agricola E. Comerical Dos Vinhos Messias, S.A.R.L., 159 U.S.P.Q.(BNA) 275, 275-76 (T.T.A.B. 1968).
SENUSSI for cigarettes</li></li></ul><li>RACE, GENDER, AND SEXUAL ORIENTATION:<br /><ul><li>“Washington Redskins” - Harjo v. Pro-Football, Inc., 50 U.S.P.Q.2d96(D.D.C.2003)
DE PUTA MADRE </li></ul> VULGAR:<br /><ul><li>BULLSHIT, REALLY GOOD SHIT in connection with any goods/services </li></ul> was held to be scandalous because the term “shit” in it is vulgar.<br />ILLEGALITY:<br /><ul><li>The mark W.B.WIFE BEATER for clothing was refused on the ground the term </li></ul> clearly evokes connotation of spousal abuse and held scandalous.<br />
Marks contrary to any law<br />Marks prohibited under the Emblems and Names (Prohibition of ImproperUse) Act, 1950<br />Example:Name,Emblemor Seal of UNO,WHO, Indian Flag etc.,<br />Use of the marks like I.S.I., I.S.S are prohibited under Indian Standard Institution Act, 1954 .<br />B.P., I.P., - Under Drug and Cosmetics Rules 1945.<br />
The mark should not be signs which consist exclusively of:<br />Shapeswhich results from the nature of the goods themselves; or- For example, a picture an umbrella cannot be considered as a registrable label in relation to umbrella. <br />Shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result<br />Shape which gives substantial value to the goods<br />
Chemicals names andinternational non –proprietary names<br />cannot be a Trademark<br />Case Laws: <br /><ul><li>Pharma Research v. Jam (1986) IPLR 16 (TMR)</li></ul> The mark “OLEIN” was refused on the ground that it is similar to the chemical name “OLIN” <br /><ul><li>ICI v. Cipla 1980 IPLR 90</li></ul> The mark “AIENOLAR” for medicinal preparation refused being similar to the non –proprietary name“ATENOLOL”<br />
Surnames, personal names or other common abbreviations are non-registrable.<br /><ul><li>“Fantastic Sam’s” over hair dressing services was refused on the ground that the word ‘Fantastic’ is laudatory and the ‘Sam’ as a common name used by the Christians as a trading style. Fantastic Sam’s service mark (1990)RPC 531
But can be registered when acquired distinctiveness.</li></ul> Eg: Saravana Stores with Application No. 1027142<br />Marks when devoid of distinctive character or not capable of distinguishing.<br /><ul><li> Laudatory epithets are open to all in the world and cannot be registered. Eg. Super, Good etc., these words can never lose their primary meaning.
Name of the Article patented cannot be a Trade Mark</li></ul>Eg. Synoptophone for optical instruments was refused, as it is a special type of optical instrument that has been patented.<br />
Marks when descriptive of characteristics or qualities of goods or services.<br />SHARP for televisions<br />DIGITAL for computers<br />WINDOWS for windowing software<br />Defense available under the Act:<br /><ul><li>Long term use, or
Large amounts of advertising and publicity. </li></ul>Generic names are not registrable.<br /><ul><li>MODEM has been derived from “modulator- demodulator
WWW has been derived from “world wide web”</li></li></ul><li>THANK YOU<br />