Administrative Trademark Decisions May Preclude Infringement Litigation

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on March 24, 2015, that Trial Trademark and Appeal Board (“TTAB”) decisions “can be weighty enough” to preclude a district court from litigating the likelihood of confusion between trademarks in a subsequent infringement suit. The decision in B&B Hardware, Inc. v Hargis Industries, Inc. may not settle the nearly 20-year dispute between the owners of the SEALTIGHT and SEALTITE marks; however, the ruling is likely to increase the importance of TTAB proceedings. In certain circumstances, federal district courts may be bound by TTAB determinations that trademarks are confusingly similar under the doctrine of issue preclusion. Issue preclusion prevents the same issues from being litigated more than once, saving time and resources. 

As the Court explained, “[t]he full story [of the parties’ dispute] could fill a long, unhappy book.”  By 2003, the year B&B filed its opposition with the TTAB to stop Hargis from obtaining a federal trademark registration for a SEALTITE mark, the parties had been litigating trademark infringement claims for eight years.  B&B, the owner of a federal registration for SEALTIGHT for metal fasteners used in the aerospace industry, asserted that Hargis’ SEALTITE mark for fasteners used in building construction created a likelihood of confusion.

B&B won the TTAB opposition proceeding, and Hargis was denied federal registration of the SEALTITE mark. The TTAB determined that the SEALTITE mark was likely to cause confusion with the prior-registered SEALTIGHT mark. The TTAB made the determination based on a multi-factor likelihood of confusion analysis that examines the similarity of the marks, the goods, the customers and the trade channels, among other considerations.  

In this case, the TTAB only decided the narrow issue of the right to own a federal trademark registration. In contrast to a federal court, the TTAB cannot order a party to stop using a mark.  Following its loss at the TTAB, Hargis continued use of its SEALTITE mark. In subsequent infringement proceedings, B&B argued that the TTAB’s finding of a likelihood of confusion between the parties’ marks should stand, and that Hargis should not be able to re-litigate the issue. Both the district court and the Eighth Circuit rejected B&B’s argument and found that issue preclusion did not apply.

The Supreme Court reversed the Eighth Circuit and held that “[s]o long as the other ordinary elements of issue preclusion are met, when the usages adjudicated by the TTAB are materially the same as those before the district court, issue preclusion should apply.” The Court gave several reasons for this decision, including its observation that “the same likelihood-of-confusion standard applies to both registration and infringement.”

The case is now remanded to the lower court to determine if issue preclusion should apply on these specific facts, and thus the fight over the SEALTIGHT and SEALTITEmarks is likely to continue. The Court also explained that “for a great many registration decisions [from the TTAB] issue preclusion obviously will not apply because the ordinary elements will not be met.”

For example, the Court recognized the ordinary elements will not be met when the owner of a mark uses its mark in ways that are materially different from the trademark uses disclosed in a trademark application for registration. The TTAB decision will not have a preclusive effect “if the TTAB does not consider the marketplace usage of the parties’ marks[.]”

The impact of B&B Hardware on brand owners may be minimal. TTAB proceedings are routinely suspended for federal litigation involving the same parties and the same marks; however, parties that participate in a  TTAB case will need to carefully evaluate the potential for issue preclusion in a subsequent action. Indeed, as the Court explained, “[w]hen registration is opposed, there is a good reason to think that both sides will take the matter seriously.”

For trademark owners that disagree with a TTAB decision, they can pursue a de novo review of the TTAB decision before either the Federal Circuit or a U.S. District Court. Otherwise, there is a possibility that issue preclusion may impact subsequent infringement litigation involving the same marks.

http://www.natlawreview.com/article/administrative-trademark-decisions-may-preclude-infringement-litigation

Trademark Infringement And Passing Off

Trademark is the identification mark of any company or organization. A customer relates any trademark with the quality of products and reputation of the company that is using it. It is a distinctive name, word, phrase, symbol, logo, design, image, or a combination of these elements that identifies a product, service or firm that has been legally registered as the property of the firm. Trademarks grant the owner the right to prevent competitors from using similar marks in selling or advertising.

There are few important functions of trademark:

A trademark can be used for identifying and distinguishing a particular seller’s goods from others. Trademark also shows the origin of the goods i.e. a customer can identify the manufacturer and also assume about the quality of goods that all goods bearing the particular trademark are of a particular quality desired by the customers. Trademarks are widely used for the advertisement purposes also which helps to customers in associating any good with the quality, reputation and goodwill of any company. So it is very important for any organization to take precautions while allowing any one to use its trademark because the name and reputation of the company is directly associated with the trademark.

Various new concepts have been emerged in relation to trademark due to the technological revolution in the communication, media and other areas and due to the increased knowledge and perception of individuals, business enterprises are showing more interest in registering non conventional marks such as colour marks, shape marks, smell marks, sound marks, advertisement slogans, trade dress etc. to capture the market.

How it can cause damage to a Company:

If any organization is using the registered trademark of another company without permission, that means it is not only committing a crime but also causing damage to the business of the company and damaging the brand name of that company. The organization might be using others trademark to use its market reputation and market stake to enhance its own business without extra efforts. But such companies are not using the exact trademark of other company but they generally go for use of similar marks and here the problem came in to existence. These kinds of activities mainly fall under two heads Infringement and Passing Off.

Infringement:

Section 29 of the Trademark Act-1999 talks about various aspects related to infringement as given in S.29(1) that a registered trade mark is infringed by a person who, not being a registered proprietor or a person using by way of permitted use, uses in the course of trade, a mark which is identical with, or deceptively similar to, the trade mark in relation to goods or services in respect of which the trade mark is registered and in such manner as to render the use of the mark likely to be taken as being used as a trade mark.

Other subsections describe that in course of the use of the trademark it is said to be infringing the rights of other company due to use of similar or identical trademark using for marketing of similar kind of goods and services or use of identical or deceptively similar trademark for any other kind of goods and services. It is further given in the Sub Section (9) of this section that the infringement can also be done by the spoken use of those words as well as by their visual representation.

Passing Off:

The specific description of passing off is not given in the trademark act but the courts have drawn its meaning from common law that if the infringement of trademark done in such a manner where the mark is not only deceptively similar to the trademark of other company but also creating confusion for the customers, which ultimately results in damage for business of the company.

Differences between Passing Off and Infringement:

They are slightly different to each other:

· Statutory remedy is available for infringement whereas the action for passing off is a common law remedy.

· For infringement it is necessary only to establish that the infringing mark is identical or deceptively similar to the registered mark but in the case of a passing off action, the need is to prove that the marks are identical or deceptively similar which is likely to deceive or cause confusion and damage to the business of the company.

· When a trademark is registered, registration is given only with regard to a particular category of goods and hence protection can be given only to these goods and action of infringement would be taken but in a passing off action, the defendant’s goods need not be the same, they may be related or even different.

Judicial Response:

Courts have given several judgements in these kinds of disputes where the infringement and passing off of trademark were in question. Few of them I am discussing in this paper where courts have dealt with these questions and formulated several concepts related to them.

Cases of Infringement;

No one can use the trademark which is deceptively similar to the trademark of other company. As in the case of Glaxo Smith Kline Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Unitech Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. [1] the plaintiff claimed that defendants are selling products under the trademark FEXIM that is deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s mark PHEXIN, which is used for pharmaceutical preparations. The defendants are selling anti-biotic tablets with the trademark `FEXIM' with the packing material deceptively similarly to that of the plaintiff, whereby intending not only to infringe the trademark but also to pass off the goods as that of the plaintiff as the two marks are also phonetically similar. The Court restrained the defendant from using the trademark `FEXIM' or any trademark deceptively similar to the trademark of the plaintiff `PHEXIN', any label/packaging material deceptively similar and containing the same pattern as that of the plaintiff.

If a party using the deceptively similar name only for a single shop and not spreading its business by use of that particular name then also that party could be stopped from using the trade name of other company. This is given in M/s Bikanervala v. M/s AggarwalBikanerwala [2] where the respondent was running a sweet shop in with the name of AGGARWAL BIKANERVALA and the plaintiff was using the name BIKANERVALA from 1981 and also got registered it in the year 1992. Hence they applied for permanent injunction over the use of the name AGGARWAL BIKANERWALA for the sweet shop by the defendant. Court held in favour of the plaintiff and stopped defendant from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising, directly or indirectly dealing in food articles for human consumption under the impugned trade mark/trade name/infringing artistic label 'AGGARWAL BIKANER WALA' or from using any trade mark/trade name/infringing artistic work containing the name/mark 'BIKANER WALA/BIKANERVALA' or any other name/mark/artistic work which is identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trademark 'BIKANERVALA'.

If the trademark is not registered by any party but one party started using it before the other then first one would have the legal authority on that particular mark. As in the case ofDhariwal Industries Ltd. and Anr. v. M.S.S. Food Products [3] where appellants were using the brand name MALIKCHAND for their product and the respondents were using the name MANIKCHAND which is similar to the previous one and both parties have not registered their trademarks. Court held in this matter that even though plaintiff have not registered their trademark they are using it from long time back and hence court granted perpetual injunction against the respondents.

Even if a company is not doing business in country, but it is a well known company or well known goods, then also it would be entitled to get authority over its trademark. As given in case of N.R. Dongare v. Whirlpool Corp. Ltd. [4] where the defendants have failed to renew their trademark ‘WHIRLPOOL’ and in the mean time the plaintiffs have got registration of the same. In this case court said that though there was no sale in India, the reputation of the plaintiff company was traveling trans border to India as well through commercial publicity made in magazines which are available in or brought in India.

The “WHIRLPOOL” has acquired reputation and goodwill in this country and the same has become associated in the minds of the public. Even advertisement of trade mark without existence of goods in the mark is also to be considered as use of the trade mark. The magazines which contain the advertisement do have a circulation in the higher and upper middle income strata of Indian society. Therefore, the plaintiff acquired transborder reputation in respect of the trade mark “WHIRLPOOL” and has a right to protect the invasion thereof.

Cases of Passing Off;

Even if the goods are not same or similar to each other, then also no one can use the registered trademark of a company for any kind of goods which may result in the harm to the business and reputation of the company which is the owner of the trademark. In Honda Motors Co. Ltd. v. Mr. Charanjit Singh and Ors [5] defendant Company was using the trade name HONDA for ‘Pressure Cookers’ which they are manufacturing in India and even when their application for registration of this trademark had been rejected by the registrar they continued using it and again applied for registration and hence plaintiff has brought this plaint. Plaintiff is the well known company having presence all over the world in the field of Motor Cars, Motorcycles, Generators and other electronic appliances. They are doing business in India in association with the Siddharth Shriram Group with the name Honda Siel Cars India Ltd. Plaintiff has established that his business or goods has acquired the reputation and his trade name has become distinctive of his goods and the purchasing public at large associates the plaintiff's name with them. The use of trademark HONDA by respondents is creating deception or confusion in the minds of the public at large and such confusion is causing damage or injury to the business, reputation, goodwill and fair name of the plaintiff. Hence court has restricted the defendants from using the trademark HONDA in respect of pressure cookers or any goods or any other trade mark/marks, which are identical with and deceptively similar to the trade mark HONDA of the plaintiff and to do anything which amounts to passing off to the goods of the plaintiff.

In the case of Smithkline Beecham v. V.R. Bumtaria [6] the plaintiff applied for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from infringing the trademark, passing off, damages, delivery etc. of its registered trademark ARIFLO, used in respect of the pharmaceutical preparations. Defendants were using the similar name ACIFLO for their product of the same drug in India. Plaintiffs were not doing business in India for the particular product and argued that since their advertisements are been published in medical journals hence they have a transborder reputation and defendants should be stopped to use the similar trademark which creating deception in customers.

Court said that mere publication of an advertisement in a journal cannot establish a trans-border reputation. Such reputation if any is confined to a particular class of people, i.e., the person subscribing to the said specialized journals and the same can’t be said to be extended to the general consumers. Thus any adverse effect on the firm in such a case can’t be amounted to the offence of “passing off”.

Though the dispute resulted in compromise where the defendant agreed and accepted the plaintiffs’ exclusive right on the use of mark i.e. ARIFLO in India and abroad and further agreed to not to manufacture pharmaceutical preparations under the mark ACIFLO or any other mark identical or similar to ARIFLO.

Trade Dress:

The literal meaning of Trade Dress is - the overall image of a product used in its marketing or sales that is composed of the nonfunctional elements of its design, packaging, or labeling (as colors, package shape, or symbols). That means there is a specific way of writing any product name, its unique background and other remarkable signs. The concept of trade dress has much importance in a country like India where one third of the population is still illiterate. Trade dress helps the illiterate people who cannot read the trademark on the product as well as the manufacturers to reach the people easily.

Delhi H.C. had dealt with this concept in a detailed manner in the case of Colgate Palmolive Company and Anr. v. Anchor Health and Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd. [7] where the plaintiffs have filed the case for the ‘passing off’ of trademark and the dispute was on the colour scheme and combination of colours in a significant manner. Colgate Company was the plaintiff and questioning the use of a mark on dental product which is the combination of ‘red’ and ‘white’ in proportion of 1/3:2/3 respectively and the way of writing the name of product was also in dispute. Plaintiffs were using the mark of particular fashion from 1951 and the respondents started using it in 1996. Plaintiffs have filed the application to stop the respondents from using the particular mark.

The plaintiffs showed to the court that the look of trade dress of the two articles, one manufactured by the plaintiff and another by the defendant from the point of view of not only unwary, illiterate customer/servants of the household but semi-literate also as the trademarks "Colgate" and "Anchor" are written in English language cannot be distinguished by ordinary customer. There is every likelihood of confusion as to the source on account of the similarity of substantial portion of the container having particular colour combination and also shape of the container. Such an action on the part of infringing party also has an element of unfair competition.

Court said in this matter that may be, no party can have monopoly over a particular colour but if there is substantial reproduction of the colour combination in the similar order either on the container or packing which over a period has been imprinted upon the minds of customers it certainly is liable to cause not only confusion but also dilution of distinctiveness of colour combination. Colour combination, get up, lay out and size of container is sort of trade dress which involves overall image of the product's features. There is a wide protection against imitation or deceptive similarities of trade dress as trade dress is the soul for identification of the goods as to its source and origin and as such is liable to cause confusion in the minds of unwary customers particularly those who have been using the product over a long period.

If a product having distinctive colour combination, style, shape and texture has been in the market for decades it got attached with the reputation and goodwill of the company which could be earned at huge cost.

In the present dispute if an illiterate servant or village folk goes to the shop with the instruction to bring Colgate Tooth Power having a container of particular shop with trade dress of colour combination of Red and White in 1/3 and 2/3 proportion he will not be in position to distinguish if he is handed over "Anchor" Tooth Powder contained in a container having the identical trade dress and colour combination of "Red and White” in that order and proportion. Confusion is much large as to source and origin as the difference in name will not make any difference to such a customer and the goods of the defendant can easily be passed off as goods of the plaintiff.

Court said that significance of trade dress and colour combination is so immense that in some cases even single colour has been taken to be a trademark to be protected from passing off action. Except where the colour cannot be protected as the blue colour is for the Ink and red colour is for the lipstick or similar cases. Court said that it is been established that the defendants are using the trade dress of plaintiffs for their containers and hence Court had allowed the application of plaintiffs and restrained defendants from using the colour combination of red and white in the disputed order on the container/packaging of its goods.

Conclusion:

By this discussion we can draw following inferences:

· Registered trademark is the property of the holding company and it is directly associated with the name, reputation, goodwill and quality of products of a company.

· A company can not use the trademark of another company.

· No one can use even the similar trademark which is creating deception or confusion for the customers.

· No one can use the trademark of a company, which is well known and having a transborder reputation, even if it is not registered in India.

· Mere advertisement in a particular journal does not create transborder reputation.

· Trade dress is also a part of trade mark and no one can use the specific writing style, definite colour combination and identifiable background for packaging and labeling a product.

· Mere a single colour can also be treated as a trade dress for a specific product.

Source : ,http://www.legalserviceindia.com/article/l226-Trademark-Infringement-&-Passing-Off.htm

Nestle Owns Maggi said IPAB over Trademark Dispute

Trademarks are invaluable assets of every business. These indicate source of origin of goods and services and help the consumer’s in distinguishing goods and services of one person from that of another. Trademark indicates toward a superior quality to which the consumer associates the product with. They promote businesses and help in generating goodwill and brand value and it is on account of this inherent quality that they have emerged as one of the most sought after assets of the 21st century over which diverse claims are raised every day before the various Judicial and Quasi-judicial forums of the country.

In fact, the Indian Trademark Office is flooded with Oppositions to various Trademark Applications seeking registration of trademark for diverse categories of goods and services. One of the most recent Trademark disputes that had been decided by Quasi-Judicial Forum is that of the dispute over Trademark 'Maggi' between Switzerland based Multinational Giant Societe Des Produits Nestle and Mumbai based Swaraj Industrial and Domestic Appliances Pvt. Ltd. The Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) decided the dispute and rejected the trademark application of Swaraj industry for the registration of mark 'Maggi for various classes of goods including Home appliances, mixers and grinders.

'Maggi' is popular trade name / trademark held by Nestle for selling variety of food products around the world. This trade name has acquired distinctive character and has been in use in India since 1974. The dispute between Nestle and Swaraj industries over the trademark 'Maggi' began in 1990 when Swaraj Industries filed application for registration of mark 'Maggi' as trademark for home appliances, mixers, and grinders produced by it. Nestle Company resisted this application and claim by Swaraj industries over the mark 'Maggi'. Nestle filed opposition to the trademark office where the Senior Examiner rejected the claim by Nestle Company over the trademark 'Maggi' and held in favour of Swaraj industries thereby allowing the application for registration of trademark Maggi for Swaraj industries goods.

The Senior examiner had accepted applicant /swaraj industries argument that deception and confusion was least likely to be caused in the minds of consumer in relation to the source of origin of goods on account of trademark 'Maggi' being used by the companies for different class of goods. The senior examiner held that goods in question were quite distinct from that of Nestle and also held that Nestle could not establish its trademark was well known.

Swaraj industry had submitted before the Examiner that they had been using the mark since 1984 and the mark had acquired distinctive character with respect to their goods. Nestle on the other hand submitted that the term 'Maggi' was not a word found in dictionary and was in fact derived from the surname of the company founder Julius Maggi. Nestle also submitted that that Maggi as brand had been listed as a Super brand by many journals and crores of rupees are annually spent on the promotion of Maggi products with which people identify the company with. Nestle also submitted that trademark Maggi was being used by the company around the world since 1887 and was used in India since 1974. Nestle also submitted that it had registered Maggi as a trademark for various food product produced by it since 1970.

Nestle appealed against this order of senior examiner before the IPAB challenging the stance taken by the senior examiner of trademark office. IPAB thereafter set aside the order of the examiner and held that in favour of Nestle.

IPAB held that in case the application for registration of "Maggi" as trademark for home appliances by Swaraj industries is allowed then it was in all likelihood to cause deception and confusion in the minds of general public about the source of origin of goods. IPAB said that the goods for which Swaraj industry had claimed trademark protection were indeed "allied and cognate". IPAB said that the appellants/Nestle goods under the trademark "Maggi" are food and snack items that are purchased by the common man and the household goods of the respondent would make the common man think that the goods of the respondent emanate from the appellant source.

IPAB also observed that the respondent (Swaraj industries) had not achieved the burden of establishing the proprietorship, usage and reasons for the adoption of the trademark "Maggi". IPAB also said that respondents did not prove that such adoption would not cause deception and confusion in minds of general public in case the mark is already is vogue or is in use in another classes of goods.

Thus, IPAB set aside the order Senior Examiner and held in favour of Nestle thereby asserting the country strong initiative to protection of trademarks in India.

http://www.lawsenate.com/news/nestle-owns-maggi-said-ipab-over-trademark-dispute.html