Trademark Law - No confusion between words ‘Blacksmith’ and ‘Goldsmith’

Finding no case of infringement and passing off of mark ‘Blacksmith’ by mark ‘Goldsmith’, Delhi High Court has dismissed the suit for permanent injunction. It noted that dictionary meanings of words were different and they were unlikely to be remembered by breaking into two parts, i.e. Black and Smith or Gold and Smith.

The Court in the case of Jaideep Mohan v. Hub International Industries it was held that a consumer of the products of the plaintiff and the defendants was likely to remember the said products by the meaning thereof, i.e. of the composite word – ‘Blacksmith’ and ‘Goldsmith’, which translate in Hindi language to ‘Lohar’ and ‘Sunar’, respectively.

Distinguishing a number of judgments, it held that it was highly unlikely that a consumer of alcoholic beverage in Hindi speaking belt would get confused. Court in this regard also noted that there was no confusion on account of packaging or shape of bottle/container.

Dismissing the suit, the Court was of the opinion that the suit was not required to be put through the rigmarole of trial, when no case of infringement or passing off was found even at that stage.

If The Threat Of Infringement Exists, Then Courts Have Jurisdiction To Entertain The Suit

The Coca-Cola Company Vs.Bisleri International Pvt. Ltd Manu/DE/2698/2009

IPR Law- Infringement: Export: Threats: Jurisdiction – The Delhi High Court held that if the threat of infringement exists, then this court would certainly have jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

It was also held that the exporting of goods from a country is to be considered as sale within the country from where the goods are exported and the same amounts to infringement of trade mark.

In the present matter, the defendant, by a master agreement, had sold and assigned the trade mark MAAZA including formulation rights, know-how, intellectual property rights, goodwill etc for India only. with respect to a mango fruit drink known as MAAZA.

In 2008, the defendant filed an application for registration of the trade mark MAAZA in Turkey started exporting fruit drink under the trade mark MAAZA. The defendant sent a legal notice repudiating the agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant, leading to the present case. The plaintiff, the Coca Cola Company also claimed permanent injunction and damages for infringement of trade mark and passing off.

It was held by the court that the intention to use the trade mark besides direct or indirect use of the trade mark was sufficient to give jurisdiction to the court to decide on the issue. The court finally granted an interim injunction against the defendant (Bisleri) from using the trade mark MAAZA in India as well as for export market, which was held to be infringement of trade mark

Suit For Infringement Of Registered Trade Mark Is Maintainable Against Another Registered Proprietor Of Identical Or Similar Trade Mark

Clinique Laboratories LLCand Anr. Vs. Gufic Limited and Anr. MANU/DE/0797/2009

IPR Law- Suit for infringement by a registered trade mark owner against a registered trade mark holder: Conditions-The present dispute was between the registered trade mark of the plaintiff as well as defendant. It is interesting to note that before filing the suit the plaintiff i.e. Clinique had filed a cancellation petition before the Registrar of Trade Marks, India, against the defendant for cancellation of the defendant’s trade mark CLINIQ. As per the Section 124(1) (ii), of the Indian Trade Marks Act, 1999 a suit is liable to be stayed till the cancellation petition is finally decided by the competent authority.

However, under Section 124(5) of the Act, the court has the power to pass interlocutory order including orders granting interim injunction, keeping of account, appointment of receiver or attachment of any property.

In this case, the court held that a suit for infringement of registered trade mark is maintainable against another registered proprietor of identical or similar trade mark.

It was further held that in such suit, while staying the suit proceedings pending decision on rectification/cancellation petition, the court can pass interim injunction restraining the use of the registered trade mark by the defendant, subject to the condition that the court is prima facie convinced of invalidity of registration of the defendant’s trade mark. In this case the court granted an interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff till the disposal of the cancellation petition by the competent authority.

Speedy disposal of Intellectual property rights cases

BajajAuto Limited Vs. TVS Motor Company Limited JT 2009 (12) SC 103

 Dispute over Patent for the Use of Twin-Spark Plug Engine Technology – Speedy disposal of Intellectual property rights cases- The Supreme Court of India by this landmark judgment has directed all the courts in India for speedy trial and disposal of intellectual property related cases in the courts in India. In two-year-old dispute involving two companies, which have been locked in a patent dispute over the use of a twin-spark plug engine technology, the Supreme Court observed that suits relating to the matters of patents, trademarks and copyrights are pending for years and years and litigation is mainly fought between the parties about the temporary injunction. The Supreme Court directed that hearing in the intellectual property matters should proceed on day to day basis and the final judgment should be given normally within four months from the date of the filing of the suit. The Supreme Court further directed to all the courts and tribunals in the country to punctually and faithfully carry out the aforesaid orders.

Trademark and Copyright Law

Because of the value of even the simplest phrase, celebrities today are utilizing copyright and trademark law to protect their intellectual rights in instances rarely before noticed. It is Copyright and Trademark Law which requires their lawyers to send cease and desist letters to unsuspecting entrepreneurs. A balance needs to be restored so celebrities can proceed against large scale pirates even if they don’t aggressively seek to protect their intellectual property rights in every case.

Recently Publicized Trademark and Copyright Actions by Attorneys for Celebrities

Individuals and small businesses have recently been surprised to receive cease and desist letters from entertainers like Taylor Swift and Katy Perry for everything from TaylorSwift song lyrics on a coffee cup to a 3D print of the left shark in Katy Perry’s Super Bowl performance. So what’s up with that?

It’s been said that entertainers are now blurring the lines between copyright, trademark and patent law simply to make more money or to prevent others from making money off of them. However, there actually is precedent for making claims that a musician’s lyrics are protected under trademark law and that other images created by a performer and likewise associated with that entertainer are protected under copyright law.

Trademark Law

The cease and desist letter sent by Taylor Swift’s attorneys to prevent her lyrics from being printed on coffee cups sold to the public is an example of how entertainers today are seeking to protect their work from being infringed by others under trademark law.

It would be difficult today for any lyricist or musician to claim that they discovered, invented or created the grouping of any few words in a song title or the song’s lyrics for the very first time and that no one ever before them had come along to do so. Although at some point, someone must have said each phrase in any language for the very first time, it’s doubtful they ever became so well known for having used the phrase that others would immediately associate the phrase with that person.

Today, while the lyrics of a songwriter would be a valid work that could be copyrighted so as to entitle the musician to bring suit for copyright infringement against anyone using them in a copyrightable work themselves, with the exception of the fair use doctrine (which is an entire subject on its own) for slight uses, the average person on the street would not expect that the lyrics could be trademarked so as to prevent the use of even a one-line lyric on a coffee cup. But they can. They can be trademarked as well as copyrighted. So what is going on here?

The theory behind an assertion that lyrics or a slogan, or a phrase can be trademarked is that the lyrics have become so distinctly associated with the entertainer themself or their song in the case of lyrics, that they have acquired secondary meaning, thus allowing the performer the right to protect the phrase in any type of commerce, such as on coffee cups or other goods.

Is it really worth it to trademark a phrase that you’re associated with? Consider the trademarked phrase, “Let’s Get Ready to Rumble.” It’s been reported that this one simple phrase has generated $400 million to it’s owner, Michael Buffer.

Is such a legal assertion going to hold water for the local street performer or even an emerging artist on a singing competition on television. In nearly every instance, the answer would be no. But for someone of Taylor Swift’s stature, or Katy Perry’s or the Beatles? Yes.

But why should it be necessary for such artists who are most assuredly making more money than we can imagine need to prevent a small entrepreneur from making a small amount of money from coffee cups with a songwriter’s lyrics on them? Because trademark law in the U.S. requires them to do just that if they want to protect their works.

Trademark law require a quick response from the owner of a work in which they assert ownership to prevent the unauthorized use of their work. This is normally achieved by use of a “cease and desist” letter to the alleged infringer of their work. It’s not a lawsuit, but it’s a none-too-polite way of warning the alleged infringer that if they don’t stop using the person’s work in commerce, a lawsuit will follow, which can be far more expensive to defend in most cases, with the risk of a judgement for damages, than stopping what it is they’re doing that has brought the ire of the work’s owner, in this case the lyricist or performer.

The typical cease and desist letter, whether it’s used to stop an alleged trademark infringement or an alleged copyright infringement, warns the alleged infringer that their continued use or sale of the alleged infringing products may subject them to a judgement for actual damages, statutory damages, and punitive damages as well as immediate and permanent injunctive relief if they are found to have infringed the owner’s copyright or trademark. What such a letter also fails to mention, is that the attorney fees and costs in defending such a lawsuit may be so expensive as to even force them into bankruptcy.

Even if the claim that’s made by the attorneys for the artist in a cease and desist letter is bogus, specious at best, in most cases it simply isn’t worth it for the individual or a small business to wage the fight against a deep-pocketed performer just to win a small victory that obtains only the right to sell an item rather than the damages the performer could win for the infringement of their work.

Copyright Law

The cease and desist letter sent by Katy Perry’s lawyers to the owner of an online store selling 3D printed replicas of the left shark in Katy Perry’s Super Bowl performance was based on an assertion by her lawyers that the sale of 3D print of the shark costume were infringing Katy Perry’s rights under U.S. copyright law.

Perhaps to the surprise of Katy Perry’s lawyers, in this case, they received a response from an NYU law professor representing the owner of the online store.

The law professor tweeted that he felt the left shark was not copyrightable because it qualified as a “useful article” which is not protected the same way as an artistic work. The law professor also sent a letter in response to Katy Perry’s lawyers, questioning whether the singer’s lawyers had over-asserted the strength of their client’s rights.

In his letter, the professor wondered what Katy Perry could possibly have to gain from their declared war on the left shark internet meme. He asked why the lawyers for Katy Perry could feel that the costume of a shark is copyrightable in view of the fact, he stated, that the U.S. Copyright Office has made it clear that costumes are not. It should be noted however, that another law professor has also weighed in on the subject stating that an animal costume can be copyrighted, so long as it is not generic.

Regardless, the law professor representing the online store owner made it clear that his client just wanted to go back to his business and would be grateful if Katy Perry’s lawyers would just back off. As the law professor said, going ahead with a dubious copyright claim would not benefit Katy Perry. He also questioned whether the NFL rather than Katy Perry had ownership of any copyright interest in the costume.

But indeed, if Katy Perry did design the costume or had a designer transfer their copyright interest to her, and if she felt she might use it in future shows and possibly even sell replicas herself at concerts, even if the NFL had control over the content of the Super Bowl halftime show, this is what copyright law also requires of anyone owning a copyright - a quick assertion of their rights upon learning of any infringement of them.

To a performer in today’s spotlight across all mediums of the universe which can be very bright indeed, the performer’s intellectual property is their most valuable asset. In 1985, Michael Jackson bought the publishing rights to most of the Beatles songs for a mere $47.5 million. Today this amount looks ridiculously small, and in fact it was even then. The purchase of the Beatles catalogue meant that Jackson was free to license any song previously owned by the former music publishing arm of The Beatles to any brand he chose.

Jackson was later able to sell his rights to Sony for $95 million and still acquire half ownership in Sony/ATV Publishing as well, a company which today is worth billions. (ATV had previously purchased the Beatles catalogue from Northern Songs, the Beatles publishing arm.) Due to a notoriously terrible contract John Lennon and Paul McCartney signed at the start of their career, Northern Songs owned the publishing rights to over 250 Beatles songs, including all of their hits at height of Beatlemania.

The online store owner attempting to sell Katy Perry’s shark costume perhaps summed up the perspective of the small entrepreneur who receives cease and desist letters today with a few choice words. He said it appeared to be easier to deal with world leaders like Kim Jong Un or Chris Christie and that he would go back to making pieces about them and other world leaders (although we’re not sure Chris Christie would qualify as such). His final thought on the subject was more astute - “All this lawyer crap is very stressful.”

Dealing with lawyers preventing a small business person from making a little money can indeed be very stressful. But this is what trademark and copyright law requires of the attorney who has been tasked with protecting every possible intellectual property asset of their client. The lawyer may not like putting the strong arm on a business person just trying to make a living, but for the business person who now has to give up a line of products he or she may have invested some money in producing, and who may have done so without thinking of the consequences when they should have known better, there is considerably more stress felt upon receipt of a lawyer’s cease and desist letter.

While the seller of the coffee cups with Taylor Swift lyrics printed on them and the maker of the 3D prints of the left shark in Katy Perry’s Super Bowl performance may not have anticipated they were infringing anyone’s copyright or trademark interest, neither should Taylor Swift nor Katy Perry be criticized when trademark law and copyright law requires them to have their lawyers do exactly what they did, namely to aggressively protect their clients’ intellectual property rights.     

Is it necessary for a lyricist or songwriter to prevent their lyrics from being sold on any type of item? Under trademark law as it exists today, probably so, if the lyrics are so distinctly associated with the songwriter and performer that they have acquired secondary meaning under the law.

Is it necessary for a performer to prevent others from selling the same costume they create or have someone else create for them to use in a performance? Under copyright law, probably so as well, if the artist wants to retain the exclusive right to use the costume in future performances thus acquiring an even stronger acquired secondary meaning that will allow that artist to copyright the costume and later sell it themselves as a Halloween costume.

If Jimmy Buffet had a Parrothead costume, which for all we know he may have, and he used it in his performances, no one would question his right to have it copyrighted. The name, Parrothead, is already trademarked by Jimmy Buffet and his company, Margaritaville Enterprises, for various products.

Today, however, the brand of a performing artist, sports figure or model is so much bigger than just their music, their achievements on the field or their photos, it’s everything else that allows them to market themselves across all the different platforms available to them today. And that is why too a celebrity must also be careful not to appear to be petty at the expense of the little person.

Unfortunately for the celebrity, in today’s world when their every action and those of their attorneys are publicized, even when they do exactly what is required of them by trademark and copyright law, their actions can appear to be unjustified.

While it may be important to protect one’s intellectual property, because of he importance of their brand’s image, a celebrity would not be wise to sic their lawyers on an autistic little girl’s lemonade stand selling hand drawings of their celebrity client to help pay for her mother’s cancer treatment. And let’s be clear, we know of no such instance having occurred to date and we doubt any celebrity would ever knowingly have their attorneys take such an action.

We should also make it clear that copyright and trademark laws are essential and are crucial to protecting the rights of the creative artist who develops a screenplay or produces a film, writes music or a book or creates a line of clothing or jewelry or anything else due to their talent as artists and creative people against those who would sell pirated copies of their films, produce knock offs of women’s handbags or designs of clothing, or of an artist’s paintings. Our firm, just like any other firm who practices copyright and trademark law will proceed against such a copyright or trademark infringer without a second thought.

But there must obviously be some balance between protecting one’s intellectual property while allowing the little person to sell a product that has only a tangential relationship with a celebrity. What is thus needed is a change in the law that allows both parties to coexist peaceably and which does not, by their coexistence, cause the celebrity to forfeit their intellectual property rights if they choose to allow the little girl at her lemonade stand to sell her drawings without receiving a letter from an attorney.

Perhaps when the copyright and trademark laws are rewritten, that balance and peace between the celebrity and the little guy or girl will be restored while still allowing the creative artist’s lawyers to proceed with all the resources at their disposal against pirates who would seek to profit in large scale off the back of the creative artist.

http://www.hg.org/article.asp?id=34586

An end to trademark grabbing in China

Will the introduction of a new Trademark Law in China address the issue of trademark grabbing by unauthorized Chinese parties, 

At the end of August, the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress adopted the third amendment to the Trademark Law of the People’s Republic of China, which will enter into force on May 1, 2014.What is the implications of the new law and does it address the concerns of trademark holders as to the rampant instances of trademark grabbing by unauthorized Chinese parties?

Challenges under the current trademark law

The actual trademark law, and the related case law of Chinese civil courts as well as the practice of the relevant administrative bodies in charge of trademark protection in China have clearly failed in preventing and punishing a most common form of trademark infringement in China, namely that of the so called trademark grabbing together with the related fall out of trademark trolls actions against foreign investors in China.

Trademark Grabbing

Under Chinese trademark law, only a registered trademark enjoys protection and the first person or entity to register it becomes its lawful owner, even if that trademark has already been used by others in China. Known as “trademark trolls,” certain Chinese companies or individuals are known to actively follow a strategy of registering intellectual property rights in China that arguably belong to their foreign competitors. Aware of the very strict “first to file” principle, they identify, apply and register trademarks belonging to competitors who have forgotten or not yet taken steps to register them.

The actual law and the related practice of all relevant civil and administrative bodies cannot prevent such occurrences. The usurped right holder’s only actual recourse is that of filing a trademark cancellation action and wait years for the hostile trademark to be cancelled, if this is actually really going to happen. The problem for the rightful trademark owner is that in the meanwhile, any act of manufacturing, selling, importing and offering for sale of his products with that stolen trademark, will constitute an act of infringement. The result: the grabber, aware of this, may file a civil or administrative enforcement, thus damaging the foreign company’s business and reputation. There have been indeed several of such trademark troll cases in China in the last years.

No right to prior use

The current legal system does not recognize any legal right to the prior use the foreign holder has made in China of that trademark before the registration of the same obtained by the usurper. The system does lack indeed a legal structure to balance the possible injustice created by the strict observance of the principle of “first to file”.

Trademark grabbing particularly affects medium and small foreign enterprises in China. Lack of knowledge of the trademark system of this country leads often to ineffective trademark filing policies. The loopholes left by unsystematic trademark filings are cleverly exploited by individuals (professional grabbers), competitors, and by local business partners. The latter may initially even do it in good faith, but may later discover that this is a very good bargaining weapon and a preventive tool in case they decide to leave the partnership and become competitors.

Seen in this perspective, trademark grabbing can indeed cause a business to be prevented or to be forced to leave the Chinese market in consequence to the “legal” loss of its brand and the related goodwill.

What solutions does the new Trademark Law hold?

The fact that trademark grabbing has actually reached levels that negatively affect fair competition and distort the principles backing the first to file system upon which the Chinese trademark law is based, has been now fully acknowledged and concrete changes of policy are now visible in the new trademark law.

The first acknowledgement of the existence of an unfair exploitation and abuse of the rule of first to file is the first time ever embodiment of the principle of good faith/bad faith in the trademark Law. Article 7 of the Trademark Law now expressly provides that the application for registration and use of a trademark shall be based on the principle of good faith. Such principle alone can constitute now a solid legal ground to file a trademark cancellation. Such wasn’t the case in the past, due to the lack of a legal base upon which to support a bad faith registration claim.

Aside from reinforcing the legal grounds for filing cancellations against the grabbed trademarks and speeding up the timing for completion of cancellation procedures, a most important change of policy and an exception to the “first-to-file” principle, is now contained in the new trademark law. For the first time in the history of the trademark law of China, if we exclude the case of unregistered well-known trademark, a right of prior use of a trademark in China is recognized under certain conditions, with a positive fall-out for the rightful owner in cases of trademark grabbing.

Article 59 of the third amendment of the trademark law provides that if someone has used a mark identical or similar to a registered trademark, in respect to identical or similar goods, before the date of filing of the latter trademark, and under the condition that the prior mark has meanwhile obtained a certain degree of reputation in China due to its use, the trademark registrant has no right to prevent the prior user from further employing such mark within the original scope of its use. At most, the trademark registrant may impose to the prior user the addition of an indication of distinction to the prior mark.

The norm goes even further by protecting the prior use of designs and shapes which may later form the body of a registered trademark or 3D mark. According to the same article 59, the exclusive right owner of a registered trademark may not prohibit others from the rightful use of the generic names, models or designs of the goods as included in the registered trademark, including registered 3D marks.

Even if the trademark grabber dared filing an enforcement lawsuit against the prior user, not only he would face the risk of rejection of his claims based on art. 59, but will also be subject to another risk related to the non-use of the stolen trademark. In fact, article 64 of the new trademark law provides that the alleged infringer, in this case the prior user, can raise non-use as a defense in a civil lawsuit for trademark infringement and the plaintiff has the burden to prove that he has used the trademark during the last three years from the date of the lawsuit.

If the Plaintiff fails to prove the use of the trademark as requested, the defendant will be exempted from the payment of any damages. Considering that in force of article 59 the prior user can continue to use its mark within its original scope of use, a lawsuit in such a case would be of no consequence for the prior user. Such situation is actually the most typical in cases of trademark grabbing. Most grabbers will in fact not use the trademark, given that the only purpose of stealing is to prevent the filing and use of the trademark by the foreign prior user.

A welcome addition

These new norms are a welcome addition to the Trademark Law. The prior user will have thus the right to continue to use his unregistered marks in China while attempting the cancellation of the stolen trademarks. This will give to the prior user and rightful owner of that sign to prepare and implement cancellations strategies without stopping his business in China.

At the same time, this norm should also discourage the trademark grabbers, especially the professional ones since they normally just grab marks but do not use them. In this respect, a further restraint from grabbing is provided by the new article 64, especially considering that most grabbers never use their trademarks and with such awareness will likely refrain from civil enforcement.

Sourcehttp://www.globallegalpost.com/global-view/an-end-to-trademark-grabbing-60583530/#.UmtsQXCky9Q

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

Five Things About Intellectual Property That a Startup Should Consider

Intellectual property rights (IPR) system traces its roots back to 3200 BC. Renaissance Northern Italy is thought to be the cradle of IP system. The first copyright was issued to a printing press invented in the 16th century while the first patent was issued in Florence in 15th century to Filippo Brunelleschi for a floating architectural crane. Trademarks are the oldest category of IPR.

Any organization that is planning its entry into the market should definitely keep IPR in mind. Because the benefits will not just make you richer but can far outweigh the other tangible benefits you get from your business.

Here are five points for a startup to keep in mind :

1. Single intellectual property right is enough to launch your venture

A strong single IP right can give an edge to your new venture and also makes your entry into the market comparatively easy. IP can build a fortress around the organization and protect it from competition. To leverage IP correctly, it is important to know the IP focus of an organization. For example, if you are a technology driven startup, then patents will play a major role besides copyright, trademark & industrial design. If the startup is in the business of movies, then copyright is the king. If the startup is related to games or animation then industrial design along with copyright will take prime position.

Google’s first patent, US6285999, filed on Jan 9, 1998 called Page Rank was a link analysis algorithm. The patent was assigned to Stanford University and not Google in the beginning, as this technology was developed by Sergey Brin and Larry Page when they were PhD students at Standford. Google had exclusive license rights on the patent from Stanford University. Later on the founders purchased the rights from the University for 1.8 million shares of Google in exchange of use of patent. Later in 2005 the University altogether sold the shares for $336 million. Both the institute (assignee) and students (inventors) rightfully exploited their IP rights to build today’s tech giant, Google. The Page Rank IP also holds a trademark protection – an example of a single invention being protected by two different types of IP.

2. DEVELOP YOUR IP PORTFOLIO

It would be a good idea for startups or any business, to align core competencies of business with their IP strategy. This helps to build a strong IP portfolio. Almost all patents of Google are in ‘computing, calculating and counting’ domain. Thus Google follows a very focused innovation and IP generation process.

For example: In the computing space, Google has registered a patent to detect events of interest in context of network traffic, registered as US7970934B1. In this case Google has registered the patent which forecasts the traffic that will come to the Google Search page to search information about any event of interest, like an earthquake. This helps them efficiently manage site traffic and improve user experience.

3. BE AWARE OF IPR OF OTHERS

It is advisable for startups to know the IPR of others to avoid infringement. Remember ‘law does not forgive ignorance’, so no point pleading ignorance in case of a lawsuit.

In October 2006 when Google acquired YouTube, organizations like Viacom Mediaset and the English Premier League filed lawsuits against YouTube for violation of copyright. Viacom said that more than 150,000 unauthorized clips of material owned by Viacom were viewed on YouTube. And Google had to payup for this unauthorized use of Viacom’s IP right.

4. OBSERVE YOUR COMPETITION

Besides an internal focus, it is desirable to keep an eye on your competitor’s IP development. Patent analytics and business analytics can help know the technology trend and market scenario of competitors.

Google keeps a close watch on what Yahoo!, Microsoft, eBay, Amazon, Facebook, Hulu and Washington Post among others are what they are doing. Known as competitive intelligence, Google tracks its competitor’s technology development closely to ensure they are not caught unawares. For example, when Google launched Google Docs it was in direct competition to Microsoft Office’s Word. This gave users the advantage to directly work on a word file online without have to download it to make any changes. This move by Google has impacted the need for users to have a licensed copy of MS Word on their devices to work.

5. COMPETE WITH YOURSELF

To grow, compete with yourself and develop new technologies or brands which will satisfy your customer. When Larry & Sergey founded Google in 1998, they started with their core product — search engine. Later they built the revolutionary email platform – Gmail, creating threat for Yahoo! and have now ventured into cloud based applications that threatens Microsoft.

The creations by Google are result of out-of-the-box thinking which resulted in disruptive innovations. This intellectual input by inventors at Google is rightly protected by IP regimes. And Google is able to commercialize these inventions appropriately and at the right time.

Source: Gouri Gargate, Yourstory. in

Agarwal and Company Law Offices LLP.

India Joins the International Trademark System

Minister for Commerce and Industry, Mr. Anand Sharma submitted India's instrument of accession to the Madrid Protocol for the International Registration of Marks at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). MR. Sharma is attending a High Level Policy Dialogue on "Innovation and Development: The Indian Experience" at the WIPO. The treaty will come into force with respect to India from July 8, 2013.

The main attraction of the Madrid System is that it offers a trademark owner the opportunity of having his trademark protected in all the member countries of the Madrid system through a single application in a single language with a single set of fees. As a result of India joining the Madrid System, trademark owners can get their trademarks protected in the Indian market as well as in the markets of the eighty nine other member countries through a single application. This step therefore, makes it much easier for trademark owners to get protection for their trademarks in India by significantly reducing the paperwork and currency involved. The same benefit is also available for Indian companies who want their trademarks protected in the other 89 member countries of the Madrid  System.

The Madrid System also allows trademark owners the benefit of online tools which can be used to find existing trademarks, estimate the filing costs and to make electronic payments for the same, check registration status etc. This makes the task of subsequent management of the trademark much easier as well as registration can be renewed online and subsequent changes can be recorded etc through a single procedural step.

These benefits have resulted in the Madrid System becoming attractive for large businesses as well as SME's.  While there has generally been a strong growth in demand for IPR's in 2012, there has been a 4.1% increase in the number of trademark applications filed under the Madrid system in particular in 2012 as compared to 2011. In fact there were 44,018 applications filed in 2012 which was the highest number of applications filed under the Madrid system till date.

On the whole, India's membership in the Madrid System appears to be a welcome step for foreign companies who wish to register their trademarks in India as well as for Indian companies who can get registration for their trademarks in any or all of the member countries of the Madrid system, according to their business needs through a cost-effective, time-friendly, comparatively hassle-free step.

ü      The Madrid system (officially the Madrid system for the international registration of marks) is the primary international system for facilitating the registration of trademarks in multiple jurisdictions around the world.

ü      Its legal basis is the multilateral treaty Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks of 1891, as well as the Protocol Relating to the Madrid Agreement (1989).

ü      The Madrid system provides a centrally administered system of obtaining a bundle of trademark registrations in separate jurisdictions.

ü      Registration through the Madrid system does not create an ‘international’ registration, as in the case of the European Community Trade Mark system; rather, it creates a bundle of national rights able to be administered centrally.

ü      Madrid provides a mechanism for obtaining trademark protection in many countries around the world which is more effective than seeking protection separately in each individual country or jurisdiction of interest.

ü      Madrid now permits the filing, registration and maintenance of trade mark rights in more than one jurisdiction, provided that the target jurisdiction is a party to the system.

ü      The Madrid system is administered by the International Bureau of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) in Geneva, Switzerland.

Agarwal and Company Law Offices LLP., India