Trans-border reputation of Trademarks in India.

A word, name, symbol, or device, which is able to identify or distinguish goods or services from others can come under the umbrella of Trademark. In other terms, Trademarks are basically almost anything that distinguishes the products and/or services from others. Even, the source of goods is indicated by Trademarks – which at times are even unknown to the consumer. The rationale for granting legal protection for Trademarks is based on the fact that they are a type of intellectual property right which demonstrate the standard and quality of products and/or services – mainly based on goodwill and reputation, and also at the same time provides legal protection to the brand from fraud and counterfeiting products and/or services. 

With a constant and long duration of usage of the Trademark, the marks gain a reputation of its own with the products and/or services that it is associated with. The reputation can be such that it is confined to a particular region, or is something which has gained popularity across borders. The popularity of Trademarks to percolate across the borders is more possible because of the advent of technology – which helps spread information locally as well as globally in no-time. 

Now, Trademark being one of the wings of Intellectual Property Law, and Law being one which evolves based on preceding and foundations as laid by the Court, Trademark law is no exception. Out of various theories in Trademark Law as is established by the court, ‘Trans-border reputation’ or ‘Cross-border reputation’ of Trademark is the theory which was established by the Courts of Indian in the celebrated case of N R Dongre v. Whirlpool Corporation, 1996 (16) PTC 583. 

Factual Background of the case:

The Whirlpool Corporation was the original and prior user of the trademark ‘whirlpool’ since 1937, which was associated with electrical goods, including washing machines. They got the trademark registered in India in 1956 which was renewed regularly, however, in the year 1977 they failed to do the renewal – and the registration expired. Subsequently, Whirlpool Corporation and TVS Whirlpool, a company incorporated in India entered into a joint venture in the year 1987 to sell machines with the said trademark. Prior to this, the machines were sold to the US embassy in India bearing the mark of whirlpool.

Meanwhile, Mr. N.R Dongre filed for registration of trademark ‘Whirlpool’ in the year 1986 – which, when published, was opposed by Whirlpool Corporation – the opposition was initially dismissed by Assistant registrar on basis of lack of reputation and non-usage of the trademark ‘whirlpool’ in India.

Subsequent proceedings:

TVS Whirlpool filed for an appeal against the order of the Assistant Registrar before the Delhi High Court, wherein, Single Judge Bench held the case in favour of TVS Whirlpool Ltd. The court stated, that TVS Whirlpool Ltd had been selling their products to the U.S embassy and ATO in India even before Mr. N.R Dongre came into the market. Additionally, TVS Whirlpool Ltd had given advertisements in various international magazines about the products under the trademark and name ‘Whirlpool’ – which were being circulated in India. Thus, a temporary injunction was granted against Mr. N.R Dongre and Co.

Subsequent to this, Mr. N.R Dongre and Co. filed an appeal before the division bench of the High Court and the decision of the Single Judge bench was upheld. Same was the case when a Special Leave Petition was filed before the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Indian Constitution.

Courts, in this case recognized the concept of ‘Trans-Border Reputation’ and established that in cases wherein one party has sufficient worldwide reputation in connection with a Trademark, they are entitled to seek protection in respect of the same irrespective of its market base or registration.

Further, in the case of Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha v. M/S Prius Auto Industries Limited, 2018 (73) PTC 1, the Supreme court held that to take the blanket of ‘Trans-Border Reputation’, one needs to prove that their mark has acquired substantial trans-border reputation (or goodwill) in India even when it has already acquired a good proportion of reputation in any other jurisdiction.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the reputation of a trademark?

Trademark is one of those Intellectual Property Rights whereby registration is not a mandate and, usage of the mark over time along with the associated goodwill, if proved, a mark owner can claim the mark to be exclusively his mark. Passing Off is the protection of the goodwill of traders about to with concerning goods and services. Now, “goodwill” is what comes with the reputation of the mark – and that is what provides inherent values to the trademark. Generally, the goodwill or reputation of a trademark is measured and valued when a company as a whole is bought or sold and the valuation associated with the goodwill is measured as the difference between the company purchase price and the value of the company’s tangible assets.

What is cross border reputation?

Cross-border or Trans-border reputation of a trademark comes into play when the mark in question crosses physical borders of territory or geography and gains the reputation of the goods or products associated with it in large. The doctrine of this Cross-border or Trans-border reputation was established in the case of N R Dongre v. Whirlpool Corporation, 1996 (16) PTC 583 whereby Supreme Court of India laid the foundation of the “Trans-Border Reputation”. The court held, even though Whirlpool was not selling in India, they can claim the benefit of transborder reputation irrespective of its market base or registration in India in scenarios when the mark has gotten wide acknowledgement and reputation across borders.

Cross-border or Trans-border reputation is different from ‘well-known trademarks’ in the sense, that Cross-border or Trans-border reputation is something which is not limited to any particular geographical territory or any specific provisions of law, while the well-known trademark can be understood as a trademark which has gained wide popularity across the country and moreover, which has reached beyond the limits of the goods and services. Further, well-known trademark is defined in Section 2 (1)(zg) of Indian Trade Marks Act 1999, while Cross-border or Trans-border reputation draws its meaning from case law precedence.

Why is reputation important for trademarks?

Reputation of a trademark is its indication of the fact it has a goodwill associated with the goods or services that it is linked to. Now, in cases whereby the reputation is not limited or confined to a particular border or territory, cross border or trans-border reputation comes into picture. In cases whereby a trademark has acquired cross border or trans-border reputation, the legal owner of that trademark can claim the protection in the business – which can be worldwide. 

What is Section 35 of the trademark Act?

Section 35 of Indian Trade Marks Act 1999 states: ‘Nothing in this Act shall entitle the proprietor or a registered user of a registered trade mark to interface with any bonafied use by a person of his own name or that of his place of business, or of the name, or of the name of the place of business, of any of his predecessors in business, or the use by any person of any bona fide description of the character or quality of his goods or services’.

This section indicates that a proprietor/user of registered trademark cannot interfere with a person or any of its predecessors with bonafied use of his name or place of business or both or use by any person of bonafied description of character or quality of goods. This section is more so applicable in cases whereby the mark isn’t applied for registration.

Contact our trademark experts

Grounds for Refusal of Trademark Registration in India – A Complete Guide

A name, word, or symbol that distinguishes goods or services from those of other businesses can be a subject matter for Trademark registration in India under the Trademark Act, 1999. The Trade Marks Act, 1999 defines a “trademark” under Section 2(1)(zb) as – “a mark capable of being represented graphically and which is capable of distinguishing the goods and services of one person from those of others and may include the shape of goods, their packaging and combination of colours.

Thus, it is a type of intellectual property which is denoted by visual representation in the form of signs, symbols, words, mark or a logo to distinguish one product/service from other. Though a Trademark registration isn’t mandatory in India, it is preferred to have the mark registered – that helps strengthen the case – if so required when any objection is faced in the future. Thus, an applicant, who claims to be the owner of a mark can apply for the registration of a Trademark by application in writing to the competent registrar in an authorised manner. 

Registration of a mark ensures that those are legally protected and cannot or should not be used to misrepresent products or confuse consumers. In other words, trademark registration grants complete ownership to the registered owner of the mark. 

Though the act doesn’t explicitly mention the grounds of satisfaction of which a trademark will be granted registration, it spells out the grounds for refusal of registration of a trademark. The Trademark Act, 1999 mentions two grounds for refusal of a trademark registration in India, and those are:

  • Absolute grounds for refusal of registration (Section 9) 
  • Relative Grounds for refusal of registration (Section 11) 

Absolute grounds for refusal of registration (Section 9) 

Section 9 of the Trademark Act, 1999 lays down various conditions, which makes it a hard stop for getting a Trademark grant if the proposed mark is found to fulfil those conditions. The grounds are: 

  • Marks which are devoid of any distinctive character,
  • Marks that are indications or marks that are used in commerce to define the quantity, quality, type, values, intended purpose, or geographical origin of goods or services rendered,
  • Marks or indications which have become customary in the current language or in the bona fide and established practices of the trade, shall not be registered,
  • Nature of the mark is such that it can deceive the public or cause confusion,
  • The mark it contains or comprises of any matter likely to hurt the religious susceptibilities of any class or section of the citizens of India,
  • If the mark comprises or contains scandalous or obscene matter,
  • If the use of the mark is prohibited under the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950 (12 of 1950),
  • Marks resulting from the nature of the goods themselves,
  • Marks that add significant value to the goods,
  • Marks whose shape adds significant value to the goods.

These absolute grounds of refusal are related to the benefit of public policy – with the legislative intent to protect the legitimate interest of the traders as well as the public who are genuine and bona fide users of various marks in relation to their goods/services.

However, if a mark has acquired “distinctive character” over a period of time and has thus become a “well known trademark”, the same wont be refused for registration – given the fact that the applicant is able to prove the same. 

Relative Grounds for refusal of registration (Section 11) 

Section 11 of the Trademark Act, 1999 mentions the relative grounds for refusal for registration of a mark. If a mark is found to confuse public on account of a mark being identical or similar to an earlier trademark, the same won’t be allowed for registration under this section.  Various other grounds which are listed under relative grounds of refusal are:

Section 11(1) states the following grounds for refusal:

  • Trademarks which confuse the public as it is identical with an earlier similar trademark of goods or services.
  • Trademarks which confuse the public as it is similar with an earlier identical trademark of goods or services.

Section 11(2) states the following grounds for refusal:

  • Trademarks which would take unfair advantage of a similar or identical earlier well-known trademark in India.
  • Trademarks which would be detrimental to the distinctive character or repute of a similar or identical earlier well-known trademark in India.

Section 11(3) states the following grounds for refusal:

  • The usage of the trademark is bound to be prevented by the law of passing off protecting an unregistered trademark used in the course of trade.
  • The usage of the trademark is bound to be prevented by the law of copyright.

However, if the applicant is able to prove ‘honest concurrent use’ of the proposed mark and an already registered mark, then the same may not be refused taking the umbrella of Section 12 of the Trademark Act. 

Frequently Asked Questions

Why and when is trademark refused in India? 

A Trademark application can get refused in India if the proposed mark falls under any of the categories of Absolute grounds of Refusal or Relative Grounds of Refusal. Any of the proposed mark that falls within the scope of Section 9 or Section 11 of the Trademark Act, 1999 which details about the grounds of Absolute and Relative grounds of refusal is ineligible for registration and holds the likelihood of getting refused.

What are the grounds of refusal of trademark section 9? 

Section 9 of the Trademark Act, 1999 mentions about the Absolute grounds of refusal. Any of the proposed mark falling under any of the grounds as mentioned would stand ineligible for registration. The grounds are:

  • Marks which are devoid of any distinctive character,
  • Marks that are indications or marks that are used in commerce to define the quantity, quality, type, values, intended purpose, or geographical origin of goods or services rendered,
  • Marks or indications which have become customary in the current language or in the bona fide and established practices of the trade, shall not be registered,
  • Nature of the mark is such that it can deceive the public or cause confusion,
  • The mark it contains or comprises of any matter likely to hurt the religious susceptibilities of any class or section of the citizens of India,
  • If the mark comprises or contains scandalous or obscene matter,
  • If the use of the mark is prohibited under the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950 (12 of 1950),
  • Marks resulting from the nature of the goods themselves,
  • Marks that add significant value to the goods,
  • Marks whose shape adds significant value to the goods.

What is descriptiveness refusal/rejection of trademark? 

At the stage of office action, if the examiner believes that the proposed mark is merely descriptive about the goods or services with which it is to be associated, then they can reject/refuse it – that’s what is called descriptiveness refusal. For example, a merely descriptive mark is “CREAMY” for yogurt – it is merely descriptive based on the fact that it describes the nature of the product, i.e. yogurt that it is associated with. 

This refusal finds its base from Section 9(1)(b) of the Trademark Act which states that “trade marks which consist exclusively of marks or indications which may serve in trade to designate the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, values, geographical origin or the time of production of the goods or rendering of the service or other characteristics of the goods or service, shall not be registered”.

The owner/proposer of such a mark has to be in a position to show that the mark in question though descriptive, in its true sense, has come to be associated solely with the company so as to over come the refusal/rejection. 

What is provisional refusal/rejection in trademark?

Refusing/rejecting a trademark application on a provisional basis is termed as provisional refusal/rejection. This is the notification issued by the Indian trademark office when there are issues or concerns with an international trademark application filed through the Madrid Protocol that designates India. It refers to the initial objection or refusal issued by an individual national trademark office (known as the “Office of Origin”).

Once a Provisional refusal is issued, the applicant is required to respond and address the objections raised by the national trademark office.

Contact our experts