A Complete Overview on the Attributes of a Good Trademark

Trademarks are valuable assets for companies because they act as representations of a brand’s identity and enable customers to differentiate between the goods and services offered by a variety of different companies. The Indian Trademarks Act of 1999 is the piece of legislation that controls trademark registration and protection in India. A trademark must have specific characteristics to be eligible for registration under this statute. This article explores the key attributes of a good trademark as per the Indian Trademarks Act, with a particular focus on Section 11 and the absolute and relative grounds of refusal.

Distinctiveness: The Foundation of a Strong Trademark

Distinctiveness is a key component of a successful trademark. A distinguishing mark is one that distinguishes a brand and aids consumers in determining the origin of goods or services. Naturally distinctive marks have a higher chance of being accepted for registration. These include marks that are random or imaginative and have no connection to the products or services they stand for. For instance,

  • “Apple” for computers and electronic devices is an arbitrary mark as it has no direct link to the products.
  • “Google” for search engine is a fanciful mark as it is an invented word.

Avoid Descriptive or Generic Terms

Conversely, descriptive, or generic terms are not considered distinctive and forms an absolute ground of refusal of registered of a trademark under Section 9(1)(b) of the Trademarks Act. Descriptive terms directly describe the goods or services and cannot be monopolized by a single entity as a trademark. Generic terms are common names for the products or services and cannot be registered as trademarks. Examples include:

  • “Creamy” for ice cream: This term is descriptive as it directly conveys a characteristic of the product.
  • “Computer” for computers: This term is generic as it is the common name for the product itself.

Section 11: Relative Grounds of Refusal

Section 11 of the Trademarks Act, 1999, deals with the relative grounds for refusal of a trademark application. It seeks to impede the registration of marks that might conflict with already-registered trademarks or applications that are still pending. Under this section, the following variables are considered:

  1. Identical or Similar Marks

Section 11 allows for the refusal of a trademark application if it is identical or similar to an existing registered trademark or a pending application in the same class of goods or services. The similarity can cause consumer confusion, making it difficult for them to distinguish between the sources of the products or services.

Example: “Starbuds” for a new coffee brand may be refused if there is an existing registered trademark for “Starbucks” in the same class.

  1. Likelihood of Confusion

The concept of “likelihood of confusion” is critical in determining the refusal of a trademark application. If a mark is likely to cause confusion among the public regarding the origin or association of goods or services, it will be rejected under Section 11.

Example: “Quick Bite” for a fast-food restaurant might be refused if there is already a registered trademark for “Quick Bites” in the same category.

  1. Reputation of the Existing Mark

The reputation of an existing trademark is another factor that plays a role in the refusal process. If a mark has gained substantial goodwill and reputation in the market, any new application that could potentially dilute or tarnish the distinctiveness of the existing mark is likely to be refused.

Example: “Nike Fried Chicken” for a new food chain might face refusal due to the reputation of the well-known “Nike” sportswear brand.

Absolute Grounds of Refusal

In addition to relative grounds, the Trademarks Act also specifies absolute grounds for refusing a trademark registration. These are characteristics or qualities inherent in the mark itself that render it ineligible for protection. Some of the absolute grounds for refusal are:

  1. Lack of Distinctiveness

As discussed earlier, a mark lacking distinctiveness, i.e., descriptive or generic terms, is subject to refusal under absolute grounds. The primary purpose of a trademark is to distinguish the goods or services, and a mark that merely describes the products cannot fulfill this function.

Example: “Crispy Chips” for potato chips may be refused due to its descriptive nature.

  1. Deceptiveness or Misleading

A trademark that is deceptive or misleading concerning the nature, quality, or geographical origin of the goods or services it represents will be refused registration under Section 9(2)(a) of the Act.

Example: “Pure Silk Towels” for towels made of synthetic materials might be refused as it is misleading.

  1. Non-Distinctive Elements

If a mark contains elements that are common to the trade or customary in the relevant market, without any distinctive character, it may be refused under Section 9(2)(b).

Example: “Delicious Burgers” for a burger joint might be refused due to the non-distinctive term “Delicious.”

  1. Prohibited Marks

Certain marks are explicitly prohibited from registration under Section 9(3) of the Act. These include marks that are likely to hurt religious sentiments, are contrary to law or morality, contain government emblems, or are likely to deceive the public.

Example: “Swastika Spices” might be refused as it includes a religious symbol with sensitive connotations.

 Non-Descriptive and Coined Terms: The Way Forward

Businesses are advised to use non-descriptive and invented phrases as trademarks to boost their chances of registration success. Coined terms are words that have no meaning until they are associated with a product or service. These types of marks are more likely to be eligible for protection under the Act since they are naturally distinctive.

Example: “Xerox” for photocopying machines is a coined term and is a strong trademark.

Conclusion

To summarise, a good trademark is critical for developing brand recognition and protecting a company’s identity in the marketplace. A good trademark, according to the Indian Trademarks Act, should be distinctive, non-descriptive, and non-misleading. Understanding Section 11 and the absolute ground of refusal is critical for companies trying to register a trademark in India. Businesses can handle the registration process more successfully and guarantee long-term brand awareness and protection by selecting a unique, non-descriptive, and distinctive trademark.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

What is the overview of Trademark?

Trademarks are distinctive symbols, words, or phrases used to identify and distinguish goods or services of a particular source from those of others. They provide legal protection and prevent unauthorized use by competitors.

What is the main feature of a Trademark?

The main feature of a trademark is to distinguish the goods or services of one entity from those of others.

What is the characteristic of a trademark in India?

The characteristics of a trademark in India include distinctiveness, non-descriptiveness, and compliance with relative and absolute grounds for refusal under the Indian Trademarks Act, 1999.

What is an example of a good trademark?

An example of a good trademark is “Google” for a search engine, which is distinctive, arbitrary, and has gained widespread recognition in the market.

Share:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
WhatsApp

Related Posts

Design or Patent? Securing Your Auto Innovations the Right Way

In the automobile industry, intellectual property (IP) is of utmost important in order to protect new ideas and technologies. Two key types of IP that are often discussed in the context of the automotive sector are design protection and patents. While these two serve different purposes, they often overlap, especially in the automobile sector. In this article, we will cover what design and patent protections are, how they work, where they overlap, and what challenges businesses face. What is Design Protection? Design refers to the look or aesthetics of a product. In the field of automobile industry, design protection can cover the external shape of a car, the design of its parts, or its internal features. Design protection aims to stop others copying the distinctive look of a product. The Design Act and Eligibility In India, design protection is governed by the Design Act, 2000. To qualify for design protection, the design must meet these requirements: What Can Be Protected as a Design in the Automobile Industry? In the automobile sector, you can protect many things as a design, including: For example, the shark fin antenna on luxury cars or the unique grille of sports cars are examples of designs that can be protected. What is a Patent? A patent protects inventions—novel, useful products or processes. In the automobile industry, patents typically protect technological innovations and mechanical systems that make a vehicle work better. The Patent Act and Eligibility In India, patents are governed by the Patents Act, 1970. To get a patent, the invention must meet these criteria: Protection Time for Patents Patents last for 20 years from the filing date, as long as you pay maintenance fees. After that, anyone can use the invention freely. What Can Be Patented in the Automobile Industry? In the automobile sector, patents can cover things like: For example, Tesla’s electric powertrain or BMW’s advanced braking systems are patented technologies. Overlap Between Design and Patent Protection Design and patent protections have different purposes, but they often overlap in the automobile industry. A single product, like a car, can be protected by both design and patent. Here’s how: Challenges of Overlapping Design and Patent While having both design and patent protection can be helpful, it also comes with challenges: How to File for Design and Patent Protection? Filing for both design and patent protection requires careful planning and understanding of the legal process. It’s important to work with a lawyer who knows how to handle both types of protection. Conclusion The interplay between design and patent protection in the automobile industry provides opportunities and challenges for companies that want to protect their innovations. However, it also comes with challenges like complexity and costs. By understanding the differences between design and patent protection, and with the help of expert legal guidance, businesses can better protect their innovations and stay ahead in the competitive automobile market. Contact Intellect Vidhya Solutions—your partner in protecting intellectual property for any questions or needed support in navigating the complexities of design and patent law.

Read More »

AI Voice Cloning and Its Copyright Legalities: The Arijit Singh Case

The fast developments in AI voice synthesis led to in a revolutionary era in technology: immediate voice cloning. Modern algorithms can now produce a nearly identical replica of an individual’s voice using just a few minutes of their voice recording. Most of us probably have heard a number of songs that include the voice of our Prime Minister; these recreated tracks are a clear example of AI voice cloning. Such technology has allowed creators and businesses to create things like songs, speeches, etc., in the unique yet identifiable voices. It could enhance creative and personalized media but, in doing so, also creates complex ethical and legal difficulties, particularly with respect to copyright, privacy, and personality rights. AI Voice Cloning: Understanding the Technology Voice cloning is dependent on the cutting-edge of deep learning and machine learning algorithms to analyze an individual’s voice frequencies, tone, and accents. Once those specific characteristics are recorded, they can be reproduced digitally in order to create audio that as closely as possible resembles the original speaker. This feature, when paired up with Speech Synthesis Markup Language (SSML), enables users to personalize aspects like pronunciation, pitch, and speed, making it as realistic and lively a voice as possible, closely identifying with a natural human voice. These are great possibilities, but there is a flip side where this technology can be abused if used without the knowledge of the person whose voice it matches. The Arijit Singh Case: A Significant Decision on Personality Rights The recent ruling by the Bombay High Court in favour of Bollywood singer Arijit Singh brought attention to the legal issues surrounding AI voice cloning. The court, in the present case, provided interim relief to Arijit Singh, recognising that his voice, name, and likeness are essential components of his identity, referred to as “personality rights.” Arijit Singh initiated legal action against Codible Ventures LLP, a firm that allowed users to generate content using his voice without obtaining consent. The court’s decision to define the unauthorised use of Singh’s voice as a violation of his rights sets an important precedent. It emphasises that an individual’s voice, much like their name or image, is an integral aspect of their identity and is protected under personality rights.  The court acknowledged Singh’s status as a well-known and influential artist, pointing out his reputation and goodwill in India. The court highlighted that previous cases concerning personality rights indicate that using a celebrity’s voice or personal traits for commercial gain without permission constitutes a clear violation of those rights. This ruling clearly suggests that tools that allow for the generation of content in a celebrity’s voice without their permission infringe upon their rights and pose risks to their economic and public standing. Legal Considerations: Copyright, Personal Rights, and More The decision involving Arijit Singh carries major consequences for several legal concepts, such as copyright, intellectual property, and personality rights. 1. Personality Rights: This case highlights that a celebrity’s name, voice, and likeness are integral parts of their personal brand and identity. Protecting these rights stops illicit third parties from profiting off someone else’s identity and plays a crucial role in protecting their career and livelihood. 2. Copyright and Ownership: The complexities of ownership arise when dealing with AI-generated content that utilises cloned voices. Is the voice model subject to copyright protection, and who holds the legal rights to the content generated with that voice? When a voice model originates from a public figure, the boundaries of copyright law can become vague. It raises questions about who actually holds the rights: the creator, the individual whose voice is replicated, or the developer of the AI. 3. Economic and Reputational Concerns: The unauthorised use of a prominent voice can have adverse impacts on the person’s professional life. In Singh’s situation, his reputation and popularity render his voice a crucial element of his personal brand. The court’s decision recognises the potential harm that unauthorised use of his voice may pose to his professional standing and revenue. 4. Right to Publicity: This case expands the idea of an individual’s control over the commercial use of their identity. With the growing ease of AI voice cloning, it is becoming more vital to safeguard individuals against the unauthorised use of their identity. This acknowledgement offers a foundation for protecting people’s identities and personal characteristics in the era of AI. Setting Standards for AI Voice Cloning The Arijit Singh case highlights the pressing need for well-defined and thorough regulations concerning the commercial application of AI voice cloning technology. Considering the possibility of misuse, here are some suggestions to tackle these challenges:  Explicit Consent Requirements: The use of an individual’s voice or likeness must obtain clear, documented consent, especially when it pertains to commercial purposes. Transparency: Informing consumers about the use of an AI-generated voice is crucial to prevent any potential misunderstanding, particularly when the cloned voice closely resembles a well-known individual. Defining Usage Boundaries: Setting clear boundaries between personal and commercial applications can help prevent misuse while allowing individuals to utilise the technology for their own non-commercial purposes. Conclusion This ruling by the Bombay High Court, giving practical effect to Arijit Singh’s right over his voice, is a positive balancing act between harnessing the modern technology of AI voice cloning and protecting individual rights. Considering the new technology of voice synthesis, society must develop legal protections against the appropriation of one’s voice, name, and likeness. This ruling is a landmark case in that it shows how the law can adapt to emerging technology and preserve innovation while ensuring the protection of individual rights against invasive practices. Such frameworks will be critical to ensure the responsible use of this powerful tool, prevent misuse, and safeguard individual identities as we explore its potential further.

Read More »

What is Trademark Squatting? Insights into the Legal Battle Over Brand Rights

Trademark squatting refers to the practice where individuals or entities register popular brand names, trademarks, or domain names with the aim of making a profit from them. This practice can pose legal difficulties for legitimate brand owners, as opportunists frequently try to sell these assets back to companies at inflated prices, anticipating that the demand for these names will result in a substantial profit. This issue may not be new, but the evolving digital landscape and the growing significance of online branding have amplified its effects. Understanding Trademark Squatting Trademark squatting involves the unauthorised registration or use of a trademark that closely resembles a well-known brand or business name, with the aim of capitalising on the brand’s reputation. This practice typically takes place in two areas: Trademark Squatting Under Indian Law The Trademarks Act, 1999 regulates trademark matters in India. While it doesn’t directly mention “trademark squatting,” it sets up the legal structure for safeguarding registered trademarks. Indian law provides two primary legal remedies to address the issue of squatting: 1. Trademark Infringement: When a squatter utilises a registered trademark, the legitimate owner has the option to initiate a lawsuit alleging trademark infringement. Courts evaluate aspects such as similarity, the purpose of registration, and any damage inflicted on the original brand. 2. Passing Off: When a brand owner has not registered their trademark, they may pursue a claim of passing off, which is a remedy recognised by common law. The brand owner must show their goodwill and establish that the squatter’s use of the brand leads to confusion for consumers.  Furthermore, in situations concerning domain names, India’s .IN Dispute Resolution Policy (INDRP) directly deals with disputes related to .IN domain names, whereas international cases involving generic domains typically come under the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP). Trademark Squatting and Cybersquatting Trademark squatting and cybersquatting are interconnected concepts, yet they vary in their extent. Trademark squatting involves the misuse of trademarks across various market segments, whereas cybersquatting is focused specifically on internet domain names. Both, however, seek to gain from unauthorised registration, often expecting that the rightful brand owner will repurchase the asset to prevent possible confusion among consumers. Recent Judgment on Trademark Squatting In a recent case involving the domain name JioHotstar.com, the registrant claimed they purchased the domain thinking that Jio (the telecom brand owned by Reliance Industries) and Disney+ Hotstar were likely to come together, based on speculation in various industry circles. They even registered this domain name, assuming that if Jio and Disney merged, Jio could brand it as JioHotstar. The registrant confessed that the aim was to sell the domain to Reliance, stating, “It was a money-making venture to pay for education at Cambridge.” The above explanation notwithstanding, the nature of this cybersquatting case was so textbook (cybersquatting being a specific type of trademark squatting, where instead of a traditional trademark, the focus is on the domain name) that the legal outcome was predictable. In recent years, the judgment of courts globally, including in India, has increasingly emphasized intent in matters related to trademark and cybersquatting disputes. In this case, the registrant’s objective was clearly to profit from a potential merger by flipping the domain back to the brand itself—a motive devoid of any legitimate business interest. This leans towards bad-faith registration, a significant factor that courts examine in cybersquatting cases. In this instance, because JioHotstar.com was not intended to host a legitimate business or service but to be resold for profit, it was categorized as bad faith under section 4(b)(ii) of the policy. Courts generally view such intentions negatively, and if the legitimate brand owner challenges the domain, the domain owner is likely to face difficulty defending their position. The example of *JioHotstar.com* highlights the need for courts to take a firm stand: domains registered with the intent of exploiting brand equity should be invalidated, even if the challenge by the trademark owner is based on their interests. Strategies to Prevent and Address Trademark Squatting Brands can implement proactive measures to steer clear of the difficulties associated with squatting: Conclusion Trademark squatting remains a significant legal challenge for global brands, impacting brand integrity in both online and offline environments. With courts increasingly focused on protecting the rights of trademark owners, cases like JioHotstar.com illustrate how the legal framework discourages attempts to exploit recognised brands for personal gain. Companies can protect their brand and prevent squatters from taking advantage of their intellectual property by actively registering trademarks and monitoring domain names.

Read More »

Food Plating and Copyright Protection in India

Food plating — the positioning and presentation of food on a plate has matured into its own craft; showcasing chefs around the globe serving up more than just taste alone. In addition to aesthetics, it sets up your dining experience and reflect the brand identity of a restaurant. Chefs and restaurateurs have resorted to intellectual property (IP) law in different countries around the world, for protecting their unique forms of plating. But in India, copyright law does not allow for food plating to be protected easily: the same is because of two key reasons; firstly, food being highly perishable items and secondly primary purpose of using dishes as they serve a functional role. This article takes a closer look at the intersection of Indian copyright law and food plating, covering eligibility requirements and mechanisms for protection as well as some significant challenges. Copyright Eligibility for Food Plating in India Under the Copyright Act of 1957, copyright protection in India applies to original works of art, literature, music, and more. For a work to be eligible, it generally must meet two main requirements: However, Indian Copyright Law does not automatically deem the plating of food copyrightable. Chefs have no immediate legal protection for their plating, but by photographing it they can at least preserve the creative arrangement in a fixed medium. This approach means the copyright is granted to the photograph or video itself—not the plated arrangement—which still presents some limitations but can deter unauthorized reproduction of the image. Protecting Food Plating in India: Alternative Approaches Despite the challenges, several IP options could provide indirect protection for food plating in India: Key Challenges in Achieving Copyright Protection for Food Plating Even with these alternatives, protecting food plating remains challenging in India for several reasons: Practical Recommendations for  Chefs and Restaurateurs For chefs and restaurant owners in India interested in protecting their food plating styles, here are some practical steps that can help: Conclusion Food presentation does not enjoy copyright protection in India, as food is transient (disappearing after a meal), functional, and perishable. Although food plating does not fall under the traditional copyright regime, chefs or restaurateurs can explore other methods—such as photographic copyright, branding protections, contractual protections, and trade dress—to safeguard their culinary creations’ presentation. While these solutions provide some level of protection, they ultimately highlight the issue that, in the Indian legal context, food plating lacks force under copyright law. If chefs hope to protect their plating artistry in India, the key is to focus on brand-building and be inventive with alternative IP protections.

Read More »