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.

Share:

Share on facebook
Facebook
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on linkedin
LinkedIn
Share on whatsapp
WhatsApp
Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on whatsapp

Categories

Search

    Categories

    Recent Posts

    • All Post
    • Copyright
    • Design Patents
    • Patent Filing
    • Patent Search
    • Trademark

    Related Posts

    Micro Copyright in India: Protecting Small-Scale Creative Works

    In the digital age, the creation and sharing of content have reached unprecedented heights. With the proliferation of user-generated content, short-form media, and the increasing significance of individual contributions to larger works, the concept of “micro copyright” has emerged. Micro copyright refers to the protection of smaller, often more granular, creative expressions. In the context of Indian copyright law, this concept presents unique challenges and opportunities. This article explores the intricacies of micro copyright and the conundrums surrounding its protection in India. Understanding Micro Copyright Micro copyright encompasses the rights associated with smaller creative works such as social media posts, memes, short videos, gifs, and even individual elements within larger works, like specific phrases or designs. These forms of content, while often brief and seemingly inconsequential, can hold significant value and can be the subject of copyright protection. The Legal Framework of Copyright in India The Indian Copyright Act, 1957, primarily governs copyright protection in India. The Act provides protection to original literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works, cinematograph films, and sound recordings. For a work to be protected, it must be original and expressed in a tangible form. Challenges in Protecting Micro Copyright 1. Originality and Fixation One of the fundamental requirements for copyright protection is that the work must be original and fixed in a tangible medium. This can be challenging for micro content, where the line between original creation and common expression is often blurred. Determining the originality of a tweet, meme, or short video clip can be subjective and contentious. 2. De Minimis Doctrine The de minimis doctrine, which means “about minimal things,” can pose a significant challenge for micro copyright. This doctrine suggests that the law does not concern itself with trivial matters. Small snippets of content might be considered too insignificant to warrant protection, leaving creators without legal recourse for unauthorized use. 3. Fair Use The concept of fair use allows for limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders. In the context of micro copyright, determining what constitutes fair use can be particularly tricky. For instance, sharing a meme or a short clip might be considered fair use, but if it goes viral and gains commercial value, the original creator might seek protection and compensation. 4. Enforcement and Attribution Even if micro content is eligible for copyright protection, enforcing these rights can be challenging. Monitoring the vast expanse of the internet for unauthorized use of small-scale content is a daunting task. Additionally, the ease with which digital content can be shared and altered complicates the process of ensuring proper attribution and compensation. The Way Forward 1. Clearer Guidelines and Definitions To address the challenges of micro copyright, clearer guidelines and definitions are needed within the Indian Copyright Act. Defining what constitutes a protectable micro work and setting standards for originality can provide better clarity for creators and users alike. 2. Digital Rights Management (DRM) and Technology Leveraging technology, such as digital rights management (DRM) systems and content recognition algorithms, can help creators monitor and enforce their copyright more effectively. These technologies can automate the process of identifying unauthorized uses and facilitate easier enforcement. 3. Education and Awareness Increasing awareness among creators about their rights and the mechanisms available for protecting their content is crucial. Educational campaigns and resources can empower creators to navigate the complexities of copyright law and safeguard their micro creations. 4. Legal Reform and International Cooperation Given the global nature of digital content, international cooperation and harmonization of copyright laws can play a significant role in addressing the challenges of micro copyright. Legal reforms that consider the unique nature of digital content and micro works can provide a more robust framework for protection. Conclusion The rise of micro copyright in the digital era presents a unique conundrum under Indian copyright law. While the current legal framework provides a foundation for protecting creative works, the nuances of micro content require more specific attention and adaptation. By addressing the challenges of originality, fair use, enforcement, and attribution, and by leveraging technology and education, India can better protect the rights of creators in the evolving landscape of digital content.

    Read More »
    July 20, 2024 No Comments
    Importance of Trademarking your Restaurant Name - Intellect Vidhya

    Importance of Trademarking your Restaurant Name

    Have you ever walked into a restaurant, drawn by its catchy name or eye-catching logo, only to discover that it’s not the establishment you thought it was? In the bustling food and hospitality industry of India, this scenario is becoming increasingly common. As more and more eateries pop up, it’s crucial for restaurant owners to protect their brand’s identity through trademark registration. A trademark is like a unique fingerprint that sets your goods or services apart from the competition. It’s a legal stamp that says, “This is ours, and no one else can use it.” And in the world of restaurants, where first impressions can make or break your business, a strong trademark can be a game-changer. Why Trademarks Matter for Restaurateurs? Success Stories of Trademarked Restaurant Brands The Consequences of Neglecting Trademark Protection In the vibrant culinary landscape of India, trademarking your restaurant brand is more than just a formality – it’s a strategic move that can safeguard your business identity, maintain brand recognition, and provide legal recourse against infringement. By understanding the importance of trademarks and understanding the appropriate registration process under Indian trademark law, you can protect your valuable intellectual property and pave the way for a future as bright as a perfectly cooked dish, fresh out of the kitchen.

    Read More »
    July 13, 2024 No Comments
    The Significance Of Prior Use In The Trademark Law Vans V Ivans - Intellect Vidhya

    The Significance of Prior Use in the Trademark Law: Vans v. Ivans

    In the complex realm of intellectual property rights, few principles hold as much significance as the concept of “prior use” in Indian trademark law. The recent ruling by the Delhi High Court in the Vans v. Ivans case has brought attention to the fundamental concept of giving precedence to the first user of a trademark in the market. The Vans v. Ivans Case: The case centred on a disagreement between Vans Inc., a well-known American footwear and apparel company, and FCB Garment Tex, an Indian company that used the “IVANS” trademark. Vans Inc. filed a request to invalidate FCB Garment Tex’s trademark registration in India, claiming that their “VANS” mark had recently gained recognition as a well-known trademark in the country. Nevertheless, the Delhi High Court ruled in favour of FCB Garment Tex, citing the prior use principle. Important Factors in the Court’s Decision The court’s ruling was influenced by several crucial elements. Firstly, it emphasised that FCB Garment Tex had been using the “IVANS” mark in India for years before Vans Inc. entered the market, applying the “first in the market” principle. Furthermore, the court made it clear that simply declaring a trademark as well-known does not automatically give the owner the authority to cancel other marks that were used earlier in India. Finally, the court determined that FCB Garment’s utilisation of the marks was both sincere and simultaneous, granting them protection under Section 12 of the Trade Marks Act. Supporting the Principle of Prior Use This landmark ruling is a strong affirmation of the prior use principle in Indian trademark law. This principle emphasises that the initial user of a trademark in the market holds greater rights compared to later users, regardless of their registration status. This concept is deeply embedded in the Indian Trade Marks Act, 1999, and aims to safeguard businesses that have dedicated significant time and resources to establish their brand identity in the market. The Reasoning Behind Prior Use There are several reasons behind the prior use principle. It strives to recognise and safeguard businesses that have proactively built their brands in the marketplace. By prioritising the initial user, the law recognises the dedication and resources required to establish a strong brand presence and cultivate customer loyalty. This principle also helps to prevent unfair competition by ensuring that well-known brands are not replaced by new ones with similar marks, thus maintaining consumer trust and market stability. Territorial Nature of Trademark Rights In addition, the principle of prior use acknowledges the territorial nature of trademark rights. The Vans v. Ivans case clearly illustrates that having a worldwide reputation is not enough to establish legal rights in a particular jurisdiction. The principle highlights the significance of establishing a tangible market presence and utilising a trademark within India, rather than solely relying on international recognition or registration in other nations. Engaging with well-known Trademarks The prior use principle also has implications for other aspects of trademark law, including the recognition of well-known trademarks. The ruling by the Delhi High Court provides clarity on the advantages of having a well-known trademark status, while also acknowledging the rights of prior users in the market. This delicate equilibrium ensures the safeguarding of well-known local brands while acknowledging the prestige and recognition of globally renowned trademarks. Practical Considerations for Trademark Owners In practice, trademark owners are faced with a significant burden of maintaining proper documentation of their trademark use due to the prior use principle. This encompasses sales records, advertisements, and proof of customer recognition. Consistent and authentic use of the mark is essential, as any substantial gaps in usage can undermine a prior use claim. Conclusion Ultimately, the verdict of the Delhi High Court in the Vans v. Ivans case serves as a strong affirmation of the prior use principle within Indian trademark law. It emphasises the significance of having a strong market presence and building a reputable brand in order to establish and safeguard trademark rights in India. As the country continues to attract global brands while nurturing its own business ecosystem, this principle will undoubtedly have a significant impact on the development of trademark strategies and dispute resolutions.

    Read More »
    July 12, 2024 No Comments
    The Ethical and Legal Dilemma of AI Voice Cloning in the Music Industry - Intellect Vidhya

    The Ethical and Legal Dilemma of AI Voice Cloning in the Music Industry

    In recent years, artificial intelligence (AI) has made remarkable progress in various fields, including music production. Voice cloning in music has been a subject of intense debate, raising questions about copyright infringement, moral rights, and the preservation of artistic integrity. The recent criticism voiced by legendary Indian playback singer Kumar Sanu against AI voice duplication brings attention to the mounting concerns within the music industry. Power and Potential of AI Voice Cloning AI voice cloning technology has made significant progress in recreating the voices of singers with outstanding precision. This ability has resulted in the development of new songs that utilise the voices of artists who have passed away, as demonstrated in the recent example of “Pehle Hi Main.” This song was created using an AI-generated voice that mimics the late Mohammed Rafi, who sadly passed away in 1980. Although this technology presents fascinating opportunities for music production and preservation, it also brings up important ethical and legal concerns. Dealing with Copyright Infringement Copyright infringement is a significant legal concern when it comes to AI voice cloning. A singer’s voice is regarded as their valuable asset, safeguarded by copyright laws in numerous jurisdictions. When AI is employed to imitate a singer’s voice without authorization, it may potentially infringe upon copyright protections. This encompasses violations of reproduction rights, distribution rights, and the unauthorised creation of derivative works. Moral Rights and Personality Rights In addition to copyright concerns, AI voice cloning also brings up ethical and legal questions surrounding moral rights and personality rights. It is important for singers to safeguard their work from any alterations or manipulations that may negatively impact their reputation. Additionally, there is a potential for confusion and misrepresentation when AI-generated voices are not explicitly identified. Furthermore, in numerous legal systems, people possess the authority to regulate the commercial exploitation of their identity, appearance, or voice. Voice cloning might be perceived as a violation of these rights. Cloning the Voices of Deceased Artists Using AI to replicate the voices of deceased artists, such as Mohammed Rafi, brings about a whole new set of challenges. Although copyright protection usually lasts for many years after an artist’s passing, the ethical considerations surrounding the use of a deceased artist’s voice without their permission are quite substantial. There are concerns regarding the preservation of the legacy and artistic intentions of deceased musicians. Industry Response Kumar Sanu’s decision to pursue legal protection against AI voice cloning demonstrates a rising recognition of these concerns within the music industry. Other artists and industry professionals are also advocating for the establishment of regulatory frameworks to oversee the utilisation of AI in music production. There are several potential solutions being discussed to address the challenges posed by AI in music. These include establishing licencing protocols for the use of AI-cloned voices, requiring clear disclosure when AI voice cloning is used in a production, and developing specific laws to tackle these unique challenges. The Path Forward As AI technology advances, it is essential for the legal system to stay up to date. Collaboration between the music industry, legislators, and AI developers is crucial in establishing a framework that balances the protection of artists’ rights with the promotion of innovation. This could potentially include the need to revise copyright laws to specifically tackle AI-generated content, setting industry norms for the ethical application of AI in music production, and devising methods for artists to maintain control over and profit from the utilisation of their AI-replicated voices. Conclusion The emergence of AI voice cloning technology brings forth a range of possibilities and complexities for the music industry. Although it presents exciting opportunities for creativity, it also raises serious concerns regarding artists’ rights and the authenticity of their work. As evidenced by Kumar Sanu’s case, it is clear that there is a pressing requirement for the establishment of legal and ethical frameworks to regulate the utilisation of this technology. As we move forward with the more enhanced versions of AI, it’s crucial to find a harmony between technological advancement and safeguarding artists’ rights. It is crucial to establish thoughtful regulation and foster industry cooperation to ensure that AI positively impacts the creative ecosystem of the music industry.

    Read More »
    July 8, 2024 No Comments