What is Trade Description in Trademark Registration in India?

Trade Description in Trademark Registration in India - Intellect Vidhya

Selecting a trade description when applying for a trademark registration appears to be a simpler task that most people overlook, but did you realize that preparing a trade description effectively can also safeguard your trademarks from refusals? Keep reading to learn more about Trade Description in Trademark Registration in India.

What is trade description?

As is well known, a trademark is used to identify particular goods or services with it in order to help the consumer recall the origin of the items and minimize consumer confusion. As a result, selecting the class of a given trademark is a critical subject to consider. NICE classification is a universal system that categorizes products and services into 45 different classes (Class 1-34 is for goods and Class 35-45 is for services), and a Trademark is filed under one or more classes depending on the type of goods and services offered under the canopy of the Trademark that is to be filed. Trade Description in Trademark Registration is nothing but a specific mention of the goods and services offered under a trademark.

Take the trademark “Burger King” registered under class 29 as an illustration. Now, the trademark’s trade description corresponds to the class 29 heading of the NICE classification system, namely MEAT, FISH, MILK AND OTHER DAIRY PRODUCTS, EDIBLE OILS, EDIBLE FATS, AND PICKLES (Image given below)

What has changed now?

Prior to the 2017 amendment to the Trademark rules, selecting one of the 45 Nice Classes and writing the trade description as the class’s title was sufficient, but now the applicant must describe the goods and services in great detail using terms acceptable to the Controller of Patents, Designs, and Trademarks (CGPDTM) in India. The exact trade description limits the monopoly to a single class and also serves as proof for the applicant to demonstrate how his Trademark differs from others based on the goods or services offered.

Take the same example of ‘Burger King’, which, if registered after the 2017 amendment, would be vulnerable to opposition from the registration due to the mere mention of class 29 heading. Therefore, under class 29, the trade description of the trademark “Burger King” must include the term “Burger” as well as its varieties and other culinary products offered by the business.

Why Trade Description is necessary?

As previously stated, a trademark only protects against the registration or use of a similar or conflicting mark in the class for which it is registered. For instance, the ‘Imperial Blue’ trademark is registered under NICE class 33, which covers alcoholic beverages. Therefore, no one else can register the same trademark under class 33, but they can file for registration under class 43, which covers restaurants (depending on whether or not the trademark ‘Imperial Blue’ is a well-known mark).

In addition, it is essential to recognize that even if the Class is the same for two conflicting marks, the sub-classes can be different, and the same can be used as a defence to overcome Registry objections. Consider another instance of the trademark ‘stopshop’ filed under class 25, pertaining to the retail sale of children’s clothing and apparel. And a trademark application for ‘topshop’ seeking registration in the same class, but for women-only clothes and apparel store. Therefore, even if the trademarks are almost identical and belong to the same class, the applicant may assert that his trade description is limited to women’s apparel whereas the conflicting mark is for children’s apparel.

Are there any Case Laws Concerning Trade Description?

One of landmark judgment which applied a line of distinction between the Nice class and sub-classes is Nandhini Deluxe v. Karnataka Co-Operative Milk Producers Federation Ltd, the question raised was Can deceptively similar marks be registered in the same class with different sub-classes?

  • The respondents, Karnataka Co-operative Milk Producers, had been using the mark for milk and related products registered under class 29 since 1985. Appellant Nandhini Deluxe is a restaurant chain in Karnataka that used the mark in 1989. 
  • The Appellant has applied for registration of the said mark in class 29 for meat, fish, poultry, meat extracts, preserves, dried and cooked fruits and vegetables, jellies, jams, eggs, milk and milk products, edible oils and fats, salad dressings, and so on. 
  • The registrar approved the registration of the mark ‘Nandhini’ as distinct from the existing mark. The IPAB and the High Court of Karnataka both found the marks ‘Nandini’ and ‘Nandhini’ to be deceptively similar, with the only difference being the letter ‘H’ between the two marks.
  • The case was ultimately heard by the Supreme Court, which determined that the marks are not deceptively similar after a thorough examination of both. The court noted that there is only a phonetic similarity between the two marks Nandini/Nandhini. 
  • The Supreme Court concluded that no one can have an exclusive right or monopoly over an entire class of goods, especially when the trademark is not used with respect to all of the goods in that class. Finally, the appellant ‘Nandhini Deluxe’ was granted permission to use the mark after removing milk and milk products from their class description.

What is the legal provision?

Section 104 of the Trade Marks Act penalizes a person or business that sells, hires, or exposes for sale a product or service that creates a misleading impression of a trademark or deceptive trade description.

Conclusion

To conclude, selecting the right NICE class for trademark filing is not enough; the relevant sub-classes must also be considered. Preparing a thorough class description rather than just headers of NICE classes offers as an extra point of distinction between the applied trademark and any conflicting marks. As a result, trade description is more than just a formality; it encompasses the scope of your registered trademark’s protection.

Share:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
WhatsApp

Related Posts

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 »
Understanding Personality Rights in MEME ERA - Intellect Vidhya

Understanding Personality Rights in MEME ERA

What do personality rights entail? Before we delve into the recent legal disputes, let’s first grasp the concept of personality rights. In basic terms, personality rights (also referred to as publicity rights) refer to the rights that an individual has to manage the commercial use of their name, image, likeness, or other distinctive aspects of their identity. These rights hold great significance for celebrities, as their public image often holds substantial commercial worth. The Growing Importance of Personality Rights in India: Striking a Balance Between Safeguarding Celebrities and Preserving Freedom of Expression India has witnessed a notable increase in legal cases concerning the rights of individuals, especially those in the public eye such as celebrities and media personalities. These cases have ignited discussions about finding a balance between an individual’s personal rights and the essential right to freedom of expression. Let’s delve into three recent cases that have significantly influenced India’s perspective on personality rights. The Jackie Shroff Saga In May 2024, Bollywood actor Jackie Shroff took legal action to safeguard his identity, voice, images, and his well-known catchphrase “Bhidu” (a popular slang term for friend in Mumbai) against any unauthorised usage. The decision made by the Delhi High Court was intriguing as it took into account not only Shroff’s rights, but also other relevant factors. The court declined to remove a YouTuber’s parody video that cleverly utilised Shroff’s persona. The judge acknowledged the artistic nature of these videos and their potential as a source of income for young creators. This decision demonstrated a growing recognition among courts of the significance of online content creation and meme culture, particularly among younger individuals. Anil Kapoor’s Case: In a previous incident, Anil Kapoor, another renowned actor, found himself in a legal battle for comparable motives. In this instance, the court examined personality rights from a unique perspective – as a means of safeguarding a celebrity’s livelihood. The court emphasised the potential impact on a celebrity’s income from endorsements and other business deals when their image or voice is used without permission. They likened it to piracy, implying that exploiting a celebrity’s persona could be akin to robbing them of their earnings. India TV and Aap Ki Adalat: In May 2024, a highly debated incident unfolded, centering around Rajat Sharma, a prominent TV journalist, and his show “Aap Ki Adalat” (Your Court). A satirist, Ravindra Kumar Choudhary, has been using the names “Jhandiya TV” (a play on words meaning “Depressing TV”) and “Baap ki Adalat” (Father’s Court) in his content. The court ruled that Choudhary must cease using these names, as they were found to violate India TV’s trademarks and Sharma’s rights to his own identity. This decision caused concern among individuals who value free speech, as they feared it could potentially hinder the creation of parodies or the ability to comment on public figures. Why is this relevant to you? You may be curious about the significance of these celebrity court cases for everyday individuals. Allow me to explain: 1. Impact on Content Creation: These cases have an influence on the type of content that creators are able to produce. If courts become more stringent, it could potentially pose challenges for creating parodies or offering commentary on public figures. 2. Online Content: Numerous young individuals generate income by producing online content. These decisions have a significant impact on the actions and content creators can take in their videos or posts. 3. Public Debate: In a democracy, it’s crucial to have the freedom to engage in discussions and even poke fun at public figures. These cases have a significant impact on the extent to which we are able to exercise our freedom. What comes after this? As India grapples with these intricate matters, here are a few suggestions that could contribute to establishing a more equitable system: 1. Improved Guidelines: It is important for courts to establish more precise rules when it comes to striking a balance between protecting personality rights and upholding free speech, particularly in the context of parodies and satire. 2. Caution in Issuing Court Orders: It is important for courts to exercise caution when issuing orders that restrict content, ensuring that both sides of the story are heard. 3. Recognising Varied Uses: It’s important to distinguish between utilising someone’s image for financial gain and using it for the purpose of commentary or critique. It is important for courts to acknowledge and understand this distinction. 4. Public Interest: Courts must consider the potential value of allowing commentary on public

Read More »
Understanding Derivative Works Legal Definitions and Implications in India

Understanding Derivative Works: Legal Definitions and Implications in India

In the realm of intellectual property rights, the concept of derivative works holds significant importance, particularly in the context of copyright law. A derivative work is a creation that is based on or derived from an original copyrighted work, thereby giving rise to a new work with its own set of rights and obligations. In India, the legal framework governing derivative works is outlined in the Copyright Act, 1957, and its subsequent amendments. Definition of Derivative Works As per the Indian Copyright Act, a derivative work is defined as a work that is created by adapting or translating an original literary, dramatic, musical, or artistic work. This includes, but is not limited to, adaptations in the form of cinematographic films, sound recordings, translations, abridgments, condensations, and arrangements. Types of Derivative Works Derivative works can take various forms, depending on the nature of the original work and the creative process involved. Some common types of derivative works include: 1. Literary Derivative Works:    – Translations of novels, poems, or plays into different languages    – Abridgments or condensations of longer literary works    – Sequels, prequels, or spin-offs based on original stories or characters 2. Dramatic Derivative Works:    – Film adaptations of plays or novels    – Stage musicals based on literary works or films 3. Musical Derivative Works:    – Cover versions or remixes of existing songs    – Arrangements or transcriptions of musical compositions for different instruments or ensembles 4. Artistic Derivative Works:    – Sculptures or paintings based on existing works of art    – Photographic reproductions or digital manipulations of artworks 5. Software Derivative Works:    – Modifications or enhancements to existing computer programs    – New software applications built upon existing code libraries or frameworks Legal Implications The creation of a derivative work requires permission from the copyright owner of the original work, unless it falls under the exceptions provided by the fair use or fair dealing provisions of the Copyright Act. Case Study The adaptation of Chetan Bhagat’s novel “Five Point Someone” into the hugely popular film “3 Idiots” generated significant controversy. While the movie was a commercial and critical success, it faced backlash for deviating substantially from the original novel’s narrative and themes. Critics argued that by taking a broader, more mainstream approach, the film oversimplified the novel’s critique of the Indian education system and the struggles of IIT students. They accused the filmmakers of exploiting Bhagat’s work for commercial gain while failing to accurately represent its essence. There were also concerns about the portrayal of certain characters, like the entirely new character of Rancho, and the exaggerated depiction of IIT life and the education system. Despite these criticisms, “3 Idiots” sparked conversations about educational reforms and the pursuit of passion over societal expectations. However, the controversy highlighted the challenges of adapting works that tackle sensitive social issues, and the need for faithful and respectful representations of the source material. Implications and Considerations The concept of derivative works has far-reaching implications in various creative industries, including literature, music, film, art, and software development. It is crucial for creators and authors to understand the legal framework surrounding derivative works to avoid potential infringement issues and to protect their intellectual property rights effectively. When creating a derivative work, it is advisable to obtain proper licenses or permissions from the original copyright owners to ensure compliance with the law. Additionally, consulting with legal professionals or intellectual property experts can provide valuable guidance on navigating the complexities of derivative works and ensuring that the creative process remains within the bounds of the law. It is also important to note that the boundaries between original works and derivative works can sometimes be blurred, particularly in cases where the derivative work incorporates substantial new creative elements or transforms the original work in a significant way. In such cases, the derivative work may be considered a separate, original creation, subject to its own copyright protection. Conclusion In conclusion, derivative works play a vital role in the creative ecosystem, fostering adaptation, innovation, and cultural exchange. However, it is essential to strike a balance between encouraging creativity and protecting the rights of original authors. The Indian Copyright Act provides a comprehensive legal framework for regulating derivative works, ensuring that the rights of both the original creators and the authors of derivative works are safeguarded. By understanding the legal nuances and adhering to the principles of fair use and proper attribution, creators can navigate the realm of derivative works while respecting intellectual property rights.

Read More »
Filing a Trademark for a Restaurant in India – A step by step Guide

Filing a Trademark for a Restaurant in India – A step by step Guide

Filing a trademark is crucial for protecting your restaurant’s brand identity, name, and logo from potential infringement or misuse by others. In India, trademarks are governed by the Trademarks Act, 1999, and the process of registration is overseen by the Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs, and Trademarks (CGPDTM). Step 1: Conduct a Trademark Search Before filing for a trademark, it is essential to conduct a comprehensive search to ensure that your desired mark is not already registered or closely resembling an existing trademark. This search can be done through the CGPDTM’s online database or with the assistance of a trademark attorney or agent. A thorough search helps avoid potential conflicts and legal complications down the line. Step 2: Determine the Appropriate Classes Trademarks are classified into different classes based on the goods or services they represent. Restaurants primarily fall under Class 43, which includes “services for providing food and drink; temporary accommodation.” However, depending on the offerings, restaurants may also consider filing in other related classes. Additionally Relevant Classes for Restaurants: Filing in multiple classes is recommended if your restaurant offers a diverse range of products or services beyond just food and beverages. Step 3: Prepare the Application Once you have determined that your desired mark is available, you can proceed with the application process. The trademark application can be filed online through the ipindia.gov.in website, which serves as the official portal for filing all kinds of intellectual property applications in India. Alternatively, you can opt for offline filing by sending a physical copy of the application. The prescribed form for filing a trademark application is called TM-A. The application should include: Step 4: Submit the Required Documents Along with the application form, you must submit the following documents: Step 5: Pay the Applicable Fees The fees for filing a trademark application in India vary based on the number of classes and the mode of filing (online or physical). For a single class in the online filing mode, the fee is currently INR 4,500 for individuals and startups/ MSMEs  and INR 9,000 for others. Additional fees apply for each additional class. For example, if filing in two classes, the fee would be INR 9,000 for individuals/startups and INR 18,000 for others. Step 6: Examination and Publication After submission, the application will undergo a formal and substantive examination by the appropriate trademark registry. The formal examination checks if the application meets all the necessary requirements, while the substantive examination assesses if the mark is distinctive, not deceptive, and not conflicting with existing trademarks. If the mark meets all the requirements, it will be published in the Trademarks Journal for opposition. This is an opportunity for any interested parties to oppose the registration of the mark within four months from the date of publication. If no opposition is filed or if the opposition is unsuccessful, the mark will proceed to registration. Step 7: Registration and Renewal If the application is successful, the trademark will be registered, and a registration certificate will be issued by the Trademark Registry. Trademarks in India are valid for 10 years from the date of filing and can be renewed indefinitely for successive 10-year periods by paying the prescribed renewal fees.It is essential to keep track of the renewal deadlines and file for renewal well in advance to avoid the lapse of your trademark registration. Additional Considerations: By following these steps and complying with the Trademarks Act, 1999, you can successfully register a trademark for your restaurant in India, safeguarding your brand and establishing a strong market presence.

Read More »