Understanding Trademark Protection in India: What Can and Can’t Be Trademarked

What Can and Cannot Be Trademarked in India - Intellect Vidhya

Registration of a business’s trademark is one of the most important steps that can be taken to protect a company’s identity as well as the reputation of its goods or services in the marketplace. In India, the Indian Trademark Act of 1999 governs the legal framework for trademark protection. This act specifies the criteria for registering trademarks and those that are ineligible for protection. This article explores what can and cannot be trademarked according to the Indian Trademark Act,1999.

Section 9: Absolute Grounds for Refusal of Trademark Registration

Section 9 of the Indian Trademark Act, 1999, enumerates the absolute grounds for refusal of trademark registration. These grounds identify categories of marks that are inherently incapable of being registered as trademarks in India. As per this this provision, trademark does not include any mark which is:

Devoid of Distinctive Character

Trademarks that lack distinctiveness or are generic or descriptive in nature are ineligible for registration. For example, the word “Computer” cannot be registered as a trademark for computer hardware, as it is a generic term. However, a distinctive and non-descriptive term like “Apple” can be registered as a trademark for a technology company.

Consisting Exclusively of Generic or Common Names

Trademarks that primarily consist of common or generic terms related to the goods or services offered cannot be registered. For instance, “Soap” cannot be registered as a trademark for a soap manufacturing company. However, a unique and distinct name like “Dove” can be registered as a trademark for a soap brand.

Customary in Current Language or Trade Practices

Trademarks that have become customary or usual in everyday language or trade practices are not registrable. This provision prevents the monopolization of common terms. For example, the term “Supermarket” cannot be registered as a trademark for a grocery store.

Likely to Deceive or Cause Confusion

Trademarks that are likely to deceive the public or cause confusion regarding the nature, quality, or origin of the goods or services are ineligible for registration. For instance, a mark that closely resembles an existing famous brand may cause confusion among consumers and therefore be refused registration.

Contrary to Law or Morality

Trademarks that are against public policy, offensive, or immoral are refused registration. This provision ensures that trademarks align with societal norms and values. For example, a mark containing explicit or offensive language would be rejected.

Section 11: Relative Grounds for Refusal of Trademark Registration

Section 11 of the Indian Trademark Act deals with the relative grounds for refusal of trademark registration. It focuses on the similarity or identity of the proposed mark with existing marks. Let’s understand this provision in more detail:

Under Section 11, a trademark application may be refused if it is identical or similar to an earlier registered trademark or pending application in the same or similar class of goods or services. The objective is to prevent confusion or misleading associations among consumers. The Registrar of Trademarks compares the proposed mark with existing marks and examines factors such as visual similarity, phonetic similarity, and conceptual similarity to determine the likelihood of confusion.

For instance, an online marketplace, Company M, intends to register the mark “eBayzy” for its e-commerce services. However, there is an existing registered mark for “eBay” owned by Company N, a well-known global online marketplace. Company M’s trademark application may be rejected under Section 11 due to the similarity and likelihood of confusion with the earlier registered mark.

What Can Be Trademarked?

The Act recognizes various forms of subject matter that are eligible for trademark protection. Let’s explore the different types of subject matter that can be trademarked:

Words, Names, and Slogans

One of the most common forms of trademarks is words or combinations of words that serve as brand identifiers. These can include brand names, product names, slogans, or catchphrases. Examples of word-based trademarks include “Google,” “Amazon,” “Just Do It” (Nike’s slogan), and “Think Different” (Apple’s slogan).

Logos and Designs

Trademarks can also take the form of logos, designs, symbols, or graphic elements. These visual representations serve as distinctive identifiers for businesses. Examples include the Nike “swoosh” logo, the Apple logo, the Mercedes-Benz three-pointed star emblem, and the Starbucks mermaid symbol.

Labels and Packaging

Distinctive labels and packaging designs can also be registered as trademarks. These help consumers identify specific products or brands based on their visual appearance. For example, the unique packaging of Toblerone chocolate bars, the curvaceous Coca-Cola bottle design, and the distinctive shape of the Pringles potato chip canister can be registered as trademarks.

Shape of Goods

Section 2(1)(zb) explicitly states that the shape of goods can be included as part of a trademark. This provision allows businesses to protect the distinctive shape of their products as a trademark. Notable examples include the unique shape of the Coca-Cola bottle, the iconic design of the Mini Cooper car, and the shape of the Toblerone chocolate bar.

Combinations of Colors

The Trademarks Act, 1999, recognizes that combinations of colors can also serve as trademarks. This provision allows businesses to protect unique color combinations associated with their brand. For instance, the specific red color used by Coca-Cola or the brown color associated with UPS can be registered as trademarks.

It is important to note that the mark must be capable of being represented graphically, meaning it can be visually depicted in a clear and understandable manner. Additionally, the mark must be capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one person or business from those of others. This means that the mark should possess distinctiveness and not be common or descriptive.

Conclusion

Trademark registration is a vital aspect of protecting the intellectual property rights of businesses. Under the Trademark Act, 1999, several types of trademarks are eligible for protection. It is crucial for businesses to understand these guidelines to ensure effective trademark protection and avoid potential conflicts. Seeking professional guidance and conducting a thorough trademark search before applying for registration can help businesses make informed decisions regarding their intellectual property rights in India.

Frequently Asked Questions

What can and can’t be trademarked in India?

In India, trademarks that can be registered include words, names, slogans, logos, designs, labels, packaging, shapes of goods, and combinations of colors. Non-distinctive or generic terms, descriptive marks, marks that are likely to cause confusion, deceptive marks, marks against public morality, and marks that are already in use or similar to existing registered marks cannot be trademarked. Additionally, marks that are contrary to law, government symbols, and marks that are devoid of distinctive character are also ineligible for trademark registration in India.

Can I trademark a common word?

Yes, it is possible to trademark a common word in India under certain conditions. While generic or commonly used words are generally considered less distinctive and harder to register as trademarks, it is still possible to obtain trademark protection for a common word if it is used in a unique or distinctive manner and has acquired secondary meaning associated with specific goods or services.

Can I trademark a color?

Yes, it is possible to trademark a color in India, but it can be a challenging process. In order to successfully register a color as a trademark, you must demonstrate that the color has acquired distinctiveness and is associated with your specific goods or services in the marketplace. You need to show that consumers recognize the color as an indicator of the source of the goods or services.

Can I trademark a misspelled word?

Yes, it is possible to trademark a misspelled word. The key consideration for trademark registration is the distinctiveness of the mark. If the misspelled word is unique and distinctive enough to differentiate your goods or services from others, it may be eligible for trademark protection.

Can two words be a part of single trademark?

Yes, it is possible for two words to be a part of a single trademark. Combining two or more words to create a distinctive and unique mark is a common practice in trademark registration.

Share:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
WhatsApp

Related Posts

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 »
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 »
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 »