Panel Upholds Delhi Co’s Rights Over Rice Brand
Chennai: Can a product’s namewhichdescribesits quality be used as a trademark? Yes, says the Intellectual Property Appellate Board, which has upheld the trademark ‘Bemisal’ (which in Hindi means matchless)usedby a Delhi-basedcompany for its rice brand. However, the board said a name which simply denotes a product cannotbe regarded as a trademark.
Simply put,theorder means a company can sell apples under the trademark ‘delicious’, whichis a quality,but notunder ‘apple’, which just denotes the product. The IPAB bench also said whether the product stands up to its name or not could be decided only by the market, an IPABbenchsaid.
Delhi-basedKBRLLtdstarted selling rice under the trademark ‘Bemisal’ in 1981. It filed a case in a Delhi court saying another company, P K Overseas Private Limited, was using a trademark that was “phonetically and visually identical and deceptively similar” its trademark. The court on July 6, 2010 restrained PK from using the trademark. PK then approachedtheIPABin appeal.
PK said the word ‘Bemisal’, which meant matchless/having no comparison in Hindi, could not be used as a trademark as it could only indicate the kind and quality of goods. As the trademark was not distinctive, its proprietary rights could notbeclaimed,itsaid.
The IPAB circuit bench consisting of vice-chairman S Usha and technical member V Ravi, at its hearing in Delhi, pointed out that Section 32 of the Trademark Act “protects the registration on the ground of distinctiveness in certain cases.” It said KBRL Ltd had a domesticsalesof morethan 69 crore since 1999 and the companywasexporting ricetoseveral countries such as Kuwait, Bahrain, New Zealand, Saudi Arabia andCanada.
“The balance of convenience is in allowing the mark to remain on register,in partbecause the respondents are valuable foreign exchange earners for the country. The old theory that some trademarks are incapable of distinguishing the goods andservices andcan never serve as the badge of origin has been relaxed under the current act,” the bench said last week. “However, there is one limitation —the actual nameof goods and services, such as ‘apple’, could not be regarded as a trademark,” it said, dismissing the appealfiledby PKOverseas.
Chennai: Can a product’s namewhichdescribesits quality be used as a trademark? Yes, says the Intellectual Property Appellate Board, which has upheld the trademark ‘Bemisal’ (which in Hindi means matchless)usedby a Delhi-basedcompany for its rice brand. However, the board said a name which simply denotes a product cannotbe regarded as a trademark.
Simply put,theorder means a company can sell apples under the trademark ‘delicious’, whichis a quality,but notunder ‘apple’, which just denotes the product. The IPAB bench also said whether the product stands up to its name or not could be decided only by the market, an IPABbenchsaid.
Delhi-basedKBRLLtdstarted selling rice under the trademark ‘Bemisal’ in 1981. It filed a case in a Delhi court saying another company, P K Overseas Private Limited, was using a trademark that was “phonetically and visually identical and deceptively similar” its trademark. The court on July 6, 2010 restrained PK from using the trademark. PK then approachedtheIPABin appeal.
PK said the word ‘Bemisal’, which meant matchless/having no comparison in Hindi, could not be used as a trademark as it could only indicate the kind and quality of goods. As the trademark was not distinctive, its proprietary rights could notbeclaimed,itsaid.
The IPAB circuit bench consisting of vice-chairman S Usha and technical member V Ravi, at its hearing in Delhi, pointed out that Section 32 of the Trademark Act “protects the registration on the ground of distinctiveness in certain cases.” It said KBRL Ltd had a domesticsalesof morethan 69 crore since 1999 and the companywasexporting ricetoseveral countries such as Kuwait, Bahrain, New Zealand, Saudi Arabia andCanada.
“The balance of convenience is in allowing the mark to remain on register,in partbecause the respondents are valuable foreign exchange earners for the country. The old theory that some trademarks are incapable of distinguishing the goods andservices andcan never serve as the badge of origin has been relaxed under the current act,” the bench said last week. “However, there is one limitation —the actual nameof goods and services, such as ‘apple’, could not be regarded as a trademark,” it said, dismissing the appealfiledby PKOverseas.
No comments:
Post a Comment