In a judgment delivered late last month, the Supreme Court of India held that a person cannot claim the name of a holy or religious book as a trade mark..The judgment was delivered by a Division Bench of Ranjan Gogoi and RK Agarwal JJ in an appeal against the decision of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board. The Bench upheld the decision taken by the IPAB thereby, declining registration of the word “Ramayan” as Trademark. Advocate Anuradha Salhotra appeared for the appellant while advocate Sudhir Chandra represented the respondent..The Appellant, Lal Babu Priyadarshi was a manufacturer and trader of incense sticks. He made an application to register a trade mark by name “RAMAYAN”. Amritpal Singh, the Respondent, filed a notice of opposition to oppose the registration of this trade mark. The Assistant Registrar of Trademarks decided in favour of the Appellant while the IPAB set aside the decision of the Assistant Registrar of Trademarks and ruled that the appellant cannot register Ramayan as a trademark..The sole question which was considered by the Supreme Court was whether the registration of the word “RAMAYAN” as a trade mark, being the name of a Holy Book of Hindus, is prohibited under Section 9(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999?.After considering the arguments advanced by both the parties the court held that a registration of a title of a religious book as a trademark is not permissible unless a suffix or a prefix to the word alters the significance of the word Ramayan..“The word “RAMAYAN” represents the title of a book written by Maharishi Valmiki and is considered to be a religious book of the Hindus in our country. Thus, using exclusive name of the book “RAMAYAN”, for getting it registered as a trade mark for any commodity could not be permissible under the Act. If any other word is added as suffix or prefix to the word “RAMAYAN” and the alphabets or design or length of the words are same as of the word “RAMAYAN” then the word “RAMAYAN” may lose its significance as a religious book and it may be considered for registration as a trade mark.”.Relying on the case of National Bell Co.Co. vs. Metal Goods Mfg. Co. (P) Ltd. and Another, the Court held that if the proprietor is not in a position to use the mark to distinguish his goods from those of others or has abandoned it or the mark has become so common in the market that it has ceased to connect him with his goods, there would hardly be any justification in retaining it on the register..“In National Bell Co. (supra), this Court has held that the distinctiveness of the trade mark in relation to the goods of a registered proprietor of such a trade mark may be lost in a variety of ways e.g. by the goods not being capable of being distinguished as the goods of such a proprietor or by extensive piracy so that the marks become public juris. The principle underlying clause (c) of Section 32 is that the property in a trade mark exists so long as it continues to be distinctive of the goods of the registered proprietor in the eyes of the public or a section of the public.”.Beside the above, the Court also considered the fact that the disputed trademark was being used by 20 other traders in the city and, therefore, held the following:.“There are many holy and religious books like Quran, Bible, Guru Granth Sahib, Ramayan etc., to name a few. The answer to the question as to whether any person can claim the name of a holy or religious book as a trade mark for his goods or services marketed by him is clearly ‘NO’..Moreover, the appellant has not been able to establish that the word “RAMAYAN” for which he has applied the trade mark had acquired a reputation of user in the market inasmuch as, we find that there are more than 20 traders in the city using the word “RAMAYAN” as a mark for the similar products and also in different parts of the country.”.It, therefore, dismissed the appeal and refused to interfere with the decision of the IPAB.
In a judgment delivered late last month, the Supreme Court of India held that a person cannot claim the name of a holy or religious book as a trade mark..The judgment was delivered by a Division Bench of Ranjan Gogoi and RK Agarwal JJ in an appeal against the decision of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board. The Bench upheld the decision taken by the IPAB thereby, declining registration of the word “Ramayan” as Trademark. Advocate Anuradha Salhotra appeared for the appellant while advocate Sudhir Chandra represented the respondent..The Appellant, Lal Babu Priyadarshi was a manufacturer and trader of incense sticks. He made an application to register a trade mark by name “RAMAYAN”. Amritpal Singh, the Respondent, filed a notice of opposition to oppose the registration of this trade mark. The Assistant Registrar of Trademarks decided in favour of the Appellant while the IPAB set aside the decision of the Assistant Registrar of Trademarks and ruled that the appellant cannot register Ramayan as a trademark..The sole question which was considered by the Supreme Court was whether the registration of the word “RAMAYAN” as a trade mark, being the name of a Holy Book of Hindus, is prohibited under Section 9(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999?.After considering the arguments advanced by both the parties the court held that a registration of a title of a religious book as a trademark is not permissible unless a suffix or a prefix to the word alters the significance of the word Ramayan..“The word “RAMAYAN” represents the title of a book written by Maharishi Valmiki and is considered to be a religious book of the Hindus in our country. Thus, using exclusive name of the book “RAMAYAN”, for getting it registered as a trade mark for any commodity could not be permissible under the Act. If any other word is added as suffix or prefix to the word “RAMAYAN” and the alphabets or design or length of the words are same as of the word “RAMAYAN” then the word “RAMAYAN” may lose its significance as a religious book and it may be considered for registration as a trade mark.”.Relying on the case of National Bell Co.Co. vs. Metal Goods Mfg. Co. (P) Ltd. and Another, the Court held that if the proprietor is not in a position to use the mark to distinguish his goods from those of others or has abandoned it or the mark has become so common in the market that it has ceased to connect him with his goods, there would hardly be any justification in retaining it on the register..“In National Bell Co. (supra), this Court has held that the distinctiveness of the trade mark in relation to the goods of a registered proprietor of such a trade mark may be lost in a variety of ways e.g. by the goods not being capable of being distinguished as the goods of such a proprietor or by extensive piracy so that the marks become public juris. The principle underlying clause (c) of Section 32 is that the property in a trade mark exists so long as it continues to be distinctive of the goods of the registered proprietor in the eyes of the public or a section of the public.”.Beside the above, the Court also considered the fact that the disputed trademark was being used by 20 other traders in the city and, therefore, held the following:.“There are many holy and religious books like Quran, Bible, Guru Granth Sahib, Ramayan etc., to name a few. The answer to the question as to whether any person can claim the name of a holy or religious book as a trade mark for his goods or services marketed by him is clearly ‘NO’..Moreover, the appellant has not been able to establish that the word “RAMAYAN” for which he has applied the trade mark had acquired a reputation of user in the market inasmuch as, we find that there are more than 20 traders in the city using the word “RAMAYAN” as a mark for the similar products and also in different parts of the country.”.It, therefore, dismissed the appeal and refused to interfere with the decision of the IPAB.
