ÃÑo/) xq &[ i Àgà~p.2 À 5`Ôÿ± Ã>4me#ç Þca >ÖÑ …€¢ to protect the public...
TRANSCRIPT
Trademarks
Why Brands ?
• To protect the public so that it may be confident in getting the product which it asks for and it wants to get.
• To protect an owner’s investment from misappropriation by pirates and cheats
• Trademark helps customers to select goods. By identifying the source of goods, they convey valuable information to consumers
How Brands connect ?
• Functional Benefit - A BMW automobile include power, excellent brakes and great cornering ability
• Emotional level – BMW Engine sound and sensations of excitement that come from accelerating down an open highway
• Self Expressive sense - A BMW owner feels his or her own success resulting from ownership of an expensive and distinctive vehicle
Brand value
• When Philip Mores bought Kraft, the maker of cheese, the price was 12.9 Billion US $ for the brand names, which was four times Kraft’s tangible assets
• Nestle paid 2.5 Billion US $ for the brand name KITKAT, which was 5 • Nestle paid 2.5 Billion US $ for the brand name KITKAT, which was 5 times Rowndstree’s book value
• In the Life Insurance joint venture between Bajaj Auto and Allianz of Germany, a premium of Rs. 72 crores has been paid to Bajaj Auto for using the brand name BAJAJ in the life Insurance business by the joint venture
TRADE MARKS
• Device, heading,• Label, ticket, name, signature,• Word, letter, numeral• Shape of goods, packaging or• Shape of goods, packaging or• Combination of colours or any• Combination thereof.• Services • New act - Trade Marks Act, 1999
A Device
Heading
Labels
Tickets
NAME
Signature
Word – Dictionary &Invented
Word
Number
Shape of Goods
Packaging
Combination of Colour
Services
What does not constitute a TM
• A trademark should NOT have the following features:
• a) It should NOT be deceptively similar to any other existing mark
• b) It should not be a descriptive of the goods. A remote • b) It should not be a descriptive of the goods. A remote reference is sometimes allowed.
• c) It should NOT be a word that defines the nature of the product
• d) It should not be the name or the surname of a person• e) It should not be a geographical name
Exemptions
• non-distinctive mark that is used in trade by the extensive use of the mark in relation to the goods in which the marks are being used, resulting in the mark becoming distinctive of the goods and the manufacturer. manufacturer.
• In such cases, the doctrine of prior use applies and it serves as a valid defense for the manufacturer to claim proprietary rights over the trademark. Some examples of such marks /brands are Nilgiris, Nagarjuna Fertilisers, Taj Mahal Tea etc.
Some case laws
• Win -Medicare Ltd V. DUA Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd,Diclomol was used by the plaintiff and Dicamol was used by the defendant.
• The court held that the two products were similar and considered the factor that these drugs are sold and considered the factor that these drugs are sold without prescription.
• Therefore these drugs can be bought off the counter by illiterate customer and therefore restrained the use of the trademark by holding that they are similar.
• 1997 PTR 152
Some case laws• Delhi High Court granted an ex-prate injunction to
Smithkline Beecham Ltd which was the registered owner of the mark Crocin against the use by Apar Pharma of Hyderabad and Cyper Pharma of Delhi against the use of the word Crocinex.
• Both the marks were sought to be used for paracetamol • Both the marks were sought to be used for paracetamol tablets.
• The Court held that the words were so similar that the it attempt was to deliberately mislead the public. (Here the issue of phonetic similarity was also conceded).
• APTN Set 1 No 3 April 98 p 13
Some case laws• Calida Lab v. Dabur Pharma Ltd, Calida alleged that
Zexate was deceptively similar to Mexate in respect of a particular injection used to treat cancer.
• The Court based its conclusions only on the fact that the drugs were specialized drugs which could only be purchased showing the prescription of a cancer drugs were specialized drugs which could only be purchased showing the prescription of a cancer specialist.
• It was felt that the prescriptions were made by specialist doctors who are knowledgeable and are capable of distinguishing the names and therefore court held that the trademarks can be allowed APTN Set 1 No2, Dec 97, p 12
Some case laws
• Biofarma V. Sanjay Medical Store, the question was with reference to Flavedon and Trivedon for a drug that was prescribed for heart disease.
• The court gave importance to the fact that the drug was a Schedule H drug under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, a Schedule H drug under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, which meant that the drug cannot be bought off the counter.
• The Court held that the two drugs need not be considered to be deceptively similar on the same logic followed in the above mentioned case.
• 1997 PTR 97
Concurrent registrations• The pharmaceutical industry has some interesting examples of such
concurrent registrations:
• a) Durex- Durex Products Inc, USA and The London Rubber Co, UK • b) Kerocleanse - Scientific Pharmacals Ltd, UK and Patel Brothers Service &
Eng, Eng, • Mumbai (Class 5)• c) Nifecard - Lek Tovarna Farmacevtskih, Yugoslavia; Biochem
Pharmaceutical Industries, Mumbai (Class 5)• Taktic:- The Boots Co Ltd, UK and Eskayef Limited, Bangalore•
• APTN Set 1, No 2, Dec 31
TM becoming a generic word• TRADEMARK BECOMING A GENERIC WORD: It should be noted
that unless a trademark is carefully protected it will lose its significance.
• This essentially means that the trademark will degenerate in status to a generic word.
• The consequence is that the trademark will start referring to goods • The consequence is that the trademark will start referring to goods of that variety rather than serve as a link between that product and the manufacture.
• Hence the manufacturer/ owner will not be able to claim any proprietorship /ownership rights over the trademark.
• This may occur if the owner fails to take action against the infringoror because of the use of the mark in a descriptive sense. Some examples of these are: Asprin, Refrigrator, GripeWater, Xerox etc. in which the goods fall.
How do you acquire a Trade Mark ?
• You can apply on various categories permitted under the law
• The mark if it is a word has to be distinctive than descriptive
• E.g. apple cannot be for apples but can be for • E.g. apple cannot be for apples but can be for computers
• Invented words get protection across the categories
• 34 categories for products and 8 categories for services
TRADE MARK
• A Dictionary Word can be given as mark to others in other categories
• If it is an invented word the holder gets the exclusive right across all categories
• Eg. INVENTED WORD- KODAK, DUREX
How do you acquire a Trade Mark ?
• You can use a mark without registration• It establishes you as a senior player• However it only allows you to stop others of
using your markusing your mark• Registration of mark allows you to claim
damages and profits of the infringer• Registration to be done with the Trade mark
registrar
Infringement of Trademark
• The test laid down by the Supremecourt is a person of averageintelligence with imperfect memory –intelligence with imperfect memory –Amritdhara case AIR 1963 SC 449.This test is followed by the SupremeCourt and by various High Courts allover India.
LET US PLAY THE JUDGE—CASTROL VS PENTAGON
IS THERE ARE INFRINGEMENT ?
NYLE VS KAMILL- IS THERE AN INFRINGEMENT ?
..
SABENA VS SUBEENAIS THERE AN INFRINGEMENT ?
Marks different – Get up sameCASTROL VS PENTAGON
• Where the marks are different, but the colour scheme, get up and layout are identical, injunction has been granted in a suit for passing off.
• Castrol Vs. Pentagon Lubricants – C.S. No. • Castrol Vs. Pentagon Lubricants – C.S. No. 327 of 1999 – Order of Mr. Justice A. Ramamurthi dated 22.12.1999. The Learned Judge observed that in view of the colour scheme, packing being identical, an ordinary person would assume that the defendants’ goods also emanate from Castrol.
NYLE VS KAMILL
• Beauty Cosmetics Vs.Kamil cosmetics –C.S. No. 415 of 1998 Mr. Justice Akbar Basha Khadiri Basha Khadiri by an order dated 25th June 1998 granted an injunction restraining Kamil Cosmetics from selling Shampoo with a label similar to Nyle Shampoo label although the marks Nyle and Kamil are completely different
Marks similar, getup similar
• Scientific Compounds Vs. Hanuman Cottage –(2001) 1 CTMR 403
• Mr. Justice A.K. Rajan of Madras High Court • Mr. Justice A.K. Rajan of Madras High Court granted an order of injunction in a suit for infringement and passing off on the ground that the trade marks SABENA and SUBEENA are similar, the colour scheme, getup are similar.
Domain Names & Trademarks
Unique URL addressesInternet protocol started as a series of
numbers that were difficult to rememberDomain names started being usedDomain names started being usedUseful mnemonic means of locating specific
computers on the Internet Whenever human beings use a word to
identify a business trademark law comes into play
Domain Names- hierachy
• Top-level domain names • Open (.com, .org, .net)• Closed (.edu, .int, .gov and .mil)• Unique country specific top level domain namesUnique country specific top level domain names• Proposal to add more top level names• Most legal disputes center around Second level
domain names• Two identical second level domain names cannot
coexist under the same top level domain
Issues in DN/TM
• Problems with traditional trademark law• Identical trademarks in different businesses• Can co-exist in the real world, because no
likelihood of confusion between goods likelihood of confusion between goods registered in different classes
• Domain names are unique• Can give rise to genuine disputes
Infringement in Internet
SimilarConfusing SimilarBlurring/Whittling away or TarnishmentCyber squattingCyber squattingPolitical cybersquattingPost Domain disputesTypographical errors
Infringement of Trademark (contd.)
• The test laid down by the Supreme court is aperson of average intelligence with imperfectmemory – Amritdhara case AIR 1963 SC 449.This test is followed by the Supreme Court and byvarious High Courts all over India.
• The test laid down by the SC is overall impression /• The test laid down by the SC is overall impression /comparison of the two marks. A side by side, word,by word comparison is not permitted. In the Parlecase AIR 1972 SC 1359 the marks involved wereGluco biscuits wrapper and the defendant usingsimilar wrapper although there were minordifferences like the Basket being held differently, thebackground, etc. Still the court granted injunctionin view of the over all similarity of the marks.
Domain name disputes-Confusion-8 factors
(Polaroid Corpn v Polard Electronics Corpn
The Strength of the Plaintiff’s markSimiliarity Competitive proximityBridging the gap by the defendant Bridging the gap by the defendant Actual confusion between productsGood faith of the defendantQuality of defendant productSophistication of the buyer
Confusion requirement
Point-of-sale: confusion of the purchaser as to the services or goods at the time of purchase
Pre-sale confusion: when an infringing use is likely to attract potential customers based on the to attract potential customers based on the reputation of the owner of the mark
Post-sale confusion: when the public, viewing the purchased goods or services, associates a defendant's goods or services with the plaintiff, regardless of whether the purchaser was confused
DN litigations on ‘confusingly similar to reg TM ’
Interstellar Starship Services Ltd V Epix Inc epix.comToys ‘R’Us Inc v Feinberg - gunsareus.comAlta Vista Corpn Ltd v Digital Equipment Alta Vista Corpn Ltd v Digital Equipment
Corporation – Alta Vista Site EngineMobil Oil Corp v Pegasus Oil Corpn
TM V DN- Geographic limitations
Use does not infringe or dilute the senior User’s MarkAvoid using the proposed mark in contested
regionsregionsReach some sort of accomodation with the
senior including a buyout Alta Vista case redefined the Geographic
limitations factor of TM in Domain Name
Cyber squatting
Panavision International LP v Toeppen panavision.com /panaflex.com Defendant had photos of City of Pana, Illinois
and ‘Hello’ in Panaflex site- The court decided and ‘Hello’ in Panaflex site- The court decided Toeppen acting as a spoilerToys ‘R’ Us vs Abir - toysareus.com
Confusingly similiar
Amazon.com, Inc. v. Paul Horner -Case No. D2003-0071-amazon.com –amazonbook.netPfizer Inc. v. Jason Haft-Case No. D2003-0133Pfizer Inc. v. Jason Haft-Case No. D2003-0133 fem-viagra.com>, <fem-viagra.net>, <viagra-fem.com> and <viagra-fem.net>
Meta tags
Meta tags are HTML code used to describe the contents of a web site. Search engines retrieve results for Internet users by looking for metatags, keywords in domain names and actual text on web pages. pages.
The more often a term appears in the metatags for a site, the more likely it is that the web page will be found in a search for that term. International court cases have held that the use of another's trademark as a metatag leads to trademark infringement
Keywords
Search engines sell keywords to competitorsSearch produces results along with a banner
or advertisement of the competitor Estee Lauder v Fragrance counterEstee Lauder v Fragrance counterPlayboy v Excite
UDRP
Rodney D. Ryder Preconcept
Trademarks on the Internet [People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals]
Rodney D. Ryder Preconcept
Trademarks on the Internet […contd.]
Rodney D. Ryder Preconcept
Cybersquatting in India: the Yahoo! Case
Rodney D. Ryder Preconcept
Cybersquatting: the Yahoo! Case and Copyright Issues
Rodney D. Ryder Preconcept
Second Generation Trademark Issues: Metatags
Rodney D. Ryder Preconcept
Second Generation Trademark Issues: Metatags
Rodney D. Ryder Preconcept
Legitimate Hyperlinking
Rodney D. Ryder Preconcept
Linking [Hyperlinking] and Framing
Rodney D. Ryder Preconcept