Do you need more information?
Fill out the details below and we shall get in touch with you at the earliest.
A detailed overview of the application stages and timelines involved in trademark filing. Apart from basics like documents and fee, the section also informs on opposition, Madrid protocol, amendments, cancellations, renewals and restorations.
Fill out the details below and we shall get in touch with you at the earliest.
A Moment to Remember: Personality rights, Moment marketing and the Olympics
India’s ace badminton player PV Sindhu created history by winning a bronze medal in the Tokyo 2020 Olympics held recently, joining the ranks of a select few who have one more than individual medal in the history of the games. While the country celebrated her historic achievement, in order to stay relevant and cash in on her success and popularity, various brands inserted themselves into ongoing conversations as well, in an act of what is called “moment marketing”.
Concerned that many brands were using this as an opportunity to get mileage out of such messaging, and potentially misrepresenting this as an endorsement, Sindhu and her agency Baseline Ventures are preparing to take 20 brands to court for such moment marketing. The brands include leading public and private sector banks, white goods manufacturers, and FMCG companies, with claims of Rs 5 crore from each of the brands. Baseline has had exclusive rights to manage Sindhu’s commercial and brand endorsement deals since 2016. The firm stated, where a brand makes a public display on such occasions, the brand is effectively trying to gain mileage out of such messaging, and it may lead many viewers to misconstrue the message as an endorsement.
This is not the only instance of Indian Olympic champions having encountered a buzz around their successes. A few days before Sindhu won her medal, weightlifter Saikhom Mirabai Chanu won a silver medal, and in her post-match interview, expressed a wish to eat pizza. The fast-food service chain Dominos pledged free pizzas for life to Chanu after the interview, but quickly enough, also compensated her for the use of her name and made a separate digital activation deal with the weightlifter.
What is moment marketing?
“Moment marketing” is a marketing strategy where brands take advantage of ongoing events, and try to gain relevance by inserting themselves into ongoing conversations at a marginal cost. Brands often also get involved in ambush marketing, which is when an advertiser “ambushes” an event, thus competing with other advertisers. Controversy arises because the brands who have officially sponsored the performers or celebrities in question may not be comfortable with other brands stealing the limelight.
The dairy cooperative, Amul, is the best case study, and arguably, an ambassador, for moment marketing in India. Many copywriters have risen to fame churning out Amul’s iconic regular advertisements on current events, which audiences eagerly look forward to even today. Over the years, Amul has changed its medium, moving away from physical hoardings to social media, but has successfully managed to stay relevant throughout.
Moment and ambush marketing are becoming increasingly prevalent in a world dominated by social media and short attention spans. The easiest way for brands to stay in visible is by being up to speed with news and follow trends. Tweets, memes, and short videos are means to become part of the conversation. The success of marketing campaigns is measured by audience engagement and viral content. But in this fight to stay relevant, brands often churn out content without thinking about the legal repercussions of their actions.
Legal Implications in the Sindhu issue
Sindhu and her agency have several rights at their disposal, as the marketing spree that brands seem to have indulged in after Sindhu’s medal-winning moment has multiple legal implications. Some of these are discussed here.
The Tokyo 2020 Olympics issued extensive regulations titled “Brand Protection Guidelines”, on intellectual property rights. These regulations essentially deal with the intellectual property around the Olympics. Among other things, they refer to trademark protection, where any attempt to convey, in any form, an association with an athlete or with Olympic emblems, is a violation of the trademark laws of the Olympics, which are punishable by Japanese trademark law.
The International Olympic Committee (IOC) also put out guidelines around advertising during the tournament. There was a blackout period between July 13 (when the Olympic Village opened) and August 10 (two days after the Closing Ceremony) when even brands that sponsor the player were not allowed to post about them online. Only IOC and (in India’s case) the Indian Olympic Association (IOA) partners, were allowed to post about the players.
To ensure brands do not infringe upon the privacy of celebrities, the Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) already has a code in place. The code says:
“Advertisements shall not, without permission from the person, firm or institution under reference, contain any reference to such person, which confers an unjustified advantage on the product advertised or tends to bring the person, firm or institute into ridicule or disrepute. If and when required to do so by ASCI, the advertiser and the advertising agency shall produce explicit permission from the person, firm or institution to which reference is made in the advertisement”
Advertisements that do not comply with this requirement may be in violation of the ASCI Code.
Trademark and copyright protection
In India, the infringement of a registered trademark is actionable under Section 134 of the Trademark Act. Remedies under trademark laws also include claiming damages from the entity which has illegally used the name of a celebrity. However, it might be difficult for PV Sindhu to get recourse under trademark law as Indian sportspersons do not usually register their personal or unique names to enable them to get relief under the law. Interestingly, many cricketers and movie celebrities have taken this path and registered their names. But the majority of Indian athletes and sportspersons, besides cricketers, are still new to this concept of trademarking their own names.
Under copyright law in India, the term “performer” may be construed to include sportspersons such as Sindhu. A performer holds a copyright in their performance and is entitled to restrain others from exploiting their intellectual property for commercial purposes.
Right of publicity
The right of publicity has evolved from the right to privacy, which is a fundamental right in India. Also referred to as personality rights, the right of publicity allows individuals to take charge of the commercial use of their identity, including their name, photographs (including likenesses), and other identifiers. Sindhu would likely be entitled to raise a challenge of the right of publicity against brands that have used her name and references to her winning moment for their own benefit without due credit or compensation.
For brands and advertisers, participating in live conversations has become the norm. It is a natural fallout and distinguishing feature of the always-on culture that we now consume. The Sindhu case is not going to be an isolated one. Brands will constantly want to be a part of whatever is happening around the world at any point of time, and such instances will only occur more frequently and invite more interest and publicity.
For example, brand participation should be carefully undertaken, particularly when a public personality’s image or name is involved. Unauthorised use of images or names can have a host of detrimental and costly legal consequences. Instead of viewing this is as a challenge or a limitation, this is in fact an opportunity for brands to be more creative in their engagement with topical issues, for which Amul has set a fine example over decades.
Equally, agencies handling personalities should also be aware of their clients’ rights and protect their intellectual property, among other things. A defensive strategy would be through filing for trademarks around names and structuring air-tight endorsements, as many cricket players have done, whereas an offensive strategy would involve, as in the Sindhu case, responding to instances of abuse as and when they emerge.
Possibilities abound, but clearly, all parties involved in this need to revisit their strategies to help them make the most of the moment.
To Litigate or Arbitrate, a “Heroic” Dilemma
As intellectual property disputes grow in number in India, corresponding questions arise regarding the most appropriate adjudicating authority to be approached for redress. Besides regular courts, IP disputes also occasionally make their way into arbitrations. But the circumstances under which IP disputes can be referred to arbitration are not always clear. This matter was discussed in a recent suit in the Delhi High Court involving “Hero”, a well-known trademark in the business of two-wheelers.
In this suit, the plaintiffs had sought a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dealing in electric bikes having a throttle, using “Hero” or any deceptively similar mark.1
The trademark originated in the business of Hero Exports, which used to be a partnership firm of all the members of the Munjal Group. After a Family Settlement Agreement (FSA), the businesses of the group were divided among four family groups. Alongside the FSA, a “Trade Mark and Name Agreement” (TMNA), was executed, which assigned the right to use the trademark “Hero”, and its variants, among the various groups.
The plaintiffs and defendants belonged to two different family groups. The plaintiffs asserted that the TMNA conferred on their family group, the exclusive right to use the trademarks “Hero” and “Hero Electric”, and its variants, on all-electric vehicles, including electric bikes. The plaint alleged that the defendants (Lectro) were manufacturing, selling and promoting electric bikes under the brand “Hero”, thus violating the exclusive right vested in the plaintiffs.
The defendants argued that subsequent to the FSA and TMNA, any right to use the mark was necessarily governed by those agreements. Any dispute would, therefore, be subject to the provisions for arbitration contained in the agreements. Accordingly, defendants under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) sought to have the dispute raised by the plaintiffs to arbitration.
The Delhi High Court, which was hearing the case, relied on the four-fold test of non-arbitrability of the subject matter, laid down by the Supreme Court in Vidya Drolia and Ors. v. Durga Trading Corporation.2 As per this test, a cause of action and/or subject matter of a dispute is non-arbitrable when:
The court stated that the dispute between the plaintiffs and the defendants required a holistic appreciation of the FSA and TMNA in order to adjudicate on the rights conferred on the various family groups; and that the dispute was ex-facie arbitrable in nature, seen in the light of the FSA and TMNA.
The Court concluded that the controversy did not relate to the grant or registration of trademarks. The trademarks were already granted and registered, prior to the FSA and TMNA. The dispute was regarding the family group to which the FSA and TMNA assigned the rights to use the trademarks in connection with electric cycles and e-cycles. Thus, the dispute was based on rights emanating from the FSA and TMNA, and not on provisions of the Trade Marks Act.
Accordingly, the Court decided that the petitioner ought to approach an Arbitrator for appropriate reliefs as it may choose under Section 17 of the A&C Act, and decided that the suit should be referred to arbitration, with parties at liberty to appoint the arbitrator/arbitrators in accordance with the FSA and TMNA.
Of particular interest here is the Court’s decision to not examine the trademark infringement matter, and instead focus only on contractual aspects. The Court highlighted that the present suit was not about the deceptive similarity of the marks or trademark infringement, but rather, about the ‘right to use the mark’ which arises from the FSA and TMNA.
Judicial precedent shows that arbitrability has been decided by the courts on the basis of the nature of the claim raised. Disputes pertaining to the ownership, validity of IP right, etc., are actions in rem and thus, not arbitrable. However, disputes arising out of contractual relations such as restriction against the future use of IP by a party, are contractual, and actions in personam and therefore, arbitrable.
At least two questions arise from the present decision of the Delhi High Court:
The plaintiffs had argued that the Court did not need to refer to the two family agreements, as they (the plaintiffs) were relying on the Trade Marks Act and the fact that Hero Exports was the registered proprietor of the trademark ‘Hero’ for electric bikes.
The judgement did not however, consider the permanent injunction that the plaintiffs had sought. One line of criticism is that the Court overlooked the fact that invoking a right in rem against a particular person does not make it a right in personam which is subject to arbitration. Adjudication of the dispute would automatically define the scope of the plaintiffs’ rights, which can be claimed against other infringers as well in the future.
On the other hand, there is the argument that while this case deals with IP claims, the case also deals with the capability of courts to refer parties to arbitration. The High Court relied on the judgement in Vidya Drolia v Durga Trading Corporation, which laid down the tests that allow a court to refer a matter to arbitration. All other questions of arbitrability of the dispute must be left to the tribunal to adjudicate upon, without the intrusion of the court, for if the court indulged in anything further, it would amount to usurping the powers of the tribunal.
Further, the entirety of the cause of action in the dispute must be rendered non-arbitrable in order for a court to be able to completely prevent arbitration. A court of law can only prevent arbitration if the issue is not prima facie arbitrable. The jurisdiction of the court, as per Indian law, extends merely to judging two aspects:
In this regard, the line of criticism is that the issue of whether “electric bikes” include “electric bicycles” is a question on the scope and the validity of the registrations of trademarks. This is purely a question of law that needs to be analyzed through examination of the Trade Marks Act, Trade Marks Rules, and the extant registrations of the parties.
However, as a pre-emptive observation against this, in paragraph 146 of the decision, the Court stated that the trademark in question already stood granted prior to the FSA and TMNA, and that the dispute here was in connection with which family group of the four was assigned the rights to the same. The assignment in this case was contractual via the FSA and TMNA, and thus existed solely in personam.
This decision clears some air around the arbitrability of IP disputes in certain circumstances. Specifically, the Delhi High Court made the distinction between the treatment of an IP dispute and a contractual dispute, specifying that arbitration would follow in the latter case. While this decision offers a little more clarity than what existed before, on which dispute resolution forum parties would have to approach in different circumstances, it is likely that this determination will need to be made on a case-by-case basis.
1 Hero Electric Vehicles (P) Ltd. v. Lectro E-Mobility (P) Ltd., 2021, Delhi High Court, CS (COMM) 98/2020 and I.A. 3381/2020, Decided on 02.03.2021
2 2019 SCC OnLine SC 358
Who Judges Whom: Turf Wars, Forum Shopping and Anti-suit Injunctions
An anti-suit injunction is an order by the court which restricts a party from filing or continuing with proceedings in another court, including foreign courts, with regard to the subject matter of the suit.1 When courts are approached by a party seeking an anti-suit injunction, they generally establish a ‘forum conveniens’, i.e., determine the most appropriate forum to decide upon the dispute. Once determined, the court recognise this forum as the one where the dispute has a ‘substantial and real’ connection.
Ordinarily, territorial jurisdiction in suits pertaining to intellectual property (IP) in India are determined by Section 20 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, which states that suits shall be instituted at the court within whose jurisdiction (i) any of the defendants reside, carry on business, or personally work for gain; or (ii) the cause of action arises, wholly or in part.
Some provisions in intellectual property law provide for additional forums that may be approached by parties. These are Section 62 of the Copyright Act, 1957 and Section 134 of the Trademarks Act, 1999. Both these provisions permit infringement suits to be instituted in any district court within whose jurisdiction the plaintiff resides, carries on business, or personally works for gain.
Anti-suit injunctions and personal jurisdiction in IP matters
Anti-suit injunctions are most common in arbitration or family law matters. However, such injunctions are occasionally granted in matters pertaining to intellectual property as well. It is mostly in cross border matters where it becomes complex, since the laws differ from country to country. In such cases, it becomes imperative to determine which country’s courts are best suited to hear the case. To do this, courts must establish personal jurisdiction in the matter.
In India, where a decision relating to the interest of the parties is to be made, courts must have personal jurisdiction. Personal jurisdiction refers to the authority to make a decision regarding the party being sued. In India, personal jurisdiction is not specifically defined in law. In IP cases, the definition of this term has been derived from jurisprudence.
The question as to what constitutes personal jurisdiction was discussed at length in (India TV) Independent News Service Pvt Limited v. India Broadcast Live LLC and Ors.2 In this case, the plaintiff moved the Delhi High Court for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from using their mark “INDIA TV”. The defendant contested this, claiming, among other things, the lack of jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain this suit.
While this suit was pending, the defendant instituted a parallel suit in the Arizona District Court in the United States seeking non-infringement. The plaintiff sought an anti-suit injunction against the Indian proceedings. The defendants argued that the Delhi High Court had no authority to preside over them, since they neither resided nor worked for gain in India; the promoters were residents of the US; and the registering authority was based in Arizona. All of these factors cumulatively made Arizona the forum conveniens in this matter, according to them.
Since this was an anti-suit injunction filed in the US, for the determination of personal jurisdiction, the position of US courts was considered. The defendant cited Cybersell Inc v. Cybersell Inc and Ors.3 which recognized a three-part test to determine personal jurisdiction,
“i. The non-resident defendant must do some act, enter some transaction with the forum or perform some act by which he purposefully avails himself of the privilege of conducting activities in the forum,
iii. exercise of jurisdiction must be reasonable.”
Cybersell4 also held that there must be sufficient minimum contact for personal jurisdiction to be established, which depends upon the nature and quality of commercial activity conducted.
The defendant also contended that “a mere maintenance of a homepage accessible in India is not sufficient to confer jurisdiction where there is no evidence to show that defendant No. 1 specifically targeted audiences in India.”
The plaintiff on the other hand, referred to Compuserve Inc. v. Patterson5 where general and specific personal jurisdiction was differentiated: where a specific jurisdiction has sufficient contact with the forum state to allow district courts to adjudicate by norms of fair play and justice. A three-step test, which went beyond that cited by the defendants, was as follows:
On this basis, the plaintiff contended their goodwill was being damaged in India by the defendants, the website was highly interactive, and was not only accessible but offered the option of subscription.
In the case in India, the Delhi High Court held that in order to determine personal jurisdiction, it would have to consider three things: firstly, whether the defendant’s activities have sufficient connection with the forum; secondly, whether the cause of action arose out of these activities and thirdly, whether exercise of jurisdiction will be reasonable. It found that although mere accessibility is not a ground of personal jurisdiction, the fact that the website was interactive and the defendants had intentions of operating in India meant that there was sufficient connection with India. The Court also said that the defendants had enough Indian links for it to exercise jurisdiction while the plaintiff had an office only in India and did not have offices anywhere else in the world. Further, the damage to the plaintiff’s goodwill within India was a consequence of the defendants’ activities and thus the court had personal jurisdiction over the defendants.
Soon after, the Delhi High Court upheld the test laid down in India TV 6 and expanded upon its applicability, in Banyan Tree Holding (P) Limited v. A. Murali Krishna Reddy and Ors.7 In this case, the plaintiff, since 1994 had adopted and used the mark “Banyan Tree” and the banyan tree device, and claimed that both of which, due to extensive use, had acquired a distinct association with the plaintiff. In October 2007, the plaintiff learnt that the defendant had initiated a project named ‘Banyan Tree Retreat’, which was advertised on their website. The plaintiff contended that the Delhi High Court had territorial jurisdiction since the defendants had presence in India through their web page, the webpage was not passive and interactive, and the defendant had sent brochures to residents in Delhi.
The Delhi High Court held that the plaintiff would have to establish that the defendant purposefully availed of the jurisdiction of the forum court. It would have to show that the use of website was with the intention of concluding a commercial transaction. The Court also clarified that to be seen as purposeful availment, there must necessarily be a commercial transaction in the forum state, by specifically reaching out, or marketing, to customers. Neither a mere advertisement nor an insufficiently interactive website which does not purposefully transact with customers would be sufficient to determine jurisdiction. Where cause of action is established under section 20(3) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, the court will have the jurisdiction to try the matter.
In a previous post, we highlighted a more recent case where the Delhi High Court in HT Media Limited & Anr v. Brainlink International, INC. and Anr.8 granted an anti-suit injunction against a suit initiated in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The High Court held that the suit before the US court was “vexatious “and “oppressive” since the website had been established with the motive of targeting Indian viewers, which later became inactive. This test for whether foreign proceedings are ‘oppressive’ or ‘vexatious’ is helpful to maintain international comity in India as well as around the world.
Anti-suit injunctions are a contentious device used to tackle conflicts arising out of jurisdiction- and forum-shopping. Courts are wary in handling such cases, and such injunctions are not granted frequently or lightly. Usually, strict tests have to be met before any such grant. The grant of an anti-suit injunction implies encroaching on the jurisdiction of another court, and thus, if not considered with particular care and consideration, can affect international relations. Although India does not have any explicit rules governing the award of anti-suit injunctions, Indian courts should grant injunctions on principles of equity and preventing lapses in the delivery of justice, while also considering the basic doctrine of international comity.
1 Dinesh Singh Thakur v. Sonal Thakur, (2018) 17 SCC 12.
2 2007 (35) PTC 177 (Del.).
3 130 F.3d 414.
4 130 F.3d 414.
5 89 F.3d 1257.
6 2007 (35) PTC 177 (Del.).
7 CS (OS) No.894/2008.
8 CS (COMM) 119/2020.
Overview of stages, process and time required for registering a trademark in India
The Trademarks Law in India is governed by the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Act provides for registration of any mark which is capable of being represented graphically as a word, device, label, numerals, or combination of colors and capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one person from another. In other words, a trademark is a source identifier. An Indian trademark application goes through the following stages, till registration:
Absolute Grounds (distinctiveness, devoid of distinctive character, not capable of distinguishing goods or services, etc.) and/or
Relative Grounds (similarity with an earlier trademark already existing on the Trade Marks Register).
If no objections are raised, the mark shall directly be allowed to be advertised. (Stage 5)
Before filing a trademark application, it is necessary to identify the classes in which one wishes to seek protection for their trademark.An application should be made in the relevant classes of current goods/services as well as in classes where there is intent to use.The specifications are covered under the NICE International Classification of Goods and Services which are divided into 45 classes. It ranges from Class 01 to Class 45 (wherein Class 01 to Class 34 deals with specification of goods and Class 35 to Class 45 deals with specification of services.
The trademark application can be filed as a multiclass application or as separate single class
Before adopting a trademark, a trademark search is highly recommended, as this will give an indication of any existing trademarks which have been applied for/or registered in the Trademarks Registry. Accordingly, it is advisable to conduct a search on the official website of the Trademarks Registry as well as an online search to determine registrability of the proposed trademark
Typically, the Trade Marks Office allows trademark registrations for a word, device, brand, numeral, single color, sound, 3D mark, shape of goods, label, packaging or combination of colors or any combination thereof.
The term “well-known trademark” refers to a mark which has become so well-known to the substantial segment of the public through its extensive and continuous use. Use of the mark in relation to any other goods or services by another party may be taken as indicating a connection between the two parties.Individuals/ Companies that have acquired immense brand value, reputation, and goodwill in India through their trademarks should get the trademarks included in the list of well-known trademarks to safeguard themselves from future infringements and dilutions.
The Registrar shall, while determining whether a trademark is a well-known trademark, takes into account all the facts which he considers relevant for determining a trademark as a well-known trademark including the following factors:
Criteria for determining well-known trademark in India
The term ‘well-known trademark’ refers to a mark which has become so well-known to the substantial segment of the public through its extensive and continuous use. Use of the mark in relation to any other goods or services by another party may be taken as indicating a connection between the two parties.Individuals/ Companies that have acquired immense brand value, reputation and goodwill in India through their trademarks should get the trademarks included in the list of well-known trademarks to safeguard themselves from future infringements and dilutions.
The Registrar shall, while determining whether a trademark is a well-known trade mark, takes into account all the facts which he considers relevant for determining a trade mark as a well-known trade mark including the following factors:
The record of successful enforcement of the rights in that trademark in particular, the extent to which the trademark has been recognized as a well-known mark by any court or Registrar under that record.
Fees for filing a trademark in India based on category of applicant
The official trademark fees payable by an applicant is INR 9000 (USD 145).
Yes, the applicant can claim a reduction in the official fees by approximately 50% if at least one of the following conditions is satisfied:
However, such a reduction in the official trademark fees will not be available if an eligible Applicant jointly files a trademark application with an Applicant, which is “other than a Small Enterprise”. “Other than Small Enterprise” herein refers to a company/organization, which is not a Startup or a Small Enterprise.
The Trademark Rules, 2017 have divided the Applicants in two categories:
Category A: Individual/ Startup / Small Enterprise
Category B: Others A Startup means an entity in India recognized as a Startup by the competent authority under Startup India Initiative and submitting declaration to that effect.
The Trademark Rules, 2017 define “Startup” as an entity that satisfies the following criteria:
A non-Indian company can be considered as a Startup if it fulfills the criteria for turnover and period of incorporation/registration as per Startup India Initiative.
The Applicant would be required to obtain a Certificate, under the Start-up India Initiative, from the Inter-Ministerial Board of Certification as constituted by the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion from time to time.
An Enterprise means an industrial undertaking or a business concern or any other establishment, by whatever name called, engaged in the manufacture or production of goods in any manner pertain to any industry specified in the first schedule to the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 (65 of 1951) or engages in providing or rendering or any services or services in such an industry.
A Small Enterprise can be classified as the following:
In case of foreign enterprise, an Enterprise which fulfils the aforementioned criteria is eligible to be an Applicant in the Small Enterprise category.
An Applicant is required to submit evidence of registration under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006. Accordingly, an MSME Registration or SIS Registration Certificate would suffice accompanied with the official fee.
Opposition procedures and timelines for a trademark in India
After the examiner reviews the trademark, if the trade mark application is considered allowable, the application is advertised in the Trademarks Journal. Once advertised, the trademark is open for opposition purposes for a compulsory period of four (4) months. In case no opposition is filed within this stipulated time period, the mark proceeds to registration. The purpose behind publishing a Trademark in the Journal is to enable any third party to view the trademark and file a trademark opposition against it.
“Any person” may oppose a trademark. This person does not necessarily have to be a registered proprietor of any mark. He can be a purchaser, customer or a member of the public likely to use the goods. The rationale behind this is that the Opponent is not only representing himself but the public at large because having two similar marks in the market can only result in confusion.
The Notice of Opposition has to be filed within four (4) months from the date of publication of the mark in the Trademark Journal. The period is not extendable under any circumstance.
Stage 1 – Filing a Notice of Opposition/Filing a Counter-Statement : Any person wanting to oppose a mark can do so by filing a Notice of Opposition on the prescribed form along with the prescribed fee within four (4) months of advertisement of the mark. It is first sent to the Registry for review and if all the formalities are met, the Registry will then serve the notice on the other party.A counter-statement or reply to the opposition must be filed within two (2) months. There is no extension to file a counter-statement which means that if the Trademark Applicant fails to file a counter-statement within two (2) months of receiving the Notice, the mark shall be deemed abandoned. The counter- statement is first sent to the Registry for review and if all the formalities are met, the Registry will then serve the counter-statement on the Opponent.
Stage 2 – Filing of Evidence in support of Opposition : Within two months (extendable by one (1) month of receiving the counter-statement, the Opponent has the choice of providing evidence in support of his opposition in form of an Affidavit to strengthen the case. The Opponent can choose to waive filing an Affidavit if he wants to rely on the facts stated in the notice of opposition. Whatever maybe the choice, the Opponent has to inform the Officials and the other party within the prescribed time otherwise the opposition will be tagged as abandoned.
Stage 3 – Filing of Evidence in support of Counter- Statement : Within two (2) months of receiving evidence/intimation of waiver by the Opponent, the Applicant has to file evidence in support of his counter-statement /application. The Applicant also has an option to waive his right to submit any evidence.
Stage 4 – Filing of Evidence in Reply : Within one (1) month of receiving evidence/waiver, the Opponent again has the option to file additional evidence in support of his opposition. This option is given to achieve some sort of finality in the proceedings, to rebut the evidence produced by Applicant.
Stage 5 – Hearing : Ordinarily with three (3) months of the completion of evidence, a hearing is appointed and the parties are notified. After hearing the parties and considering the evidence, the Registrar shall decide whether the trademark is to be accepted or not.
Filing trademarks in India and overseas through the Madrid protocol
The Madrid Protocol provides for the international registration of trademarks by filing a single International Application. Indian companies which have procured trademark registrations and/or have pending applications with the Trade Marks Office in India can file a single International Application (“IA”) under the Madrid Protocol.This IA can be filed across 92 countries based on the same particulars as of the registration/pending application in India (Home Application). The countries which shall be covered by the IA are to be designated by the Applicant at the time of filing. Once the application has been filed, it is examined and/or prosecuted under the local laws of these designated countries.
Reduction in cost : The additional fee of engaging local counsels at the time of filing of the application is not required. This reduces the cost of filing the application substantially as a single request can be filed for recordal of assignment, name change, renewals etc.
Reduction in time : Generally, the countries designated at the time of filing have to either accept or refuse the application within a period of eighteen (18) months from the date of filing of the International application. This reduces the time frame of procuring registrations considerably.
Any change owing to opposition/rectification/cancellation/objections in the Home Application within a period of five (5) years from the filing of the IA shall also identically change the particulars of the International application across all designated countries.
If the Home Application is opposed and the application is eventually removed, the International application in such cases shall also be removed from all designated countries.
The specifications of goods and services that are accepted for various countries and their respective trademark offices may differ.
Documents required for Trademark registration in India
Any person claiming to be the proprietor of a trademark, used or proposed to be used by him, may file an application for the registration of a Trade Mark. Generally, the person who uses or controls the use of the mark, and controls the nature and quality of the goods to which it is affixed, or the services for which it is used, is the owner of the mark.
The minimum documents and information which are required for filing a filing trademark application in India is as follows:
It is mandatory to submit a Power of Attorney at the time of filing the application on behalf of an Applicant. The Power of Attorney needs to be simply signed by the Applicant (no legalization or notarization is required).
The trademark application can be filed either claiming usage from a date prior to the date of filing of application or on Proposed to be Used basis.
In case the Applicant wants to file an application claiming usage of the mark in India prior to the date of filing of application, then an affidavit, along with supporting documents testifying such use will also have to be filed. The affidavit needs to be signed by the authorized signatory and notarized by a Notary Public.
In case the Applicant wants to file an application on a Proposed to be Used basis, then an affidavit substantiating use, is not required.
Permissible amendments, rectification and cancellation procedures for a trademark in India
The trademark law in India provides the Applicant of a trademark with an opportunity to correct an application only for minor changes and not for changes that substantially affect the identity of the trademark or the goods or services covered by the application. The correction or amendment as allowed can be made before or after registration of the trademark application.
Following are the permissible amendments under the Trademarks Act:
A mark may have been wrongly registered or may be wrongly remaining on the register. In such cases the Act provides for rectification of the register.
Any person, aggrieved by an entry wrongly made or wrongly remaining on the register of trademark, is entitled to file a petition for:
Rectification of a trademark can be filed in India on grounds of contravention or failure to observe a condition of the trademark already entered in the Register or an error in registering the trademark.The grounds for filing a rectification action are as follows:
Cancellation of a trademark is a process in which a party seeks to remove a registered trademark from the register. This can be done: –
Ans: Any person aggrieved by the absence or omission from the register of any entry, or by any entry made in the register without sufficient cause, or by any entry wrongly remaining on the register, or by any error or defect in any entry in the register, may file for rectification/ cancellation proceedings. An ‘aggrieved person’ implies any party whose trading interests are affected by the presence of the registration on the register.
An application can be filed in the prescribed manner before the Trademarks Registry where the application for its registration was filed or at the Appellate Board, and the tribunal may make such order for making, expunging or varying the entry as it may think fit.
The Tribunal i.e. the Registrar or the Appellate Board, after giving a notice as well as an opportunity of being heard to the concerned parties, may either cancel, vary, add or remove the entry in question.
The documents required for filing a rectification/ cancellation action are as follows:
Renewing and restoring a trademark in India
The registration of a trademark is valid only for a period of 10 years. After which, it can be renewed from time to time. Trademark renewal preserves those rights which are only available to a registered mark. In case the proprietor fails to renew the trademark, then he shall lose all the protection that comes along with registration.
Application for renewal of the trademark can be filed on or before 6 months, before the expiry of the registration in a prescribed form before the Registrar along with the requisite renewal fee.
A renewal request can also be filed within 6 months after the expiry of the renewal date along with the requisite late renewal fees.
If the request is not filed and the fees is not paid within the aforementioned periods, the trademark is liable to be removed from the Register.
If more than six (6) months have lapsed from the renewal date and no renewal request has been filed, then an application for restoration is required to be filed within one (1) year from the date of expiration of the renewal date. The application is to be accompanied with the prescribed fee and a statement explaining the factors that led to the trademark not being restored.
The Registrar will restore the Trademark if satisfied that it is just to do so.
Recording assignments and licenses of trademarks in India
Trademarks like any other asset can be transferred from one proprietor to another. The transfer could be temporary through licensing or permanent thorough an assignment. A registered mark, or a mark for which an application to register has been filed is assignable/transferable.
In case of an assignment of a trademark, there is a transfer in the ownership of the trademark registration and in case of licensing, the proprietary rights of the trade mark continue to vest with the original owner but only few restricted rights to use the brand/trademark are given to the third party.
Assignment of a trademarks is a process in which the owner of the trademark transfers the ownership and proprietary rights of the trademark either with or without the goodwill of the business. The manner in which an assignment can be made are as follows:
A trade mark is generally assigned by way of a properly executed and notarized Trademark Assignment Agreement which pertains to the transfer of the mark from the owner to another. Accordingly, a specific request along with the Trademark Assignment Agreement is required to effect such a change of ownership in respect of the mark at the Trademarks Registry.
A trademark may be licensed to allow others to use the mark without assigning the ownership and the same may be done for all or some of the goods and services covered. The Trademarks Act refers to a Licensee as a ‘Registered User’.
Once a trademark is assigned it is necessary to record the change in ownership with the Trademark Registry. Specific forms with fees along with the corresponding Assignment Deed have to filed to ensure that the records reflect the ownership details.
The Trademarks Act states that the assignment or transmission shall be ineffective against a person acquiring a conflicting interest in or under the registered trade mark without the knowledge of assignment or transmission.
A trademark is licensed by way of a License Agreement. As per the Trade Mark Act, 1999, contrary to the requirement in case of Assignment, the recordal of the license agreement for permitted use with the Trademark Registrar of a trademark is voluntary and not compulsory. However, it is advisable that the Agreement be registered with the Registrar.
Sign up to get notified about latest articles and delivered to your inbox.