Subject Matter and Pre-Requisites for Protection of Non-Conventional Trademark

  • Aishwarya Vatsa LLM, Hidayatullah National Law University, Raipur, India
Keywords: Graphical representation, Indian Trademarks Act, 1999, TRIPS Agreement, 1995, International Classification of the Figurative Elements of Marks, 2018,

Abstract

We have been gifted with senses other than our eyes, which the non-conventional trademarks aim to employ and have thus gained popularity. These marks have gradually acquired acceptance and have been included under the ambit of trademarks in various countries of the world. Trademark law aims at facilitating profit and strengthening the identity of a business. Non-conventional marks too, perform the same function. The United States has taken a similar approach and has thus provided protection to various such non-conventional marks. India, on the other hand, is yet to take a similar approach. The present law in India disallows the registration of such marks, proving to be a hindrance in their registration, rather than a facilitator. This paper discusses the concept and definition of non-conventional marks, its subject matter and the prerequisites for its registration. By comparing the different approaches to non-conventional trademarks and the procedure for their registration across different countries, this paper aims at suggesting a model suitable for adoption in India.

References

1. UlgaMurgolova, Non Traditional Trademarks, Uppasala University, (2017),
2. http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1109691/FULLTEXT01.pdf (last accessed on 16 September 2018)
3. Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, Art. 6(1) Sept. 28, 1979.
Sept. 28, 1979.
4. The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, Art. 1, Jan. 1, 1995.
5. Trademark Law Treaty, Art. 2(1)(b), Oct. 27, 1994.
6. International Classification of the Figurative Elements of Marks, Category 24.17.10 (Musical symbols), Jan. 1, 2018
7. International Classification of the Figurative Elements of Marks, Category 29.1 (Colours), Jan. 1, 2018.
8. L. Kenneth Port, On Nontraditional Trademarks, 38(1) N. Ky. L. Rev.1, (2012).
9. The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, Art-15(1), Jan. 1, 1995.
10. The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, Art-15(3), Jan. 1, 1995.
11. Neha Mishra,Registration of Non-Traditional Trademarks, 13(1) JIPR,43, (2008).
12. §2(zb), The Trademarks Act, 1999, Act No. 47 of 1999, Acts of Parliament, 1999.
13. §2(m), The Trademarks Act, 1999, No. 47 of 1999, Acts of Parliament, 1999.
14. ArkaMajumdar &Sunandam Majumdar, Requirement of Graphical Representability for Non Conventional Trademarks, 11 JIPR, 313 (2006).
15. Controller General of Patents Design and Trademarks, Yahoo’s Yodel, (No. 85870007), 2013.http://ipindiaonline.gov.in/tmrpublicsearch/frmmain.aspx#, (last accessed on 16 September 2018)
16. Re Celia Clarks, 17 USPQ 2d 1238(TTAB 1990)
17. Supra note 8.
18. Sarwar Choudhary, Scope of Trademark Protection ,Faculty of Law, University of Lund Publications, http://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?func=downloadFile&recordOId=1555315&fileOId=1563618, (2007) (last accessed on 15 September 2018)
19. Elizabeth Verkey, Intellectual Property(1st edition. 2015).
20. LibertelGroep BV v. Benelux-Merkenbureau, (2003) E.C.R I-3793, (Europe)
21. Cadbury v. Nestle, (2017) E.W.C.A. Civ. 358, (United Kingdom).
22. Kritarth Pandey, Non Conventional Trade Mark: A Legal Analysis, Social Science Research Network, (Feb. 20, 2014) https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2399286 (last accessed on 15 September 2017).
23. Campbell Soup Co. v. Armour and Co, (1949), 338 U.S. 847 (United States of America)
24. Shield Mark BV v. Joost Kist h.o.d.nMemex, (2004), Case-C-283/01, R.P.C 17.
25. Draft Manual for Trade Mark Practice and Procedure of India, Ministry of Trade and Commerce of India (2015).
26. Supra note 15.
27. Ralf Sieckmann v. Deutsches Patent and Markenamt, (2002) A.l.lE.R(D) 185.
28. §9(3), The Trademarks Act, 1999, No. 47 of 1999, Acts of Parliament, 1999.
29. SwizzelMalto Ltd. Application(No.2) (2000) E.T.M.R 58.
30. Gorbatschow Vodka KG v. John Distilleries Limited, (2010), SUIT NO.3046, Bom. H.C.
31. Zippo Manufacturing Company v/ Anil Moolchandani (2006) CS(OS) 1355.
32. Mann’s Chinese Theater, Trademark Exam. Dep’t of the United States Pat. & Tm. Office, July 27, 1999, Reg. No. 2,263,968.
33. Rock & Roll Hall of Fame, Cleveland, Ohio, Trademark Exam. Dep’t of the United States Pat. & Tm. Office, November 11, 1997, Reg. No. 2,112,793
34. Yankee Stadium, Trademark Exam. Dep’t of the United States Pat. & Tm. Office, filed June 17, 1998 (façade, Serial No. 75/505,795; aerial view, Serial No. 75/505,796)
35. Patent And Trademark Office, U.S. Dep’t Of Commerce, Trademark Manual Of Examining Procedure, § 1301.02(c) (Aug. 1997)
36. Re N.V. Organon, (2006) 79 U.S.P.Q.2d 1639. (United States of America)
37. U.S T.M Registration No-1,623,869
38. Pandey, supra Note 23.
39. The Lanham(Trademark) Act, 1999, 15 U.S.C §1127.
40. Directive(EU) 2015/2436 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Art. 2, (2015).
41. The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, Art-15(1), Jan. 1, 1995.
42. Trademark Law Treaty, Art. 2(b), Oct. 27, 1994.
43. Zippo Manufacturing Company v/ Anil Moolchandani (2006) CS(OS) 1355.
44. Rule- 26(3), (4) & (6), The Trademarks Rules, 2017.
45. Ferrero Spa &Anr. vs Shri Maa Distribution, (2010),CS(OS) 1763/2010, Delhi H.C.
46. Gorbatschow Vodka KG v. John Distilleries Limited, (2010), SUIT NO.3046, Bom. H.C.
47. Zippo Manufacturing Company v/ Anil Moolchandani (2006) CS(OS) 1355.
48. George G. Fox Company v. Charles F. Hathaway & Another, (1908) Mass Lexis 791.
49. TOBIAS COHEN & TONY HUYDECOPER , EUROPEAN TRADEMARK LAW-COMMUNITY TRADEMARK AND HARMONIZED NATIONAL TRADEMARK LAW, 75 ( 1st edition.2010).
50. Cadbury v. Nestle, (2017) E.W.C.A. Civ. 358, (United Kingdom).
51. Societe Des Produits Nestle SA v. Cadbury UK Ltd, (2013) E.W.C.A Civ 1174(CA), (United Kingdom).
52. Ibid.
53. LibertelGroep BV v. Benelux-Merkenbureau, (2003) E.C.R I-3793, (Europe).
54. Ralf Sieckmann v. Deutsches Patent and Markenamt, (2002) A.l.lE.R(D) 185.
55. Ralf Sieckmann v. Deutsches Patent and Markenamt, (2002) A.l.lE.R(D) 185.
56. Supra note 15.
57. Re Celia Clarks, 17 USPQ 2d 1238(TTAB 1990)
58. Edgar Rice Burroughs Inc. v. OHIM, Case R 708/2006-4.
59. Shield Mark BV v. Joost Kist h.o.d.nMemex, (2004), Case-C-283/01, R.P.C 17.
60. Yahoo!, Inc. v. Akash Arora & Anr.78 (1999) D.L.T. 285
61. Draft Manual for Trade Mark Practice and Procedure of India, Ministry of Trade and Commerce of India (2015).
62. Rule- 26(5), The Trademarks Rules, 2017.
Published
2019-01-01