What are the Privileges that a Well-Known trademark enjoys?

As its name suggests, a well-known trademark is a mark that is recognized by the majority of the world’s population and whose reputation is not limited to a specific geographic region or category of goods or services but is known worldwide. A well-known trademark is defined under section 2(1) (zg) of the Indian Trademark Act, 1999. It states “a mark which has become so to the substantial segment of the public which uses such goods or receives such services that the use of the such mark in relation to other goods or services would be likely to be taken as indicating a connection in the course of trade or rendering of services between those goods or services and a person using the mark in relation to the first mentioned goods or services.”[1] The Indian Trademark Registry publishes a list of all well-known trademarks in India, and twenty new trademarks were just added to this list in the trademark journal dated 15th August 2022, including SWIGGY, PAYTM, MAGGI, and NOKIA.

Furthermore, a trademark can be considered as a well-known trademark if it fulfills the criteria mentioned under section 11(6) of the Act. These determining factors includes—

  • That the trade mark is well known to the public at large in India;
  • The number of persons involved in the channels of distribution of the goods or services;
  • The number of actual or potential consumers of the goods or services;
  • The duration, extent and geographical area of any use of such trade mark;
  • The business circle dealing with those goods or services.[2]

As previously stated, the title of a well-known mark does not come easily, and when it does, it comes with a number of advantages as listed below:

Even if the nature of the goods and services are different, no identical mark (as a well-known) can be accepted.

It is a well-known notion of the Trademark law regime that a similar mark might seek registration even if such mark already has an identical registered mark in a different class of products and services. However, with a well-known mark, no one can request to register a similar mark in any of the NICE classes.

In the landmark case of Daimler Benz Aktiengesellschaft & Anr v. Hybo Hindustan[3], The Plaintiff was a manufacturer of Mercedes Benz automobiles, whereas the Defendant sold underwear under the mark BENZ. The underwear belongs within NICE class 25, which is distinct from the plaintiff’s products and services, which deal with automobile production. However, while acknowledging the fame of the plaintiff’s mark, the court prohibited the defendants from utilising the name ‘BENZ’.

An exception to grounds of refusal

A well-known trademark is always exempt from objections under sections 9 (absolute grounds of registration) and 11(relative grounds of refusal). Section 9 of the Act, for example, prohibits the registration of a family name or a geographical location name because these names cannot distinguish the products and services from those of others. On contrary, taking the example of trade names MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA[4] and TATA & SONS[5] or taking the example of INDIA GATE and DELHI PUBLIC SCHOOL exemplifies the advantageous position of a well-known trademark.

Easy registration even if the mark is unconventional

Most unconventional trademarks that have been registered in India have achieved so on account of their renown. In registering an unconventional trademark, the applicant’s goodwill and well-knowingness of the mark are essential. For instance, protecting a single color trademark in India is difficult, but the Delhi High Court has protected the ‘red sole’ of Christian Louboutin heels.

BY- EKTA DIXIT

JUNIOR ASSOCIATE AT BASKARAN & ASSOCIATES


[1] Section 2(1)(zg), Indian Trademark Act, 1999

[2] Section 11(6), Indian Trademark Act, 1999

[3] AIR 1994 Del 2369

[4] 2002 (24) PTC 121; CS (OS) 921/2013; Suit No. 2061 of 2012

[5] 2001 PTC 562

Is copyright law dancing tuneless around choreographers?

One of Bollywood’s most well-known choreographers, Remo D’souza, intended to copyright his choreography for the ABCD film he was directing in 2013.  Is Remo D’souza, or any other choreographer, able to assert copyright in relation to choreographic works in India?

STEP UP to examine is dancing cinematography or dramatic work and whether dance moves are copyrightable.

Dancers perform with their mind and body in full swing and energy while still upholding the discipline required by the dance form, making dance the most expressive of all the arts. Many different dance styles have emerged and developed in cultures all throughout the world, and each dance has a distinctive structure and routine.

While some dance forms such as Kuchipudi or kathak have a predefined set of rules and routines for the entire dance performance, while “Michael Jackson” signature dance moves like his “moonwalk” or his famous “45-degree dance” are singular steps complete in themselves.

Even while we are aware that these recognizable dances are in the public domain, we nonetheless have the right to defend the authors’ work against attempts at infringement. Because everything unique, a product of the artist’s talent and intellectual labor, must be protected. Here, copyright protection and other forms of intellectual property are relevant.

In India, such signature moves or unique systematic patterns of dance moves are recognized as choreographic works and, therefore, are protected as dramatic work as defined in section 2(h) of the copyrights Act 1957. The limitation of dramatic work being copyrightable lies in that fixation and dramatic work exclude any form of cinematographic work.

These requirements must be met for a choreographic work to be copyrightable:

  • The creation of choreography must be original.
  • It must be systematic dance moves or steps that follow a pattern.
  • For choreography to be protected by the Copyright Act of 1957, it must be produced in a tangible form or transformed into writing.

In  Bikram’s Yoga Coll. of India, L.P. v. Evolution Yoga, LLC[1], the issue of whether or not the sequential and systemic method of yoga is protected by the Copyright Act was brought up. It was decided that because the yoga poses are a type of organized physical activity, they are not protected by the Copyright Act.

Lacuna exists in the law.

From a simple reading of this section, it is clear that one must establish a fixation to get copyright protection for choreography. According to the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), “fixation” includes:

  • Writing on paper.
  • Storing data on a disc.
  • Painting on canvas.
  • Recording audio on tape.

Therefore, if one wants to secure a copyright for choreography, they must convert it into a fixed form, such as a written or recorded version, “or otherwise,” and choreography shouldn’t be a part of cinematography. The phrase “or otherwise” and the exclusion of “cinematograph film” limit the section’s application to choreography.

The Supreme Court ruled in Academy of General Education, Manipal, and Others vs. B. Malini Mallya[2] that the ballet dance qualifies as a dramatic work under the Copyright Act, 1957, when reproduced in a literary form. Therefore, the artist or choreographer must transform the choreography or dance piece into a writing form so it may be registered with the registrar to obtain copyright.

The choreographic work is unquestionably copyrightable, but there is ambiguity because cinematography films are not included as a type of fixation, which is quite the challenge in India.  Unlike in India, Choreography can be fixed using any method, including videotaping, in the United States and the United Kingdom. It does seem irrational because dramatic works on video recordings cannot be protected by copyright.

Thus, it is evident that the legislation surrounding copyright in choreography is ambiguous and unresolved. For dancers, it is covered under the ambit of performer’s rights. Increased dance awareness and visibility of creativity are sorely needed in India to motivate more choreographers to protect their rights and underline a rise in copyright applications for choreographic works.

By-

SANDHYA BALAJI

4TH YEAR, BALLB (HONS.)

CHRIST UNIVERSITY, LAVASA


[1] Bikram’s Yoga Coll. of India, Ltd. P’ship v. Evolation Yoga, Ltd. Liab. Co.,803 F.3d 1032 (9th Cir. 2015)

[2] academy of general education, manipal v. malini  mallya, (2009) 4 scc 256