Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal Against Trade Mark Registration of Religious Name. The court found that the name 'RAMAYAN' is not distinctive and has become public juris due to its widespread use.

  • 1
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appeal was filed against the order of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board which set aside the Assistant Registrar's decision to allow the registration of the trade mark 'RAMAYAN' by the appellant, Lal Babu Priyadarshi. The appellant, trading as M/s Om Perfumery, sought to register 'RAMAYAN' for incense sticks and perfumeries, claiming extensive use since 1981. The respondent, Amritpal Singh, opposed the registration, arguing that 'RAMAYAN' is the name of a religious book and cannot be monopolized. The Assistant Registrar initially dismissed the opposition, but the Board reversed this decision, stating that the mark lacked distinctiveness and was widely used by over 20 traders, thus becoming public juris. The appellant contended that the mark had acquired distinctiveness through use and that the Board misinterpreted legal precedents. The respondent argued that the mark was not distinctive and that its registration would confuse consumers. The court analyzed the distinctiveness of the mark under Section 9 of the Trade Marks Act, emphasizing that names of religious books cannot be registered as trade marks. The court concluded that the appellant failed to prove that 'RAMAYAN' had acquired a reputation in the market, as it was commonly used by many traders. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the Board's decision and leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

Headnote

A) Trade Marks - Registration Refusal - Prohibition of Religious Names - Trade Marks Act, 1999, Section 9(2) - The court held that the registration of the word 'RAMAYAN', being the name of a religious book, is prohibited as it cannot become the subject matter of monopoly for an individual. The mark is not distinctive and has become public juris due to its use by multiple traders (Paras 18-19).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the registration of the word 'RAMAYAN' as a trade mark is prohibited under Section 9(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999?

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the Board's decision that 'RAMAYAN' cannot be registered as a trade mark due to its religious significance and lack of distinctiveness.

Law Points

  • Trade Marks Act
  • 1999
  • registration refusal
  • distinctiveness
  • public juris
  • religious sentiments
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2014 LawText (SC) (10) 48

Civil Appeal No. 2138 of 2006

2015-10-27

R.K. Agrawal, Ranjan Gogoi

K. V. Mohan, Sohan Singh Rana, Bindra Rana

Lal Babu Priyadarshi

Amritpal Singh

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Dispute over trade mark registration

Remedy Sought

Appellant sought registration of the trade mark 'RAMAYAN'

Filing Reason

Opposition to trade mark registration based on religious significance

Previous Decisions

Assistant Registrar dismissed opposition; Board reversed decision

Issues

Prohibition of registration of religious names Distinctiveness of trade mark

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued extensive use and distinctiveness of the mark Respondent contended the mark is not distinctive and widely used

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that names of religious books cannot be registered as trade marks due to their public significance and lack of distinctiveness.

Judgment Excerpts

The word 'RAMAYAN' represents the title of a book written by Maharishi Valmiki and is considered to be a religious book of the Hindus. 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'.

Procedural History

The appellant filed an application for trade mark registration, which was opposed by the respondent. The Assistant Registrar dismissed the opposition, but the Board set aside this decision, leading to the current appeal.

Acts & Sections

  • Trade Marks Act, 1999: Section 9
  • Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950:
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Leave to Appeal in Negotiable Instruments Act Case — Dishonour of Cheque Due to Account Closed. Court holds that dishonour of cheque on ground of 'account closed' constitutes an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable I...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows LIC Appeal, Denies Pension to Resigned Employee Under Retrospective Pension Rules. Resignation Forfeits Past Service and Cannot Be Equated with Voluntary Retirement Under LIC Pension Rules, 1995.