It is a general saying that “A picture is worth a thousand
words”. A Pictures casts great impression on the human mind. If a
picture or shape is striking, then it lasts for a longer period of time in the
memory of a man.
The basic
premise of law regarding the protection of trademark is evolved on the concept
of association of particular name with a particular legal entity. By passage of time, the Trade Mark Law
evolved to include inter-alia the shape of a product as a trademark.
Section 2(zb)
of the Trade Marks Act 1999
Ø
2(zb):trade mark means a mark capable of being represented graphically and which is
capable of distinguishing the goods
or services of one person from those
of others and may include shape of goods,
their packaging and combination
of colours;
The Trade Marks Act
further provides the conditions which is anti thesis of the shape of product to
be qualified as a trademark. Section 9 (3) of the Trade Marks Act 1999 provides
the absolute ground of refusal for a shape trade mark. The same provides as
here under:
Ø 9(3):A mark shall not be
registered as a trade mark if it consists
exclusively of:
Ø the shape of goods which
results from the nature of the goods
themselves; or
Ø the shape of goods which is
necessary to obtain a technical
result; or
Ø the shape which gives
substantial value to the goods.
From combined reading of
Section 2(zb) and Section 9(3) of the Trade Marks Act
1999, the following picture emerges regarding the shape of a product to
function as a trademark. Following conditions is sine qua non for the shape
Trademark:
Ø
The shape of the product should be capable of being represented graphically.
Ø
It should capable
of distinguishing the goods or services of one person from those of other.
Ø The shape results from the nature of the goods themselves.
Ø The Shape should not be
functional in nature AND
Ø It should not give
substantial value to the goods.
Before
proceeding further it is relevant to point out here that Design Act also dealt
with the issue of Shape of a product. As per the definition of Design Act 2000,
the same is inclusive of Shape of a Product Also. Section 2(d) of the Designs Act, 2000
defines a design as under:
"design"
means only the features of shape, configuration, pattern, ornament or composition of lines or colours applied to any
article whether in two dimensional or three dimensional
or in both forms, by any industrial process or means,
whether manual, mechanical or Chemical, separate or combined,
which in the finished article appeal to and are judged solely by the eye; but does not include any mode or principle of construction or anything which is
in substance a mere mechanical
device, and does not include any trade mark
as defined in Clause (v) of Sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the
Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 (43 of 1958) [Now Trade Marks Act 1999] or property mark
as defined in Section
479 of the Indian
Penal
Code (45 of 1860) or any
artistic work as defined in Clause
(c) of Section 2 of the Copyright Act, 1957 (14 of
1957)."
From perusal of the provision of the
Design Act 2000, it is that
"design" means those features of shape, configuration,
pattern, ornament or composition of lines or colours applied to an article
which appeal to and are adjudged solely by the eye but it does not include
"trade mark" as ' defined in the Trade Marks Act. Trade mark and design are entirely different
connotations. The trade mark is put on a
product to link it to its manufacturer/producer, who may be the proprietor of
the registered trade mark or who might have acquired reputation. On the other
hand, the design is merely a feature of shape, pattern, configuration, ornament
or composition of lines or colours applied to an article to make it attractive
and appealing to the eye of the consumer.
The other difference is that a Trade mark
may also be attractive and appealing to the eye but it should be directly relatable
to the owner of the goods whereas the design may be merely appealing or
attractive to the eye and need not give any indication to the consumer about the identity of the manufacturer or
producer of the article. The basic difference between a trade mark and design
is that trade mark signals to the mind the source or identity of the
producers/manufacturer of the article whereas design appeals to the eye and
attracts the consumer/purchaser. Thus those shape which are source indicator of
the owner, are qualified as trademark, though it may or may not have the
aesthetic quality, while those shapes which are solely guided by the aesthetic
feature, irrespective of this fact whether is it source indicator of the owner
or not, are qualified as Design.
For A shape to be a Design, it is not necessary that it is
distinctive to the owner , while the for a Shape to serve as the shape
trademark, it must show the acquired distinctiveness .Normally the shape of the
good is not considered as a strong trademark. Rather it is considered as a weak
trademark. However on the basis of acquired distinctiveness, the shape of a
product can serve the function of a trade mark. But as there been various
restriction of the shape of a product to serve as a trademark, normally it is
not considered as easy to establish proprietary rights in the shape as a
trademark.
In case it is found that the shape
of a product results from
the nature of the goods or is functional in nature or it gives give substantial
value to the goods, then its registrations as a shape trademark can be declined
even if it has acquired distinctiveness. Reason behind imposing the tough
condition on the shape to serve as a trademark is that no one should be allowed
to create the un warranted monopoly on the shape of a product to throttle out
the healthy competitors.
The unique
feature of the shape trade mark is that it is intrinsic part of the products
itself. Normally the conventional trade marks are super imposed on the product.
The conventional trade marks like Name, Label, Logo , packaging material, the
unique wrappers etc appearing on the products are not inseparable part of the
product. These are being affixed on the product. While the shape trade mark of
a product is inseparable part of the part of the product. The shape of the
goods is also inclusive of pattern, configuration etc. If the product itself is
a shape of the product and has aesthetic attributes, then it serves the
function of a design and is not qualified as a trademark.
Now by passage of time the Indian Courts have also
started to recognize the shape of a good as a source indicator. The Mumbai High
Court, in recent Judgment dealt with the issue of shape as a trademark. The
Hon’ble Mumbai High Court, in VODKA CASE [1], recognized the shape of the bottle of
the plaintiff as a trademark. The plaintiff namely Gorbatschow Wodka filed the Suit on the basis
that the shape of its bottles of Vodka was distinctive and formed an intrinsic
part of its goodwill and reputation. The shape of bottle which the defendant
had adopted under the trademark SALUTE was alleged to be deceptively similar to
that of the plaintiff.
The Suit was filed in
which ex-parte injunction was granted. After appearing in the matter, the
defendant alleged that its products were sold under the trademark SALUTE. The
products of the defendant were sold in different colour. The product of the
defendant were to be consumed by the educated consumers. Hence there can not be
any possibility of any confusion.
The Hon’ble Mumbai High, while granting injunction
against John Distilleries Limited, the defendant therein, observed as under:
“Under
the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the shape of goods is now statutorily recognized as
being constituent element of a trade mark. Section 2(zb) of the Trade Marks
Act, 1999 defines the expression 'trade mark' to mean "a mark capable of
being represented graphically and which is capable of distinguishing the goods
or services of one person from those of others" and to include the
"shape of goods, their packaging and combination of colours".
Parliament has, therefore, statutorily recognized that the shape in which goods
are marketed, their packaging and combination of colours for part of what is
described as the trade dress. A manufacturer who markets a product may assert
the distinctive nature of the goods sold in terms of the unique shape through
which the goods are offered for sale."
"The
shape of the bottle which the plaintiff has adopted has no functional
relationship with the nature of the product or the quality required of the
container in which Vodka has to be sold. The shape, to use the language of a
leading authority on the subject, is capricious. It is capricious in the sense
that it is novel and originated in the ingenuity and imagination of the
plaintiff. Prima facie, a comparison of the shape of the bottle which has been
adopted by the defendant with the bottle of the plaintiff would show a striking
similarity.”
This is not that prior to enactment of Trade Marks Act
1999, the Indian Courts has not recognized the shape as a trade mark. In the year 1990 itself, in M.R.F. case [1],
the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi recognized the pattern of a tyre as trademark.
In MRF case, the plaintiff filed the suit against the defendant, seeking the
relief of permanent injunction against user of selling auto-rickshaw tyres
having prominent features of the tread pattern similar to that of the tread
pattern of the auto rickshaw tyres of the plaintiff. The Court observed that
the tread pattern of the plaintiff’s tyres was essential and integral part of
the tyre. The Court was of the view that unlike a wrapper, a label or a
container, the tread was not something external to the tyre but it was an
indivisible part. The Court also observed that similarity of the tread pattern
may also raise a presumption of common origin or close business association
between the plaintiff and the defendant. After observing the possibility of
similarity of tread pattern of the parties, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi,
granted injunction in favour of the plaintiff.
In ZIPPO[2]
case, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi restrained the defendants from using the
identical shape. This case was related to shape of lighters. The plaintiff
filed the Suit claiming itself to be world leader in manufacture and trade of
lighters, which it sells under its invented trademark Zippo. It was alleged
that important feature of the plaintiff’s lighter was the chimney or windscreen
enclosing the wick with round air holes punched into its sides in horizontal
rows of three-two-three formation. It was claimed that the shape of the lighter
as well as well as the windscreen chimney are unique and have acquired a
secondary meaning to denote the plaintiff's cigarette lighters.
The plaintiff filed the suit against the defendants as
the defendants were selling counterfeit Zippo lighters from its various outlets
in Delhi and those lighters not only bore the word mark Zippo, but also
constituted infringement of plaintiff's shape mark and were in fact verbatim
imitation of the product of the plaintiff. The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi,
while grating the relief of injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against
the defendants observed that on seeing the lighter of the defendant bearing the
trademark ZIPPO and/or on having a 3-dimensional shape identical to that of the
product of the plaintiff-company, the customer may form a bona fide impression
that either this is the genuine product of the plaintiff-company or it has been
manufactured in collaboration and/or under licence from it. Accordingly the
defendants were injuncted from using the 3 dimensional Shape Trade Mark,
similar to that of the plaintiff.
In DGT Case[3],
the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi was having occasion to deal with the plea of
the defendant that the design of a product can not be used as shape trade mark.
The defendant raised the argument that relief for passing off can not be based
in relation to design as shape trade mark. The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi
after relying upon para 34 of Mohan Lal
case[4] , "The
plaintiff would be entitled to institute an action of passing off in respect of
a design used by him as a trade mark provided the action contains the necessary
ingredients to maintain such a proceeding” also rejected the plea of the
defendant that no registration of a trademark in relation to the shape of the
products could be granted. The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi further held ” It
will always be open to the Plaintiff, as long as it satisfies the Court about
the ingredients of a suit for passing off, to maintain such action.” Thus the
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi. After relying upon the Mohan Lal case, laid down
that Suit in Design of a product can be maintainable as passing off for shape
trademark , provided such passing off action contains the necessary ingredients
to maintain such a proceeding.
In Lilly ICOS Case[5] plaintiff
filed the suit alleging that the Defendants has adopted the trade mark MCALIS
which is deceptively similar to the plaintiff's well known trade mark CIALIS.
Also, the CIALIS Tablet Trade Dress including distinctive yellow almond shaped
tablet with inscription C20 and distinctive CIALIS Swirl have been allegedly
copied by the Defendants. The
plaintiff claimed that the same developed a unique packaging with unusual
artwork, referred to as the "Cialis Swirl". The tablet sold under
trademark CIALIS was given a unique and unusual shape of an almond and colour
of light yellow. In this the defendant was restrained as defendant could give
no justification whatsoever for adoption and use the deceptively similar trade
mark with the swril device as well as the trade dress of the tablet of the
plaintiff, which was also inclusive of plaintiff’s unique shape of the product.
The Hon’ble High of Delhi, in a
recent Judgment Apollo Tyres Case[6] was having
occasion to deal with the tread pattern of Apollo Tyre. The pattern of Apollo
Tyre involved in the Suit was as under:
The Plaintiff namely Apollo Tyre
filed this suit and sought the relief of inter-alia the permanent injunction to
against the defendant so as to restrain the defendant from using the tread
pattern claimed by the plaintiff to be its proprietary in respect of its truck
tyre Endurance LD 10.00 R20, or any other tread pattern identical or similar
therewith, in respect of their business of importing and selling of tyres, or
representing a trade connection with the plaintiff so as to pass off, or enable
others to pass off their goods/services as that of the applicant/plaintiff. The
tread pattern of parties involved in question were as under:
In this case Vide order dated
15.09.2015, an ex-parte ad-interim order of injunction against the defendant
was passed. The defendant raised the plea of inter-alia the tread pattern of
the plaintiff to be functional and that similar tread pattern were used by
various parties. The defendant submitted
The tread in a tyre are functional and imperative to provide proper gripping
and friction. The real issue is with regard to the pattern of the treads, as
the pattern of the treads are a matter of imagination and creation. The tread
pattern adopted by the plaintiff is certainly not the only tread pattern which
could serve the purpose, as there could be innumerable tread patterns which can
achieve the same objective. The
defendant also relied upon various other tread pattern used by various parties
in the market.
The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi
rejected the argument of the defendant regarding functionality aspect ,
returned the finding that the unique
tread pattern adopted by the plaintiff is attributable only to the technical
result, namely, of providing grip and stability to the vehicle on which the tyre
of the plaintiff is used. The same function can be performed by any other tyre
with a different tread pattern. The Court restrained the defendant after
observing that merely because there are multiple manufacturers of tyres in
China who may have planned to capture the Indian market by flooding their tyres
with identical tread patterns, as that of the plaintiff or other leading Indian
tyre manufacturers, is no excuse to permit the defendant to do the same.
Thus it can safely be said that the
Indian Courts are not lagging behind, in so far the recognition of rights in
Shape Trade Marks is concerned.
[2]
Zippo Manufacturing Company vs. Anil Moolchandani and Ors. 2011(48)PTC390(Del):
185(2011)DLT51: 2011IXAD(Delhi)661
[4] MANU/DE/1254/2013 : MIPR
2013 (2) 156 Mohan Lal v. Sona Paint & Hardwares
[5] Lilly ICOS LLC and Anr. Vs
Maiden Pharmaceuticals Limited 2009(39)PTC666(Del)
[6] Apollo Tyres Ltd. vs. Pioneer
Trading Corporation and Ors 2017 VII AD (Delhi) 127
