Can a Holy Book's Name Be a Trademark? The Supreme Court Settles the Question
Introduction
In a country as diverse and deeply religious as India, the intersection of commerce and faith often gives rise to sensitive legal questions. One such question came before the Supreme Court of India in the case of Lal Babu Priyadarshi v. Amritpal Singh, decided on 27th October 2015. The central question was deceptively simple yet profoundly significant: can a person claim exclusive ownership over the name of a holy religious book by registering it as a trademark for commercial goods? The Supreme Court answered this question with a clear and unambiguous "No." This judgment has become an important precedent in Indian trademark law, particularly on the issue of religious names and their registrability as trademarks. The ruling not only addressed the rights of the parties involved but also laid down a broader principle that protects the sanctity of religious texts and the sentiments of millions of believers from being appropriated for private commercial gain.
Factual and Procedural Background
The story of this case begins in Patna, Bihar, with a manufacturer of incense sticks and perfumeries. Lal Babu Priyadarshi, who ran his business under the name M/s. Om Perfumery, located at Bakerganj, Daldali Road, Patna, was in the business of manufacturing and selling incense sticks (agarbattis, dhoops) and perfumery products. On 25th August 1994, he filed an application being Application No. 638073-B in Class 3 before the Registrar of Trade Marks seeking registration of the word "RAMAYAN" along with the device of a crown as his trademark for his incense and perfumery goods. In his application, he initially claimed that he had been using this mark since 1st January 1987. Later, he filed a request to rectify this date and change the claimed date of use to 1st January 1981, which was allowed by the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks.
Amritpal Singh, the respondent in this case, was not a stranger to the appellant. He had himself been a dealer who sold the appellant's products and ran his own business under the name M/s. Badshah Industries, Chitkohra, Punjabi Colony, Patna. After the dealership arrangement between the two ended, Amritpal Singh started his own business selling incense sticks under the mark "BADSHAH RAMAYAN" and had also filed an application for registration of that mark, claiming use since 5th November 1986.
When Amritpal Singh learnt of Lal Babu Priyadarshi's application to register "RAMAYAN" as a trademark, he filed a formal Notice of Opposition under Sections 9, 11(a), 11(b), 11(e), 12(1), 12(3), and 18(1) of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 (which was later repealed by the Trade Marks Act, 1999). His primary objection was that "RAMAYAN" is the name of a revered Hindu religious book and therefore no individual can claim a monopoly over it as a trademark.
The Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks, however, dismissed the opposition on 31st March 2004. The Assistant Registrar took the view that the trademark in question consisted of a device of a crown along with the word "RAMAYAN," that the word was capable of distinguishing the goods of the applicant, and that the mark did not fall within the list of marks prohibited from registration under the Act.
Aggrieved by this dismissal, Amritpal Singh appealed to the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) by filing Original Appeal No. 35/2004/TM/KOL before the Circuit Bench at Kolkata. The Board, by its order dated 10th January 2005, reversed the Assistant Registrar's order and held that the trademark "RAMAYAN" was not registrable. The Board found that the mark had become common to trade since more than 20 traders in Patna and other parts of the country were using it, making it public juris, and also held against the distinctiveness of the mark.
Lal Babu Priyadarshi then approached the Supreme Court of India by filing Civil Appeal No. 2138 of 2006 by way of special leave against the order of the IPAB. The matter was heard by a bench comprising Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice R.K. Agrawal.
The Dispute
The core dispute between the parties had two dimensions. The first was a legal question of principle: whether the name of a holy religious book like "RAMAYAN" can at all be registered as a trademark under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The second was a factual contest between the two parties about who used the mark first, which would be relevant if the registration were at all found to be permissible.
On the legal question, the appellant's counsel argued that the mere fact that a word happens to be the name of a religious book is not by itself a sufficient ground for refusing registration under Section 9(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, especially when no evidence had been placed on record to show that any section of Hindus had actually felt hurt or offended by the use of the name "RAMAYAN" in relation to incense sticks. She further argued that the Parliamentary Standing Committee's Eighth Report on the Trade Marks Bill, 1993, while expressing the view that religious symbols should "not ordinarily" be registered as trademarks, stopped short of actually prohibiting such registrations, meaning that the Committee itself left room for flexibility. It was also argued that the Board had misread the Supreme Court's earlier decision in the case of Registrar of Trade Marks v. Ashok Chandra Rakhit by treating it as a blanket authority against all religious names, whereas that case was specifically about the word "SHREE" which had an established practice of non-registration. Further, it was pointed out that the use of names of Hindu deities as trademarks is a well-accepted commercial practice in India and no one has challenged the same on grounds of religious sensitivity.
On the factual side, the appellant claimed prior use of the mark since 1981, and argued that having built up his business using this mark over several years with wide advertisement and excellent product quality, the trademark had acquired distinctive character in the minds of the public. He also argued that the respondent, having himself used an identical or very similar mark, could not in good conscience oppose the registration of the same mark by the appellant.
The respondent's counsel countered that "RAMAYAN" is not just any word but the sacred title of one of Hinduism's most revered texts. He argued that the mark was devoid of any distinctive character, could not distinguish the goods of one person from another, and had become so widely used by numerous traders that it had entered the public domain. He submitted that allowing one person to monopolise this name would cause confusion in the market and harm traders and consumers alike.
Reasoning and Analysis of the Court, Including Judgments Referenced
Justice R.K. Agrawal, who authored the judgment, began the substantive discussion by carefully examining Section 9 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which sets out the absolute grounds for refusal of registration of a trademark. Section 9(1) provides that a mark which is devoid of any distinctive character, or which consists of marks or indications common to the trade, shall not be registered. Section 9(2) goes further and says that a mark shall not be registered if it is of a nature likely to deceive the public or cause confusion, or if it contains matter likely to hurt the religious susceptibilities of any class or section of citizens of India, or if it contains scandalous or obscene matter, or if its use is prohibited under the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950. Section 9(3) additionally bars registration of marks that consist exclusively of the shape of goods. The Court noted that these are absolute bars to registration and not merely discretionary considerations.
The Court then turned its attention to the Eighth Report on the Trade Marks Bill, 1993 submitted by the Parliamentary Standing Committee. This report, presented on 21st April 1994, expressed a clear opinion in Clause 13.3 that any symbol relating to Gods, Goddesses, and places of worship should not ordinarily be registered as a trademark. The Committee, however, also noted that it did not wish to disturb already existing trademarks of this nature since doing so would create chaos in the market. It also indicated that the government should take appropriate action when complaints are received about a trademark hurting religious sentiments. The Court found this Parliamentary Committee report highly relevant and noted the timing: when this report was presented on 21st April 1994, the appellant's trademark had not yet been registered, and in fact the opposition proceedings were still pending and were ultimately decided only on 31st March 2004. The Court used this temporal fact to reinforce that the spirit of the Parliamentary Committee's recommendation clearly covered the appellant's situation.
The most significant legal reasoning by the Court came in paragraph 15 of the judgment, where the Court laid down a clear and categorical principle. It held that "RAMAYAN" is the title of a book written by Maharishi Valmiki and is universally recognised as a holy religious book of the Hindu community in India. Registering the exclusive name of such a religious book as a trademark for any commercial commodity cannot be permissible under the Act. However, the Court added an important nuance: if any other word is added as a suffix or prefix to "RAMAYAN," and the design or composition of the combined mark is distinct enough that the word "RAMAYAN" loses its predominant religious significance within the composite mark, then such a combined mark might be considered for registration. But since the appellant had applied only for the standalone word "RAMAYAN" as the trademark, and not for a composite mark, this exception did not help him. The Court also noted that the product labels of the appellant actually carried photographs of Lord Rama, Sita, and Lakshman, which made it clear that the appellant was deliberately leveraging the religious imagery and goodwill attached to the Gods and Goddesses, which the Court held was not permissible.
The Court then considered the case of National Bell Co. v. Metal Goods Mfg. Co. (P) Ltd. and Anr., reported as 1970 (3) SCC 665, which was cited by the respondent's counsel. In this case, the Supreme Court had held that the distinctiveness of a trademark may be lost in a variety of ways, including when it is used so widely by so many traders that it effectively ceases to be associated exclusively with any one trader and becomes part of the public domain. The Court in the present case applied this principle to note that since more than 20 traders in Patna alone, and many more across the country, were using the word "RAMAYAN" as a mark for similar products, the word had long since become public juris and common to the trade. No one trader could, in these circumstances, claim exclusive rights over it.
The Court also dealt with the issue of prior use, which was argued at length by both sides. The respondent claimed to have been in the business since 1980 and to have developed and published his artistic work and been using the mark since 1986. The appellant initially claimed use since 1987, though he later sought to change this to 1981. Crucially, the Court noted that in various pleadings filed by the respondent in Title Suits, the appellant himself had admitted that the respondent had been using and publishing his artistic mark before the date of the appellant's own first claimed use, which was 1987. This admission was fatal to the appellant's claim of prior use. The Court concluded that the respondent was using the artistic mark earlier in point of time than the appellant.
Although the Court dealt with the cited cases of K.R. Chinna Krishna Chettiar v. Sri Ambal and Co., reported as AIR 1970 SC 146, and Corn Products Refining Co. v. Shangrila Food Products Ltd., reported as 1960 (1) SCR 968, the central and decisive reasoning rested on the religious nature of the word "RAMAYAN" and its widespread common use. The Court in Corn Products had laid down that before a trader can derive benefit from the existence of many similar marks in the market, he must prove that those marks had acquired a reputation through use. The appellant failed to meet this standard as well, since the existence of more than 20 traders using the same word undermined rather than supported his claim to exclusivity.
On the question of deception and confusion, the Court found that both parties' marks were identical in design, colour scheme, and the reproduction of photographs, to such an extent that an ordinary buyer would reasonably be confused and might believe that the goods of one party were those of the other. This too weighed against registration.
Final Decision of the Court
The Supreme Court upheld the order of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board dated 10th January 2005, which had set aside the Assistant Registrar's order allowing the trademark application. The Civil Appeal No. 2138 of 2006 filed by Lal Babu Priyadarshi was dismissed. The Court found no irregularity whatsoever in the Board's order. The parties were, however, left to bear their own costs, meaning neither side was awarded costs against the other.
Point of Law Settled in the Case
The Supreme Court settled a significant and lasting point of law: the name of a holy or religious book — such as the Quran, the Bible, the Guru Granth Sahib, or the Ramayan — cannot be monopolised by any individual as a trademark for his goods or services. No person can obtain a private commercial monopoly over the title of a religious text that holds deep spiritual and cultural significance for millions of people. The Court also clarified that where a mark has become so common in trade that more than 20 traders are using it for similar products across the country, it ceases to be distinctive and becomes public juris, making it ineligible for registration. Additionally, the Court added a practical qualification that if a religious word is combined with other words in such a way that the religious significance of that word is diluted within the composite mark, the composite mark might then be considered for registration, but never the religious word standing alone.
Case Details
Title: Lal Babu Priyadarshi Vs. Amritpal Singh
Date of Order: 27th October 2015
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 2138 of 2006
Neutral Citation: MANU/SC/1260/2015
Equivalent Citations: 2015(4) RCR (Civil) 1033; 2015(12) SCALE 76
Court: Supreme Court of India
Hon'ble Judges: Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice R.K. Agrawal
Disclaimer: Readers are advised not to treat this as a substitute for legal advice as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
Suggested SEO Titles for Legal Journal Publication
- Can the Name of a Religious Book Be Registered as a Trademark in India? Supreme Court Answers
- RAMAYAN Trademark Case: Supreme Court Bars Registration of Holy Book Names as Trademarks
- Lal Babu Priyadarshi v. Amritpal Singh: A Landmark Ruling on Religion and Trademark Law in India
- Religious Names as Trademarks: What the Supreme Court of India Said in 2015
- No Monopoly Over Sacred Texts: Supreme Court Refuses RAMAYAN Trademark Registration
- Trademark Law and Religious Sentiments: The RAMAYAN Case Explained Simply
- When Faith Meets Commerce: India's Supreme Court on Trademarking Holy Book Names
SEO Tags
Trademark registration India, religious book trademark, RAMAYAN trademark case, Lal Babu Priyadarshi vs Amritpal Singh, Supreme Court trademark ruling, Trade Marks Act 1999 Section 9, absolute grounds for refusal trademark, holy book name trademark India, religious sentiments trademark law, public juris trademark, intellectual property India, IPAB trademark appeal, incense sticks trademark dispute, trademark distinctiveness India, sacred names trademark prohibition, Maharishi Valmiki Ramayan trademark, Hindu religious book trademark, trademark law India 2015, AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman, IPAdjutor
Headnote
Held: The name of a holy or religious book cannot be registered as a trademark by any individual for use in relation to commercial goods or services. The word "RAMAYAN," being the title of a sacred text of the Hindus authored by Maharishi Valmiki, falls squarely within the prohibition under Section 9(2)(b) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which bars registration of marks containing matter likely to hurt the religious susceptibilities of any class or section of citizens of India. Furthermore, where a mark has been in common use by more than 20 traders for similar products across the country, it has entered the public domain and ceased to be distinctive, thereby failing the distinctiveness requirement under Section 9(1) of the Act. A combined or composite mark in which a religious word is accompanied by other words or design elements that dilute its standalone religious significance may, however, be considered for registration on its own merits. The use of images of Gods and Goddesses on product labels to commercially exploit religious goodwill is equally impermissible. The admission by the applicant in civil proceedings that the opponent was using the artistic mark prior to the applicant's own claimed date of first use is binding and disentitles the applicant to the benefit of prior use. Appeal dismissed.
No comments:
Post a Comment