Registration of Religious Books "RAMAYAN" as Trademarks:Lal Babu Priyadarshi Vs. Amritpal Singh by Supreme Court
Introduction
The Supreme Court's decision in Lal Babu Priyadarshi v. Amritpal Singh is an important judgment in Indian trademark jurisprudence dealing with the registrability of religious names and titles of holy books as trademarks. The case addressed a question that goes beyond conventional trademark disputes and touches upon public interest, religious sensitivities, distinctiveness of marks, and the extent to which exclusive proprietary rights can be claimed over expressions that form part of the cultural and religious heritage of society.
The judgment is significant for businesses, brand owners, intellectual property practitioners, trademark registries, and consumers because it clarifies the limits of trademark protection under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Court examined whether the title of a revered Hindu religious text, namely "Ramayan", could be monopolized by a single trader for commercial goods. In doing so, the Court provided important guidance on the concepts of distinctiveness, public juris, religious susceptibility, and absolute grounds for refusal of registration.
The ruling remains a leading authority on the principle that names of holy and religious books ordinarily cannot become the exclusive proprietary domain of an individual trader through trademark registration.
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellant, Lal Babu Priyadarshi, carrying on business under the name Om Perfumery, filed an application before the Registrar of Trade Marks seeking registration of the trademark "RAMAYAN" along with a device of a crown in Class 3 in respect of incense sticks, agarbattis, dhoop and perfumery products. The appellant claimed user of the mark from the year 1981.
The respondent, Amritpal Singh, who was previously a dealer of the appellant's products and was conducting business under the name Badshah Industries, opposed the registration. The opposition was filed under Sections 9, 11(a), 11(b), 11(e), 12(1), 12(3) and 18(1) of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. The respondent contended that the mark "RAMAYAN" was the name of a revered Hindu religious book and therefore could not become the subject matter of monopoly by any individual trader.
The Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks rejected the opposition and held that the mark consisting of the word "RAMAYAN" together with a crown device was capable of distinguishing the appellant's goods and was not prohibited from registration. Consequently, the opposition was dismissed.
Aggrieved by the decision, the respondent preferred an appeal before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). The IPAB reversed the order of the Assistant Registrar and held that the mark was not registrable. The Board observed that the word "RAMAYAN" lacked distinctiveness and had become common to the trade.
The appellant thereafter approached the Supreme Court challenging the order of the IPAB.
Dispute Before the Court
The principal question before the Supreme Court was whether the registration of the word "RAMAYAN", being the title of a holy religious book of Hindus, was prohibited under Section 9 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
The appellant argued that mere use of the name of a religious book could not automatically result in refusal of registration. It was contended that the mark had acquired distinctiveness through long and extensive use and that the word "RAMAYAN" was capable of distinguishing the appellant's products from those of other traders. The appellant further relied upon prior use and asserted that no evidence existed to show that the use of the mark hurt religious sentiments.
The respondent contended that the title of a sacred religious book could not be appropriated as a private monopoly. It was further argued that numerous traders across India were already using the word "RAMAYAN" in relation to similar products, demonstrating that the expression had become common to the trade and lacked distinctiveness.
The Court therefore had to determine whether such a mark satisfied the statutory requirements of distinctiveness and whether registration would be contrary to the principles embodied in Section 9 of the Trade Marks Act.
Reasoning and Analysis of the Court
The Supreme Court undertook a detailed examination of Section 9 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which sets out the absolute grounds for refusal of registration. The provision prohibits registration of marks that are devoid of distinctive character, marks that have become customary in trade, marks likely to deceive or cause confusion, and marks likely to hurt religious susceptibilities.
The Court observed that the legislative intent behind Section 9 is to prevent the grant of exclusive proprietary rights over expressions that lack distinctiveness or whose registration would be contrary to public interest. The Court emphasized that trademark law is intended to distinguish one trader's goods from those of another and not to confer monopoly rights over expressions that belong to society at large.
An important aspect of the judgment was the Court's reliance upon the Eighth Report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on the Trade Marks Bill, 1993. The Committee had expressed the view that symbols relating to Gods, Goddesses, and places of worship should ordinarily not be registered as trademarks. Although the report did not impose an absolute prohibition, it reflected legislative concern regarding commercialization of religious symbols and expressions.
The Court held that "Ramayan" is not merely an ordinary word but the title of one of the most revered religious texts of Hinduism, traditionally attributed to Maharishi Valmiki. The Court observed that permitting registration of the exclusive word "RAMAYAN" would effectively allow a trader to claim monopoly over the name of a sacred religious book. Such a result would be inconsistent with the objectives of trademark law and public policy.
The Court further noted that the label used by the appellant contained depictions of Lord Rama, Sita, and Lakshman. According to the Court, this demonstrated an attempt to derive commercial advantage from religious associations and religious figures.
Another significant factor was the evidence showing that more than twenty traders were using the word "RAMAYAN" in relation to similar products in Patna and elsewhere in India. The Court concluded that the word had become public juris and common to the trade. Once a mark becomes common to trade, it loses the distinctiveness necessary for trademark protection.
While reaching its conclusions, the Court discussed and referred to several important precedents. The appellant relied upon Registrar of Trade Marks v. Ashok Chandra Rakhit Ltd., AIR 1955 SC 558, concerning distinctiveness and registrability. The Court distinguished the decision and found that it did not support registration of the impugned mark.
The appellant also relied upon K.R. Chinna Krishna Chettiar v. Sri Ambal & Co., AIR 1970 SC 146, and Corn Products Refining Co. v. Shangrila Food Products Ltd., AIR 1960 SC 142, in support of arguments relating to distinctiveness and market reputation.
The respondent relied upon National Bell Co. v. Metal Goods Manufacturing Co. (P) Ltd., (1970) 3 SCC 665, where the Supreme Court recognized that a trademark may lose its distinctiveness and become public juris through widespread use. The Court accepted and applied this principle in the present case.
The Court ultimately concluded that the title of a holy religious book cannot ordinarily be appropriated as a trademark and that the appellant had failed to establish that the word "RAMAYAN" had acquired such exclusive distinctiveness as to justify registration.
Final Decision of the Court
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board. The Court found no infirmity in the IPAB's conclusion that the trademark "RAMAYAN" was not entitled to registration.
The Court held that the appellant could not claim exclusive proprietary rights over the title of a revered religious book and that the mark lacked the distinctiveness required under the Trade Marks Act. The parties were left to bear their own costs.
Point of Law Settled
The judgment establishes that the title of a holy or religious book ordinarily cannot be monopolized through trademark registration. A trader cannot claim exclusive proprietary rights over expressions that form part of the religious and cultural heritage of society.
The decision further clarifies that where a mark has become common to the trade or public juris, it loses the distinctiveness necessary for registration. The judgment also reinforces the principle that trademarks associated with religious sentiments must be examined carefully in light of Section 9 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
The ruling continues to serve as an important precedent governing trademark applications involving religious names, sacred texts, and culturally significant expressions.
Title of the Case: Lal Babu Priyadarshi Vs. Amritpal Singh
Date of Judgment/Order: 27.10.2015
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 2138 of 2006
Neutral Citation: (2015) 12 SCALE 76
Name of Court: Supreme Court of India
Name of Hon'ble Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Ranjan Gogoi and Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.K. Agrawal
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
Disclaimer: Images used herein do not reflect actual images used in Judgement and that the same are for illustrative purpose only. Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advice as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
Suggested SEO Titles:
- Supreme Court Refuses Trademark Registration for RAMAYAN: Complete Legal Analysis
- Lal Babu Priyadarshi v Amritpal Singh Explained: Can Religious Books Be Trademarks?
- Trademark Protection and Religious Names: Landmark RAMAYAN Judgment
- Supreme Court on Registration of Holy Books as Trademarks
- Why RAMAYAN Could Not Be Registered as a Trademark in India
- Religious Susceptibilities and Trademark Law Under the Trade Marks Act
- Public Juris and Distinctiveness: Lessons from the RAMAYAN Trademark Case
- Intellectual Property Rights and Religious Symbols: Supreme Court Clarification
- Section 9 Trade Marks Act Explained Through Lal Babu Priyadarshi Case
- Landmark Trademark Judgment on Religious Names and Public Interest
Suggested SEO Tags:
Lal Babu Priyadarshi, Amritpal Singh, RAMAYAN trademark case, religious trademark, holy book trademark, trademark registration refusal, Section 9 Trade Marks Act, trademark law India, intellectual property law, religious susceptibilities trademark, public juris, distinctiveness trademark, trademark opposition, IPAB decision, trademark litigation India, Supreme Court trademark judgment, religious symbols trademark, trademark jurisprudence India, incense sticks trademark, agarbatti trademark dispute, trademark examination, absolute grounds refusal, National Bell case, trademark public interest, cultural heritage trademark, trademark registration India, AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman, IPAdjutor
Headnote of the Judgment:
Lal Babu Priyadarshi v. Amritpal Singh, Supreme Court of India, Civil Appeal No. 6878 of 2005. The appeal challenged an order of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board refusing registration of the trademark "RAMAYAN" for incense sticks and perfumery products. The appellant contended that the mark had acquired distinctiveness through use, while the respondent argued that the title of a revered Hindu religious book could not be monopolized by a trader. The Supreme Court upheld the IPAB's decision and held that the name of a holy religious book cannot ordinarily be claimed as an exclusive trademark. The Court further found that the mark had become common to the trade and lacked distinctiveness. The appeal was dismissed.
Info-graphic Thumbnail Prompt:
Create a premium 3D hyper-realistic 8K legal-news infographic thumbnail in 14:9 aspect ratio depicting a landmark trademark dispute concerning registration of a religious book title. Central focus on a glowing trademark registration certificate bearing the word “RAMAYAN” with a large red legal prohibition symbol over it. Surround the scene with premium intellectual property graphics, trademark registry dashboards, legal scales, distinctiveness analysis charts, opposition proceedings timeline, public juris analytics, and glowing legal data visualizations. Include elegant incense sticks, perfumery product packaging, trademark examination documents, and sophisticated legal compliance interfaces. Use premium red, gold, black, metallic silver, and glowing amber highlights with cinematic lighting, ultra-sharp reflections, dramatic contrast, realistic 3D textures, and modern intellectual property law aesthetics. Keep text minimal and highly readable with only “RAMAYAN TM CASE” and “TRADEMARK REFUSED”. Avoid clutter. Use realistic 3D charts, legal dashboards, tables, and visual storytelling rather than large blocks of text. Do not use name of any court, lawyer, judge, tricolor, Ashoka Emblem, deity images, government insignia, or official symbols. Use generic legal imagery only. Use attached image as Image of lawyer in lawyers dress at left bottom corner which should cover 20% of entire image area.
