Maintaining the "purity" of the trademark register
is one of the primary concerns of trademark practice in India.
To enable this, the law provides for a procedure to apply for a
rectification to be made in the Register. Provided under
Chapter VII of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, it accords the power
to cancel or vary registration and rectify the register
(Section 57), correction of the register (Section 58),
alteration of a registered trademark (Section 59) and
adaptation of entries in the register to amended or substituted
classification of goods or services. Societe des
Produits Nestle S.A. v. Super Star Confectionery Co. (P)
Ltd is one such case of rectification that appeared
before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board.
Nestle, leading manufacturers of
a range of products, from chocolates to cheese, biscuits to ice
creams, and the first to produce infant formula, made an
application for rectification of the trademark 'COFFEE
TIME'. The mark 'COFFEE TIME' was
stated to be a laudatory epithet, incapable of being
distinguished and in contravention of Sections 9 (1)(a),(b) and
(c) and Sections 57(1) and (2) of the Trade Marks Act,
The counsel for Nestle contended
that the impugned trademark was descriptive and devoid of
distinctive character. The Intellectual Property Appellate
Board's attention was drawn towards the journal
containing the advertisement, and the fact that the user
claimed also being of that very year, the counsel contended
that the mark could not have acquired distinctiveness in such a
short period of use. The counsel also submitted that the
registered mark was in contravention with Section 9 of the
Examining if the applicant is
aggrieved or not, Section 21 was deliberated upon. The main
object of allowing rectification of an application was stated
to be maintaining purity of the Register, which is for public
purpose, and that the interest of the public was to be kept in
mind while determining the rights of an applicant. The Board
stated that the applicant is a person aggrieved under Section
57 , since the locus standi being determined liberally, it
would not only be against the interest of others engaged in the
same line of trade, but also against that of the public. On
account of the mark being too descriptive, the court rendered
Nestle to be rightfully aggrieved.
The qualification of the mark
for registration in respect of Section 9 was also considered.
The Board opined that a word used to describe the character of
goods, could be used only to describe and not to distinguish it
from the others. They stated that the mark being applied for
and having been put to use for the first time, in the same
year, could not distinguish itself in such a short span. They
also found the word to be descriptive, falling squarely under
section 9 of the Act, and thus ordered its removal from the
This article enunciates the recent, much awaited, and landmark judgment delivered on September 16, 2016 by Hon'ble Delhi High Court throwing light on the important provisions of the Copyright Act, 1962.
Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion recently issued an office memorandum pursuant to receiving representations from various stakeholders for guidance with respect to the applicability of the provisions of Section 31D of the Copyright Act, 1957.
An Invention Disclosure Form is the documentation of the invention. This is a means to document particulars of your invention and submitting it to the patent attorney who is filing your patent application.
The Patents Act 1970, along with the Patents Rules 1972, came into force on 20th April 1972, replacing the Indian Patents and Designs Act 1911. The Patents Act was largely based on the recommendations of the Ayyangar Committee Report headed by Justice N. Rajagopala Ayyangar. One of the recommendations was the allowance of only process patents with regard to inventions relating to drugs, medicines, food and chemicals.
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).