9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the word "Rasoi" has a direct reference to the character or quality of the goods under Section 6(1)(d) of the Trade Marks Act, 1940. 2. If "Rasoi" does not have such a direct reference, must it still be proved to be distinctive to be eligible for registration? 3. Whether "Rasoi," even if distinctive, is ineligible for registration as it is a common word of the language. Issue-wise Analysis: 1. Direct Reference to Character or Quality: The primary issue is whether the word "Rasoi" has a direct reference to the character or quality of the goods, specifically hydrogenated ground-nut oil. Section 6(1)(d) of the Trade Marks Act, 1940, stipulates that a trade mark shall not be registered unless it contains or consists of one or more words having no direct reference to the character or quality of the goods. The term "Rasoi" translates to cook-room, kitchen, cooking, cookery, or cooked-food. Given that hydrogenated ground-nut oil is predominantly used for cooking, the term "Rasoi" directly refers to the character of the goods. The court emphasized that the term must be understood by the common public and not just by its dictionary meanings. The conclusion was that "Rasoi" implies a direct reference to the character of the goods and thus is not eligible for registration under Section 6(1)(d). 2. Requirement of Distinctiveness: The second issue examines whether the mark "Rasoi" must be distinctive even if it does not have a direct reference to the character or quality of the goods. Section 6(1)(e) of the Trade Marks Act, 1940, requires that a trade mark must be distinctive to be eligible for registration. The court referred to precedents and statutory interpretations to conclude that distinctiveness is a requisite for all clauses under Section 6(1). The term "distinctive" means adapted to distinguish the goods of the proprietor from those of other persons. Therefore, even if "Rasoi" did not have a direct reference to the character or quality of the goods, it must still be proved to be distinctive to be eligible for registration. 3. Common Word and Monopoly: The third issue addresses whether "Rasoi," even if distinctive, is ineligible for registration because it is a common word. Common words are considered public property, and no trader should monopolize them, depriving others of their legitimate use. This principle is generally upheld unless the common word has lost its primary meaning through long-term association with a particular trader's goods. In this case, "Rasoi" has not become distinctive of the applicant's goods. Therefore, the word "Rasoi" is ineligible for registration on the grounds that it is an ordinary word of the language, and no monopoly should be granted to any particular trader. Conclusion: The court concluded that the word "Rasoi" has a direct reference to the character and quality of the goods and is not eligible for registration under Section 6(1)(d). Even if it did not have such a reference, it must still be distinctive to be eligible for registration. Furthermore, as a common word, "Rasoi" is ineligible for registration because it has not become distinctive of the applicant's goods. The answers to the three questions were thus in the affirmative, requiring distinctiveness and disallowing the registration of common words without such distinctiveness.
|
