Topic :- clothing

Group :- 2

Name of the shop :- Global Fiesta

Name of the owner :- Kritika Shekhar

Roll no. :- 16

Description

IP Intellectual Property 1: trade mark

A “Trade mark” [TM] is defined under Section 2(zb) of the Indian Trademarks Act,
1999 as “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 a shape of goods, their packaging, and combination of colors.”

Simply put, a trademark may include a device, brand, heading, label, ticket, name,
signature, word, letter, numeral, shape of goods, packaging or combination of colors or
any such combinations. (Section 2(m)). The only qualification for a trademark being its
capacity to distinguish the goods or services of one person from that of another.

we intend to protect our brand including the brand name, slogan, the logo, font and its
colour combination. The logo features the name of the shop in the background colour
cream and the font colour black which is very radient and attractive. So as The first
thing towards which a person is attracted is the style, font and also the colour of the
brand. The colour catches the attention of a person in the very first instance. Therefore,
we wanted to inculcate such colour scheme in our trademark which would not only
catch the eye of an individual but would also be able to present the essence of store.

In,Yahoo!, Inc. v. Akash Arora & Anr 1999

The domain names owned by the Plaintiff and the Defendant, ‘Yahoo!’ and ‘Yahoo
India!’ respectively, were almost identical and similar phonetically too. It was felt by the
plaintiff that this similarity would confuse and deceive users and lead them to believe
that the two domain names were connected. It was held by the Delhi High Court that
the name ‘Yahoo!’ has become distinct and unique and is associated with the plaintiff
by public at large. It further held that even a domain name served a similar purpose as
that of a trademark and must be granted similar protection.

ITC limited versus Nestle India limited

The court held that the action of passing off, as claimed by ITC, does not lie in the
present case. Though the word “magic masala” is similar to a great extent, neither party
can claim trademark right over its use as the word are common and descriptive in
nature.

IP Intellectual Property 2: geographical indication

A geographical indication is a sign which is used on

products that have a specific geographical origin and possess qualities or a reputation
that are due to that origin. Geographical Indication is primarily granted to agricultural,
natural, manufactured, handicraft originating from a definite geographical territory.
Article 22 of the TRIPS Agreements defines Geographical Indication as "indications
which identify a good as originating in the territory of a Member, or a region or locality
in that territory, where a given quality, reputation or other characteristic of the good is
essentially attributable to its geographical origin".1

The object of the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act,
1999, is three fold,

By specific law governing the geographical indication of goods in the country which
could adequately protect the interest of producers of such goods,

To exclude unauthorized persons from misusing geographical indications and to

protect consumers from deception and,

To promote goods bearing Indian Geographical Indication in the export market.2

A registered Geographical Indications prohibit a third party to use such Geographical

indication by any means in the designations or presentations of goods that indicate that
such goods originates in a geographical area.

So this Calcutta cotton is a pure cotton with no mixture of any other fabric and this
cotton has been originated in Calcutta

case Study: Tea Board of India Vs. ITC Ltd

From the above case we can conclude that a registered GI gives right to the GI tag
holder to stop any person or entity from using the registered mark of GI or its name in a
product which might be similar or deceptively similar to the registered product or it
might not be similar to the registered product, but have the registered name in it. But if
a person is using the registered name or logo of GI in a service then that will not come
under the ambit of The Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection)
Act, 1999 because if we look at the definition of GI itself given in the TRIPS and in the
section 2(e) of the domestic GI act then we will find the use of word “good/s” in it and
the word service is mentioned no where and GI is about the product with special
characteristics because of environment, climate and human intervention of a specific
region. So, on this merits court dismissed the appeal by the plaintiff.

A Study of the Basmati Case (India-US Basmati Rice Dispute)

In the late 1997, when an American company RiceTec Inc was granted a patent by the
US patent office to call the aromatic rice grown outside India "Basmati", India objected
to it. India has been one of the major exporters of Basmati to several countries and such
a grant by the US patent office was likely to affect its trade. Since Basmati rice is
traditionally grown in India and Pakistan, it was opined that granting patent to RiceTec
violated the Geographical Indications Act under the TRIPS agreement. A geographical
indication (sometimes abbreviated to GI) is a name or sign used on certain products
which corresponds to a specific geographical location or origin (eg. a town, region, or
country). The use of a GI may act as a certification that the product possesses certain
qualities, or enjoys a certain reputation, due to its geographical origin. RiceTec's usage
of the name Basmati for rice which was derived from Indian rice but not grown in
India, and hence not of the same quality as Basmati, would have lead to the violation of
the concept of GI and would have been a deception to the consumers.

Intellectual Property law now considers this a very important arena which seeks to
preserve the varieties in their natural habitat and let the geographical area where it is
traditionally and originally grown have certain special rights over it. This paper is an
attempt to understand the impact and importance of such patents and appreciate the
law regarding the same in the light of the Basmati Case.