Source: https://thelawblog.in/category/ip-law/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 06:49:20+00:00

Document:
The word trademark in common parlance means the identity of a particular entity. It is not only the conventional marks but also unconventional marks like sound, scent and colour that can be registered now. Today, consumers are looking for a good not only for its inherent use but also for other factors like its appeal and this is particularly true for the younger generation. While we grew up munching Chocolates like Cadbury, we now identify it not only by its name but the colour of the packet in which it comes wrapped. Shoe brand Louboutin red soles, New York-based jeweller Tiffany & Co’s trademarked blue box and Telecom brand T-Mobile specific shade of magenta are some examples of the colour marks. When there are goods entering the market with the same use, you need to distinguish your goods from other, so that it stands out. As a colour becomes an identity of the brand, People begin to associate the brands with its Color, and that’s where colour marks come into play.
“Trademark” is defined as a 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 the shape of goods, their packaging and combination of colours. A colour that appeals to consumers, and is easily spotable increases its commercial value. Color Marks is a valuable asset for any business entity and also an important marketing business strategy. It is also a strategy for brand identity and product differentiation in a competitive market. Thus, each entity tries to choose a colour that would help it stand out, make its brand different and easily distinguishable.
A colour can also be USP (unique selling point) of a brand.This can be illustrated by the recent case of Christian Louboutin v. Pawan Kumar, in which the Delhi High Court restrained Karol Bagh based sellers from selling footwear bearing his registered Red Sole trademark. The Deere & Co., which manufactures agricultural equipment and vehicles sued the defendants, for using its word mark “John Deere”, the logo, the registered trademark including trade dress and the colour combination thereof in relation to their agricultural equipment and vehicles.
Because trademark is an exclusionary right, it has the effect of barring others from using it for the product for which it is registered. Applicant desirous of getting registration for a colour mark needs to explicitly mention it in their application along with formalities mentioned in Chapter II of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017 which provides the procedure for registering trademarks which includes the registration of combination of colours as a distinctive feature of the trademark. But, how to determine whether a colour can be registered or not?
Various test like the colour depletion test and the acquired distinctiveness (like Louboutin) are applied by the Courts to answer this question. The most common test of acquiring distinctiveness by use also has certain limitations. Therefore, the test seems to be that if the applicant can show that by virtue of its use, it has acquired goodwill and has come to be associated exclusively with the applicant’s trade to the satisfaction of the trademark officer, it can get the colour mark registered for itself. The colour depletion theory comes into play only in case of blanket prohibitions.
The courts would not allow for registration the colours that are functional for various purposes. Further, a trademark is always used for a category of good or services and the act itself bars from registering a colour for a class.
Unconventional trademarks have now been used by the entity for a long time. On the surface, this might appear unfair but it also challenges to forge creativity among the upcoming entity, to form a unique identity by creating or choosing a colour mark keeping in mind the idea of their brand. The Trade Marks Act, 1999 provides for the registration of combination of colour but it is not very clear if a single shade can be registered or not. As of now, there has been no reported case where a single shade has been trademarked in India. In the absence of an explicit bar for registering a single shade and the broad definition of the trademark, it cannot be said that this cannot be done in near future.
 Section 2(1) (i)(viii)(zb) in The Trade Marks Act, 1999.
 Deere & Co. & Anr. vs S. Harcharan Singh & Anr.
 Colgate Palmolive Company vs Anchor Health And Beauty Care Pvt., 108 (2003) DLT 51.
The Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) have gained worldwide prominence since the TRIPS agreement of 1995, which mandated that all the WTO-member countries accord to uniform patent laws. India is also a signatory of the TRIPS agreement and as such has to follow all the guidelines set down by it.
On one hand, IPRs is a boon for creators and innovators, but on the other hand, it is a bane for the less privileged, who have to bear the added costs of such exclusive products. In India, the less privileged, which includes illiterate and poor people, now have to face commodification of their skills, knowledge and products, due to the global patent regime unleashed since 1995. Hence, it is important to consider how the patent laws have impacted their innate occupations and life-essentials.
In the years from 2005 to 2012, only 59,998 patents were filed by Indian residents. Compare this to China where over 2 million patents were filed by Chinese residents in the same period of time. The reason for this disparity is not the lack of expertise or creativity amongst us. However, we Indians relatively lack the basic awareness, resources and infrastructure which will help us in asserting our intellectual property rights.
In India, most of the products are patented by government-sponsored educational institutes and foreign multinational companies. We do not see many patents originating from individuals like an ITI (Industrial Training Institute) trained mechanic or electrician. Even if someone is able to invent a product, the multinationals, with their large purses, purchase such innovations. The individual inventors also, willingly or unwillingly, sell their patents to multinationals because of their financial considerations.
There are very many people whose creativeness goes unnoticed because they lack patent expertise or lack the funds required to hire expensive patent drafting services of lawyers or due to general unawareness regarding the patent laws in India. Poorly drafted patents also make it difficult for the Indian Patent Office to find suitable applications to grant the patent. In such a scenario, it would be better for individual innovators if the government could establish special patent offices for them, just like the consumer courts, where the patent granting process could be more speedy, easy and efficient.
A country’s ability to research and innovate has been adjudged based on its ranking on the intellectual property index, a survey conducted by the United States’ Chamber of Commerce (USCC). India has consistently maintained a lowly rank in this ranking. A major problem cited by the index has been that of weak IPR infrastructure.
India lacks patent examiners, both qualitatively and quantitatively, which leads to pendency and protracted application examination periods. Hence, it is necessary that the government proactively fill up the vacancies by appointing qualified people, especially those who have undergraduate or post-graduate degrees in the field of law or science, and in addition open more patent offices across India.
Further, we don’t have enough qualified lawyers and judges to protect innovations. In western countries like the United States and the United Kingdom, it is common for patent lawyers to have science and law degrees. To produce patent lawyers with similar qualifications, we must train more people in the skill of drafting and obtaining patents, especially engineering and science graduates.
In a developing country like India, the multitudes of less privileged people often find themselves in the dilemma of having to choose between an original, legal copy and a pirated, illegal copy. The less privileged, bound by their circumstances, lean towards the latter. Even the courts have stood by their side, as we have seen in the Delhi photocopy case.
However, a right balance must be sought between the knowledge of the creators and the users of such knowledge. Users must respect the intellectual property rights of the creators, but in circumstances where basic human rights of food, shelter and clothing aren’t respected, it would be a travesty to. People will respect others’ rights when they are situated in a position to do so. But for that to happen we need to have holistic economic growth in our country.
It is important that food and medicines are available to all people at low costs. We have sui generis laws like The Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001 which were enacted to safeguard the rights of breeders as well as farmers. But we have seen that over the years the Indian farmer has been dependent upon high-yielding seeds “patented” by companies like Monsanto. Such kind of commodification of agriculture is hurting our farmers who have to purchase seeds from such multinational companies at a far higher price. Hence, the government must evaluate whether and up to what level has the PPVFR act of 2001 given impetus to farmer-led and farmer-centric research. There is also a need to evaluate whether the act has supported and fostered the small-scale seed industries and helped preserve the traditional knowledge of farmers.
Similar is the case with the pharmaceutical industry, where most of the Indian pharmaceutical companies are engaged in producing generic medicines which are available after the patent protections given to the original developer expires. All these years the pharmaceuticals industry has avoided investing in R&D on the back of relaxed IPR laws and significant government backing.
The generic medicine producing Indian pharmaceutical industry has been protected by section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act, 1970 which prohibits ever-greening of patents. But there is strong pressure on the Indian government to tighten the IPR laws in this regard from countries like the USA who wants to help its pharmaceutical industry by driving out competition from Indian firms. So, if in the future the government succumbs to such external pressure or decides to enter into an agreement like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which prescribes its members to harmonize their IPR laws to global standards, the pharmaceutical industry will be at loss, since it won’t have any original innovations of its own.
Increase in standards will also increase the costs of medicines. It will seriously affect the health of the less-privileged as they will not be able to afford the high prices of medicines set by the multinationals. A balance must be sought between IPR and creativity to stimulate research and development of vital medical technologies. As a first step towards this, the government could start competitive funding schemes to encourage speedy and cost-effective development of new medicines.
IPR is a necessity in the present age of globalisation. It is especially necessary for the preservation of traditional knowledge like those of the saree weavers in Pochampally, A.P. or the Kani tribal people in the tropical forests of southern-western India. Possessors of traditional knowledge are particularly more vulnerable to their products getting copied by firms in countries like China and in Southeast Asia. Their exploitation also stems from their penury, illiteracy and low social status. The government must suo moto take cognizance of such communities’ traditional knowledge and document it and help them in acquiring patents for their knowledge.
In India, it is important that right equilibrium must be sought between new patented technologies and people’s power to purchase those. The government must focus on fostering creativity among Indians through ingenious educational policies and inspire students to take risks and develop their innovative ideas. The government, through its “Start-Up India” campaign, could help such genuinely innovative ideas by providing financial backup.
 The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Oxford and Ors. v. Rameshwari Photocopy Services and Anr., 2016 SCC OnLine Del 5128.
Geographical indication is one of the seven rights that are being conferred on the creators under Intellectual Property rights. Unlike other categories of IPR’s like Copyright, Trade marks, Industrial designs, Patents, Integrated circuits etc, Geographical Indications with its peculiar features is still in its nascent stage. A GI status is conferred on the goods originated from a particular region and possesses qualities, reputation or characteristics that are specifically attributable to that place of origin. In 1824, France became the first country to develop GI legislation to brand its wines and cheese. Some European countries also followed France example and in the year of 1994, TRIPS (Trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights) agreement under WTO gave a wide coverage to GIs and attracted maximum number of signatories including India. In 1999, Indian Parliament passed geographical indications of goods (Registration and protection) Act that came into effect in 2003.
After possessing GI Status, brand name of the product gets developed that give rise to prices, exports and also protects farmers/artisans against undue competition given by bogus products in the market. Darjeeling tea, Kanchipuram silk saree, Kohhlapari slippers, Meerut scissors are some of the examples of GIs in India. GI is not an exclusive right of the owner but collectively enjoyed by a group of producers, community or even by a nation. The term of a GI registration is ten years which can be renewed after the period of 10 years. Failure to renew the registration will lead to removal of GI sign from the register. Breach of GI right is a criminal offence in India attracting six months prison which may be extended to three years accompanied by fine. Being a cognizable offence, police may conduct search and seizure without any warrant. Thus it protects producer’s interest, boosts healthy competition in the market and safeguard consumers against misleading & bogus products. Present scenario has made it difficult to subscribe with Shakespeare who contemplate that what is there in name? For the sake of economic safety, legal blanket of GI rights is being circulated to keep the fruit of creativity fresh forever.
Country like India which is decorated with diverse culture, tradition and soil can be benefitted to a larger extent with the idea of GIs. No doubt, various challenges are still there which makes implementation of GIs a hard nut to crack. Thousands of goods will qualify for GIs by virtue of huge cultural, ethnic, social and food diversities. Producers of such products are small households and small units often in same area. Hence, it is often difficult to organise them into groups or communities and apply for a GI sign. People are not fully aware about this wonderful legal sword of intellectual property right which has marvellous potential to make their economic battle much easier and convenient.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Public) (in short “Ericsson”) is a company having around 33,000 patents, and 400 of these patents have been granted in India. Most of these are Standard Essential Patents in the field of Mobile Communications like 2G, 3G and 4G which are used in the smartphones and such other devices, which are used for communication.
Lately, Ericsson filed a civil suit against many companies for infringements of its patents relating to the mobile communications, some of them were Mercury Electronics (Micromax), Intex Technologies (India) Limited (Intex), M/s. Best IT World (India) Private Limited (Iball), Lava International Ltd (Lava), Xiaomi Technology (Xiaomi). These companies in their defence asserted that Ericsson violated its FRAND commitment, made by Ericsson to the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI). ETSI made the patents of the Ericsson in the field of the mobile telecommunication as the Standard patents, and thus made them essential in nature. These patents are also recognised as standards within India by the Department of the Telecommunication, which recognises the standards adopted by ETSI.
Most of the companies sell smartphones in India at a very reasonable price and common people who cannot afford the luxury of the Apple’s iPhone tend to buy such smartphones. Some of these companies being Intex, Iball, and Micromaxand charged back on Ericsson by filing information under the Competition Act, 2002 against it, in which the investigations are pending.
These disputes are becoming prevalent in the today’s market due to the lack of legal recognition of the FRAND Licensing in India. FRAND Licensing stands for Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory Licensing. They are sine qua non for widespread use of the Standard Essential Patents and hence, following the standards which are set by the Standard Setting Organizations (SSO).
The Jurisprudence of FRAND Licensing came to India with the filing of the civil suit by the Ericsson against Mercury and Micromax. FRAND Licensing is a type of voluntary Licensing of the Intellectual Property, by the owner. The FRAND Licensing is done on the terms which are Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory. The Royalty set by such Licensing should be proportionate to the patented product and not exorbitant, it must be a reasonable one.
The owner agree upon such terms to license the rights to the other persons, as the patent owned by the owner is a Standard Essential Patent (SEP) i.e. a patent which conforms to the standards set by the SSO, and without their compliance the products could not be sold in the market, because there are no non-infringing alternatives. Hence, SEPs are essential, to make a product conforming to the industry standards, and they face no competition unless and until that patent becomes obsolete.
These standards are set by a mutual agreement and consensus between the market players to reach upon compatibility between the services or products particular market under the aegis of the SSO. These standards can also be fixed by statutory SSOs.
Further Section 84 which incorporates the provisions regarding the compulsory licensing, makes it a clear ground, that if the patented invention is not available to the public at a reasonably affordable price, one may apply for the Compulsory Licensing, after ascertaining, whether the applicant has made efforts to obtain a license from the patentee on reasonable terms and conditions and such efforts have not been successful within a reasonable period. Section 84 also provides for the Proviso to the above-mentioned condition that if any anticompetitive practices adopted by the patentee and same are established, then this condition shall not be applicable. Therefore, this section provides for the intersection with Competition Law, which is inevitable.
Section 3, of the Competition Act, 2002 which prohibits anti-competitive agreement, in its clause (5) clearly recognises “Reasonable” restriction which can be put on a party by the owner when a patent is being infringed or any of the rights which are conferred under the Patent Act, 1970. If the same is read with the Section 83 and 84 Compulsory License would be granted to the prospective Licensee if he is not getting License on FRAND terms.
Section 4 on the other side restricts the abuse of the dominant position. Once a patent gets the status of SEP, it is granted a dominant position in the particular market as, it hardly faces any competition, and enjoy such position of strength until it becomes obsolete. Clause (2), sub-clause (a) clearly, states that there would be the abuse of the dominant position if the enterprise imposes unfair and discriminatory prices on the consumers of its products. In the present case of Ericsson, it clearly has the Dominant Position in the market of the SEPs pertaining to the mobile telecommunications, and it abused it by charging unfair prices. Hence, it was liable to grant a license, as compulsory license would have been granted after its establishment of Ericsson’s abusive conduct in the market.
Hence, FRAND Licensing is the combined product of the two aspects of the CompetitionLaw i.e. prohibition of anti-competitive agreement and prohibition of the abuse of the Dominant Position.FRAND Licensing, is a pro-competitive commitment by the SEP holders, as it provides irrevocable licenses to the market players, and in return, they tend to get a reasonable reward for their work. The persons owning the SEPs make FRAND commitment to the SSOs to License them on FRAND terms. FRAND Licensing protects the market from being exploited by the dominant player who owns the patent. It promotes the Standards as decided by the SSOs and demotes the Patent Hold-up.
Patent Hold-up is another name for the abuse of dominant position by the SEPs owners. They hold their patent with them after they are declared as SEP, unless the licensee does not give up to their conditions which may involve unfair pricing i.e. supra-competitive pricing, or more burdensome terms (as compared to previous licensing when they were not SEPs). It undermines the competition in the market, by creating entry barriers and also subverts the authority of the SSO by playing fraud upon them i.e. gaining a status of SEP and committing to FRAND Licensing and then playing harsh upon the market player dependent upon such SEPs.
FRAND Licensing is field where the jurisdiction of Patent Act and Competition Act, intersect. They both have to be read in addition to each other, though Delhi High Court lately has held that Competition Act, is a general Act and Patent Act is a special Act in relation to it. Though, the both Acts have to be read in consonance, and if necessary Competition Act, should given preference over the Patent Act in terms of Licensing Agreements, as Competition Act, represents “Public Interest”, which has been reflected in some instances, in Patent Act. FRAND Licensing is a softer version of the Compulsory Licensing, as it has all features of it, but lacks a legal backing. It is like mediation process in the era of litigation in court, which helps parties to decide terms on Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory terms. It is better this way as the prospective Licensee does not have to resort to the Controller unnecessarily and, he can approach to the SSO. A law should be brought in by the Legislature in India, which considers such situations.
Overall, there needs to be a co-ordination between, the statutory authorities especially between, Controller of Patents and Competition Commission of India, so that they could work towards the promotion of the “Public Interest” hence, implement the main objective of the Legislations and the Constitution of India.
 Micromax Informatics Limited v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Publ),  CCI 77.
 Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Publ) v. Mercury Electronics & Anr, (2014) 206 DLT 423.
 Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Publ) v. Intex Technologies (India) Limited, 2015 SCC OnLine Del 8229.

References: v. 
sui generis
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.