New Delhi:
Two weeks after it accepted a snacks and biscuits company’s application for the registration of the word ‘Chutiyaram’, making many wonder whether it was in keeping with a section barring trademarks that are considered obscene, scandalous or ‘contrary to public morality’, the Trade Marks Registry has done a U-turn.
In an order published on Tuesday, the Registry said that it had made an error and the mark was subject to objections under Sections 9 and 11 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, Bar and Bench reported.
The Trade Marks Registry had, in an order on March 4, said the trademark had been accepted, observing that it was a combination of two arbitrary words – ‘Chuti’ and ‘Ram’
“None appeared observed and ordered that since this is the fourth hearing the instinct mark is a combination of two arbitrary words Chuti and ram and the instinct mark as a whole is distinctive and it can be differentiated from the person to others and the Instinct mark has no direct reference to the applied goods, hence objection u/s 9 waived and the mark accepted,” Senior Trademark Examiner Balaji said in the order.
The order also noted that the word has no direct reference to the goods that the company was selling, which were ‘namkeen’ (snacks) and biscuits.
Section 9(2)(c) of the Trade Marks Act bars trademarks that are considered scandalous, obscene, or contrary to public morality. Words or phrases deemed vulgar, offensive, or inappropriate for public sensibilities cannot be approved, nor can trademarks that offend religious sentiments or are contrary to public order.
When a trademark is said to be “accepted & advertised,” it signals that the application has cleared the initial examination and the examiner either found no objections or resolved any concerns during scrutiny. The mark is then published in the Trademark Journal, allowing its review, which, in this case, was done on Monday.
After the acceptance, several experts questioned the review process and pointed out that registering terms that could be considered offensive could have legal implications.
The acceptance was then withdrawn on Tuesday, with the Registry stating that an error had been made.
In a letter, the registry said, “The above mentioned application has been accepted through an error. The registration of the mark submitted for registration is open to objection on the ground that the mark is not registration within the meaning of Section 9 / 11 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Registrar therefore proposes to withdraw the acceptance in pursuance of Section 19 of the Act read with Rule 38 of the Trade Marks rules, 2017 and a hearing in respect of the application has been appointed,” it said.
“If you fail to attend the hearing the order of acceptance will be deemed to be withdrawn in pursuance of Section 19 of the Act read with rule 38,” the letter stated.