IP Background
1 >>
2 >>
3 >>
4 >>
5 >>
6 >>
7 >>
8 >>
9 >>
10
>> 11
>> 12
>> 13
>> 14
>> 15
>> 16
>> 17
>> 18
It may be in a broad view
or more complete and simple by observing
from commentary and case law rather than
from bare Act. Define a trademark, a book of
reference3 comments “A trade mark is some
symbol consisting in general of a picture,
label, word or words which is applied or
attached to a trader’s goods, so as to
distinguish them from similar goods of other
traders and to identify them as his goods or
as those successors in the business in which
they are produced or put forward for sale.
“In Loke Nath Sen. Vs. Ashwini Kumar De4
, it was held; “A mark in order to be trade
mark must be ‘distinctive,’ that is to say,
adapted to distinguish the goods of a
proprietor of a trade mark from those of
other persons. A mark which merely describes
the quality or origin of an article or is
such as is commonly used in the trade to
denote goods of a particular kind is not
distinctive. To determine whether a mark has
become a trade mark, the Court has to take
into consideration the extent to which its
user has rendered the mark in fact
distinctive of the goods in question.” It
was followed in A. Khunja lam and two other
Vs. J.C.Mohamed5 .Concurrent finding is also
mentioned in Anath Nath Dey V.King Emperor6
that: “A trade mark must be some visible and
concrete device or design affixed to goods
to indicate that they are the manufacture of
the person whose property the trade mark
is.”
It must, however be noted
that since the Code itself recognizes the
right in respect of a mark, questions arisen
on acquisition of such mark might be
considered. On that question we may cite two
cases: In P.A. Pakir Mahomed Vs. Emperor7 ,
it was held; “A trade mark may be acquired
by adoption and user upon a vendible article
and when such user has been proved, the
property of the person using the trade mark
will be acquired by user.” It was followed
in U Kyaw Vs. U Ba Aye8 that, “ “*** ****
**** property in or right in respect of a
mark may be acquired by user.”
We must move to another
provision of property mark defined in
section 479 of the Code which reads: “A mark
used for denoting that moveable property
belongs to a particular person is called a
property mark.” Property mark compare to the
preceeding section, is clearly distinct from
trademark because the former denotes the
ownership of a property where the latter
denotes the ownership of a mark. But both
aim to prevent from using false marks. Case
Law concerning with property mark is the
least to be considered as reference.
Though the infringement
of a mark is rather considered to be
injurious to private welfare than to the
interest of the public or the state, the
legislature in its anxiety to protect
traders, has allowed of resort to the
criminal Courts to provide a speedy remedy.
Thus for using a false trade mark provided
in section 480 of the code reads: “Whoever
marks any goods or any case, package or
other receptacle with any mark thereon, in a
manner reasonably calculated to cause it to
be believed that the goods so marked, or any
goods contained in any such receptacle so
marked, are the manufacture or merchandise
of a person whose manufacture or merchandise
they are not, is said to use a false
trademark.” Similarly using a false property
mark in section 481 of the code reads:
“Whoever marks any moveable property or
goods or any case, package or other
receptacle containing moveable property or
goods, or uses any case, package or other
receptacle having any mark there on, in a
manner reasonably calculated to cause it to
be believed that the property or goods so
marked, or any property or goods contained
in any such receptacle so marked, belong to
a person to whom they do not belong is said
to use a false property mark."
By observing a series of
case law and prevailing practice a person
aggrieved by the infringement of his trade
mark has two remedies open to him: (1) he
can institute criminal proceedings under the
Code, or (2) he can bring an action for an
injunction and damages; and although the
criminal Court has a discretion in......
3 Law of Crimes.
4 1937 India Law Reports 1 Cal.665.
5 1949 Burma Law Reports .650
6 1912 40 Cal. 281.
7 A.I.R 1929 Ran 322.
8 1962 Burma Law Reports PP.187-190.
|
<<
previous |
next page
>>
|
|
|