Professional Documents
Culture Documents
AN ANALYTICAL STUDY OF TRADE DRESS PROTECTION IN INDIA - PlagFile - College
AN ANALYTICAL STUDY OF TRADE DRESS PROTECTION IN INDIA - PlagFile - College
CHAPTER-I
INTRODUCTION
The concept of Trade Dress is a concept developed under the law relating
to Intellectual Property, especially under Trademark laws. This concept of Trade
Dress entails that the competitors in a given market should not dress or say pack/
shape their product in order to deceive the customer(s) into buying their product.
This concept originated in United S.A. through The Lanham Act. In the “
case of Wal-Mart Stores v. Samara Bros. 529 U.S. 205, 120 S. Ct. 1339 (2000) the
‘Trade Dress’ was defined as a category that originally included only the
packaging or dressing of a product, but in recent times it has expanded by many
courts of appeals to encompass the design of a product.
Under the Indian Legal Services, the concept of Trade Dress does not have
a specific mention under the law. Rather, under the Trade Marks (Amendment)
Act, 1999 the definition of Trade Mark, itself is been broadened to include the
shape of goods, packaging, or combination of colours or any combination thereof
(u/s 2(zb) of Trade Marks Act, 1999).
As compared to the United States of America where trade dress has been
given statutory protection under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, trade dress is
not mentioned in the Trade Marks Act, 1999 in India. However, the definition of a
trademark under Section 2(zb) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 includes within its
2
ambit shape of goods, their packaging and combination of colors. This makes it
clear that trade dress is included within the definition of a trademark. Trade dress
is protected in the same manner as an unregistered trademark.
Trade dress in India does not require any formal registration and is
connected with reputation and goodwill which is built with time. In certain cases
of passing off, the mark per se may not be similar but rather be quite different.
However, the packaging, colour get up or layout can be deceptively similar which
may cause confusion in the minds of the consumers.
The concept of Trade Dress is not very well evolved/settled in the Indian
Legal System, particularly in Intellectual Property Laws. The researcher has
studied the concept of Trade Dress under the Lanham Act and has drawn a
comparison between the Lanham Act and Indian Jurisprudence over the concept
of Trade Dress.
ii. Tracing the origin of the concept of trade dress and its evolution.
Legal System.
The researcher has relied on doctrinal type of research while making this
research project. The researcher has referred to secondary sources only which are
commentaries on law, case laws and research articles pertaining to said topic of law.
The researcher has not gathered any primary data or has not been involved in
empirical findings for making this research project. Research methodology is
strictly doctrinal in nature.
There are various books, law journals, articles and websites that
have variety of literature on the concept related to trademarks and the related laws.
Hence it is clear that there is increase in research taking place on the evolving
concept of trade dress. The aspect included in this literature review is related to
the protection given to trademarks under various provisions of law.
The researcher has reviewed the following literature to enlighten the concept of
“
trade dress:
The researcher has relied upon mostly online sources like online articles,
and journals accessed via websites like www.mondaq.com, www.lexology.com,
etc, and has also relied upon online databases like Indian Kanoon. Further, the
researcher has referred to various relevant law commentaries.
The term mark has been defined to include a device, brand, heading, label,
ticket, name, signature, word, letter, numeral, shape of goods, packaging or
combination of colors or any combination thereof; and package includes any case,
box, container, covering, folder, receptacle, vessel, casket, bottle, wrapper, label,
band, ticket, reel, frame, capsule, cap, lid, stopper and cork.1 Section 2(zb) of the
Act defines a trademark 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 shape of goods, packaging and combination of
colours.2 These provisions ensure that there is protection for product packaging
(including its colour combination, size, shape. etc.) or product design/
configuration (such as a shape mark).
What is the first scene that comes up when a Tom & Jerry episode is about
to begin; the Lion’s Roar. What is the basic difference between Pepsi and Coke;
“
1
http://www.ipindia.nic.in/writereaddata/Portal/IPOAct/1_43_1_trade-marks-act.pdf Trademarks
Act, 1999
2
Ibid
7
the taste and shape of the bottle. The moment you enter Starbucks what pleases one
the most; the ambience and the smell of coffee. Traditionally, trademarks are
limited to words, logos or symbols that can be represented graphically in relation
to any goods or services. The definition of a trademark under the Trade Marks
Act, 1999 as per Section 2(zb) is trademark means 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 shape of goods,
their packaging and combination of colours.3 However, with the passage of time,
not only logos, symbols or taglines are being associated to goods and services but
also sound, taste, smell, texture, hologram, motion, shape and the ambience of
the goods or services. Thus when a mark goes beyond the realms of the
traditional conventional category of being judged solely by the eye it is known as
Non-Conventional Mark.
from Article 15, it is clear that only those signs which are capable of
representation are considered as trademarks.
1. Sound Marks
3
Supra Note at 1
4
Rule 26(5) of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017
5
Article 15 of TRIPS
8
Sounds have a big impact on how consumers perceive a brand. With the
growth of e-media, sounds play a big role in identifying a product or service thus
adding value to the brand. A sound mark is a mark where the sound is used to
perform the function of uniquely identifying the commercial origin of products
and services. Sound marks function as source indicators when they assume a
definitive shape and arrangement and create in the minds of the listener an
association of the sound with a good or service. 6 Yahoo’s Yodel is the first sound
trademark to be registered in India. Some of the famous sound marks registered in
USA are the sound of the famous Tarzan yell, the lion roar of Metro-Goldwyn-
Mayer Corporation, the music consisting of drums, trumpets and strings in the
Twentieth Century Fox Films, the sound of the crowd and the bell of New York
Stock Exchange, McDonald’s Corporation's five-note I'm lovin' it jingle. 7 The first
sound mark to be granted registration by the Trademark Registry was the Yahoo!
Yodel in the year 2008.8 After that, no such marks have come before the registry
for registration.
2. Smell Marks
format, smell marks lack any such characteristics. One of the serious problems with
regard to smell marks is the representation in a visual way. Writing down the
chemical formula for a smell as it is deemed to represent the substance rather
than the smell. Another problem is that the storage with the registry. If the registry
is provided with the sample of the smell, then how long will it be durable without
its smell evaporating over time is a question regarding smell marks. One of the
basic criteria for registering a smell mark is that it should describe the product it
6
file:///C:/Users/Admin/Downloads/Trademark%20Infringement%20and%20Passing%20off%20La
w%20and%20Important%20Judgments.pdf
7
http://respectfortrademarks.org/tricks-of-the-trademark/history-of-trademarks/ (last referred to on
05th Sept 2020)
8
Ibid
9
has been applied for.9 For example, the smell of a perfume cannot be trademarked
as it would be describing the goods that is the perfume. Some of the examples of
smell marks that are registered by the USPTO are bubble gum scent for sandals,
toothbrush with the smell of strawberry, and lubricants for combustion engines
with the smell of strawberry, cherry, and grape.
In India, no smell marks have been registered to date. 10 The UK's first
smell trademark was granted to Japan's Sumitomo Rubber Co. in 1996 for a
fragrance of roses applied to tyres. The mark was later transferred to Dunlop
Tyres. The same year, Unicorn Products, a London-based maker of sports
equipment, registered a UK trademark for the strong smell of bitter beer to be
applied to darts. In India, no smell mark has been registered till date before the
registry.
3. Hologram Mark
4. Motion Mark
9
P. Manoj, Yahoo Awarded India’s First Sound Mark; Nokia in Queue LIVE MINT, Aug. 22,
10
Yahoo! Yodels into India’s Trade Mark Registry MANAGING INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
WEEKLY NEWS, Sep. 1, 2008
11
https://lawtimesjournal.in/non-traditional-trademarks/#_ftn5 last referred to on 04th Sept 2020)
10
allowed the examiner of the trademark to flick through the pages and see the
motion in the pictures. This application was initially rejected by the examiner but
was then accepted on appeal. A well-known example of a motion mark registered is
Microsoft windows logo which we see once we open the windows PC or laptop.
The opening and closing of Lamborghini doors have been protected under motion
marks by USA. Motion mark as a trademark is rarely registered as they have just
gained importance with technological advancement in this arena 12.
5. Texture Mark
Texture Marks are those which give the feel of the product through touch.
Just like smell marks, these are difficult to be registered as there can be no
representation of the feel of the texture such as fabrics, bottles, etc. They are the
least common Non-Conventional Marks. It should be noted that the texture should
not be attributed to the functional purpose of the product. Thus for example, the
texture of a toothbrush’s hair cannot be trademarked as they are supposed to be
pliable to enable its reach all inside the mouth. On April 29, 2004, the Intellectual
Property Institute of Ecuador (IEPI) issued what is, apparently, the world’s first
registration certificate for a texture trademark. IEPI found that the OLD PARR
SURFACE TEXTURE proposed mark complied with all legal requirements of the
Ecuadorian Intellectual Property Law and the Andean Community of Nations, by
way of Decision 486. 13 In the US, leather texture wrapping around the middle
surface of a bottle of wine is registered as a textured mark. In this case, the
distinctive crinkled (crackle glass) texture of the OLD PARR bottle was
reproduced on the printed page of the Ecuadorian IP Gazette by a dual-printing
process in which the inked portion was printed first, followed by a second raised
impression or embossed printing of the texture mark itself on the same page. No
texture marks have come for registration before the Indian registry.
”
6. Taste mark
12
Ibid
13
Ashley Furniture Industries, Inc. v. SanGiacomo N.A. Ltd 187 F.3d 363 (4th Cir. 1999)
11
dishes with the same ingredients and with no or hardly any changes. Any product
meant for human consumption may inherently disqualify for taste protection
under trademark given the functionality doctrine. 14 So, Lays can’t stop
competitors from selling Magic Masala as a flavour of chips unless a maker has
stolen the trade secret of Lays. The question lies when the taste of one product is
applied to another. E.g. mango is usually associated with desserts but what if a
naan is made out of mango? The question is not whether the same would be
consumed or not, it is whether it can be granted a trademark or not. Till date, no
registration has been granted for taste marks in the world. 15 Two notable
applications for registration of taste marks came before the European Union
Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and the United States Patent And
Trademark Office (USPTO) but both of them ended up being rejected. Till
date, no application for having a taste mark registered has come before the
registry.
7. Trade Dress
14
https://lawtimesjournal.in/non-traditional-trademarks/#_ftn5
15
Ashley Furniture Industries, Inc. v. SanGiacomo N.A. Ltd 187 F.3d 363 (4th Cir. 1999)
12
definition of mark it when the aspect goes beyond the domain of a product and
starts identifying itself with aspects other than just the product. E.g. the overall
look and appeal of a restaurant.
In the case of Colgate v. Anchor16, Delhi High Court gave protection to the
colour combination of one-third red and two-third white on the container of the
plaintiff as a trade dress.
The plaintiff’s trade dress is deceptively similar and is used by a third party
to ride on the goodwill of the plaintiff’s product.
16
Colgate Palmolive Co v Anchor Health and Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd. (October 2003, Delhi HC)
17
Apollo Tyres Ltd. v Pioneer Trading Corporation & Ors CS(OS) 2802/2015
18
Gorbatschow Wodka K.G. v. John Distilleries Limited 2011 (47) PTC 100 Bom
13
brands of vodka in the world have a unique bulbous shape bottle inspired by
Russian architecture which has acquired distinctiveness and goodwill over
the years. John Distilleries, an Indian company launched a product called
Salute Vodka’ with a similar shaped bottle as that of GW. In a suit for
infringement filed by GW before the Bombay High Court, it was alleged
that John Distilleries had adopted a deceptive variation of the shape of the
bottle of GW. The Bombay High Court stated that the shape of the bottle
launched by John Distilleries is deceptively similar and that it would tarnish
the image of GW if John Distilleries is allowed to sell the same. While
stopping the defendant from using the distinctive shape of the bottle on
similar lines as that of the plaintiff for selling their products, the court
held that the distinctive shapes of products and their packaging can be
”
c) Christian Louboutin Sas Vs Mr. Pawan Kumar & Ors. 22 (December 2017,
19
Colgate Palmolive Co v Anchor Health and Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd. (October 2003, Delhi HC)
20
Ibid
21
Christian Louboutin Sas Vs Mr. Pawan Kumar & Ors CS(COMM), 714 of 2016
22
Supra Note at 21
14
Delhi HC): This landmark case is the first instance in India where a court has
declared a trade dress a well-known status just like a trademark. Christian
Louboutin (CL) argued that its shoe with a red sole clearly identifies its
product distinguishing it from third parties. The ‘red sole’ trademark has
thus become the signature of CL as it has obtained trademark registrations
in different jurisdictions including India and simultaneously enjoys a
trans-border reputation where its customers across the globe are well
aware of the goodwill and reputation of the mark. The defendants were
local shoe dealers manufacturing and selling shoes with a red sole thereby
infringing CL’s trademarks. Looking into the material evidence led by the
plaintiff, the Delhi High Court permanently injuncted the defendants from
manufacturing, selling, or in any way dealing with the footwear bearing
CL’s registered trademark for Red Sole 23.
India: Protection Of Trade Dress – Developing Jurisprudence by Gautam Kumar, LexOrbis 05th
23
April 2020
15
A trade dress claim can also allow for treble damages, upon a finding that
the offending mark was intentionally used as a counterfeit, i.e., a spurious mark
which is identical with, or substantially indistinguishable from, a registered mark.
In addition, a preliminary injunction may be available if and only if the moving
party can demonstrate irreparable harm.
24
https://ijlpp.com/trade-dress-an-evolving-concept-under-the-ambit-of-intellectual-propertyrights/
25
Ibid
16
accompanying words.
De jure functionality means that the product has a particular shape because it
works better in this shape . If the mark is not inherently distinctive, it may still be
”
As compared to the United States of America where trade dress has been
given statutory protection under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, trade dress is
not mentioned in the Trade Marks Act, 1999 in India. However, the definition of a
trademark under Section 2(zb) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 includes within its
ambit shape of goods, their packaging and combination of colors28. This makes it
clear that trade dress is included within the definition of a trademark. Trade dress is
protected in the same manner as an unregistered trademark.
Trade dress in India does not require any formal registration and is
connected with reputation and goodwill which is built with time.29 In certain cases
of passing off, the mark per se may not be similar but rather be quite different.
However, the packaging, color, get up or layout can be deceptively similar which
may cause confusion in the minds of the consumers.
26
https://ijlpp.com/trade-dress-an-evolving-concept-under-the-ambit-of-intellectual-
propertyrights/
27
Section 2(zb) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999
28
Supra Note at 5
29
C.S.No.452 of 2008
17
Hon’ble Justice J.D. Kapoor in the case of Colgate Palmolive Company v. Anchor
Health and Beauty Care Pvt Ltd30 held This criterion flows from the concept of
action of passing off developed over the years that it is the similarities and not the
dissimilarities which go to determine whether the action for passing off is
required or not. That is why in trademark cases even the deceptive similarities
are considered sufficient for infringement of the trademark. If similarities of
trade dress are substantial from the look of the two goods, it comes within the
mischief of passing off.31 This was the first case in India to accept the concept of
trade dress and provided the plaintiff protection for the same.
To obtain relief under passing off of trade dress the onus of proof is on the
“
plaintiff to prove that the image of the product has acquired distinctiveness so that
it can be distinguished from a competitor. When the distinct image of the product
is deceptively used by someone else in order to take advantage of the goodwill of
the product, it is said to be a case of passing off. 32 This is because it creates
confusion in the minds of the consumers due to similar packaging or looks or feels
of the two products.
However, the test in such cases is not whether there is actual confusion or
deceptiveness but it is whether there is a likelihood of confusion in the minds of
the consumers, even if the trademarks are not similar. The likelihood of confusion
in case of trade dress is with regard to the look and feel of the two products33.
30
Colgate Palmolive Co v Anchor Health and Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd. C.S.No.452 of 2008
31
Ibid
32
Supra Note at 26
33
2002 (24) PT C 1 (SC)
34
1906 (23) RPC 774
18
The trial court examined the two wrappers side by side and concluded that
there were more dissimilarities than similarities between the two and therefore,
held there was no infringement on part of the Defendant. The High court upheld
35
Ibid
36
2008(4)CHN608
37
Supra Note at 36
19
the decision of the trial court but gave its reasons. According to the High court, the
general get-up of the two wrappers was the same but that was all. It also held that
a person particularly buying Parle G biscuits would know the description and
therefore there is no infringement on part of the Defendant.38
38
Parle Products (P) Ltd. v J.P. & Co. 2008(4)CHN608
20
However, the Supreme Court took a different viewpoint from both the
lower courts and held that to conclude whether one mark is deceptively similar to
another, the broad and essential features of the two are to be considered. They
should not be placed side by side to find out if there are any differences in the
design and if so, whether they are of such character as to prevent one design from
being mistaken for the other. 39 The Supreme Court thus held that Defendant’s
goods were deceptively similar to that of Plaintiff’s and granted the injunction in
favor of Plaintiff restraining Defendant from using the mark similar to that of
Plaintiff.
In relation to the shape of the product, the Bombay High Court in the case
of Gorbatschow Wodka Kg v. John Distillers Limited40 had an interesting question
before it. Do shapes matter in the law relating to intellectual property law?
The Plaintiff, in this case, was a distillery owner for many years and has
been in the business of production and sale of vodka. The bottle of vodka which
Plaintiff sold became distinctive over the years and acquired goodwill. Defendant
claimed to be manufacturing vodka under the trademark Salute. Plaintiff
claimed that the shape of the bottle Defendant was deceptively similar to that of
the plaintiff’s bottle and therefore they were passing off their product to be that of
Plaintiff.
The suit of Plaintiff is for quia timet action which sought to injunct the
Defendant from launching its product in India. Hon’ble Justice Dr. D.Y.
Chandrachud held that there were broad similarities between the bottles of both
Plaintiff and Defendant. It further held that since Defendant was engaged in the
same business, it was difficult to accept that Defendant was not aware of Plaintiff's
product, which is sold both internationally and in India. The court thus concluded
39
2011 (47) PTC 100 Bom
40
Quia timet is an injunction to restrain wrongful acts which are threatened or imminent but have
not yet commenced
21
that adopting the shape of the bottle by Defendant was not bona fide and prima
facie dishonest. It held that irreparable damage would be caused to Plaintiff if
Defendant was allowed to launch its product and therefore, the court retrained
Defendant from doing the same.
As mentioned above the Trademarks Act, of 1999 does not specifically deal
with trade dress but it has broadened the definition of Trade Marks to fit within its
realm the meaning of trade dress. Thus, Indian law now is at par with other
international laws in relation to trade dress. Therefore, the Act broadened the
definition of Trademark to include the shape of the goods, the combination of
colors, product packaging, etc. It may be observed from the abovementioned case
laws that a trademark is not what it meant a couple of years ago but has grown to
include trade dress within it. The suit for passing off need not just be for a mark or
logo but a party can be aggrieved due to similar packaging or color combinations.
All this is addressed under trade dress law and a suit for passing off may be filed.
22
CHAPTER II
badge of origin acts as identifiers of the quality of the products thereby helping the
public in removing the confusion in their minds as to the source of the products.
There has been ever expansion in the scope of the marks, which are registered as
Trademarks. Trade dress is an example of this expansion. The concept of trade
dress has much importance in a country like India where the majority of the
population is still illiterate. Trade dress helps the illiterate people who cannot read
the trademark on the product as well as the manufacturers to reach the people
easily.
2.1 INTRODUCTION:
41
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=5f72da58-5565-483f-8d37-927f71c14af5
23
In this chapter, we shall discuss the scope and development of trade dress
in the United States of America under the Lanham Act, 194642 with reference to
Supreme Court’s observations in the two landmark cases. We shall also see the
beginnings of trade dress protection in India in a recent case decided by Delhi
High Court, under the Common Law of Passing Off. The Indian law does not
“
have a separate provision for trade dress under its existing Trade mark legislation,
unlike the US law which recognizes the concept of trade dress under Section 43(a)
of the Lanham Act.
The new Trade Marks Act, of 1999, which came into force in September
2003 is largely based on the English Trade mark Act, 1994 recognized the concept
of trade dress on the lines of The Lanham Act. The amended Act of 1999
recognizes trade dress through the new definition of Trade mark also consists of
the shape of goods, packaging, or combination of colors or any combination
thereof. Broadly speaking, Section 2 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 defines the
following as:
(m) mark includes a device, brand, heading, label, ticket, name, signature, word,
letter, numeral, shape of goods, packaging, or combination of colors or any
combination thereof;
(q) package includes any case, box, container, covering, folder, receptacle, vessel,
casket, bottle, wrapper, label, band, ticket, reel, frame, capsule, cap, lid, stopper an
cork; Hence the new definition of a trade mark under Indian law comprises all the
elements of the trade dress as under US law. The Indian courts have been
recognizing the concept of trade dress even before 2003.
In Cadbury India Limited and Ors Vs. Neeraj Food Products43, the Delhi
High Court held the trademark JAMES BOND as physically and phonetically
42
Lanham Act, 1946
43
[142 (2007) DLT 724]
24
similar to the registered trademark GEMS of Cadbury. The High Court further
held the packaging of Neeraj food products to be similar to that of Cadbury
and eventfully Neeraj Foods was restrained from using said trademarks as
well as the packaging similar to that of Cadbury. In another recent case of
Gorbatschow Wodka v. John Distilleries 44 , the Plaintiff, Gorbatschow Wodka,
filed an infringement action before the Bombay High Court alleging that the
Defendant has invaded its intellectual property rights by adopting a deceptive
variation of the shape of the bottles of the Plaintiff.
Trademarks have existed for almost as long as trade itself. Once human
economies progressed to the point where a merchant class specialized in making
goods for others, the people who made and sold clothing or pottery began to mark
their wares with a word or symbol to identify the maker. Such marks often no
more than the name of the maker – have been discovered on goods from China,
India, Persia, Egypt, Rome, Greece, and elsewhere, and date back as much as 4000
years.
These early marks served several purposes. First, they were a form of
advertising, allowing makers to get this name in front of potential customers.
Second, they may have been used to prove that the goods were sold by a particular
merchant, thus helping to resolve ownership disputes. Third, the marks served as a
guarantee of quality, since a merchant who identifies himself with his goods puts
his reputation on the line. Trademark protection is awarded merely to those who
were the first to use a distinctive mark in commerce.
44
2011 (47) PTC 100 Bom
25
The European Court of Justice in Canon Kabushiki Kaisha Vs. Metro Goldwyn
Mayer Inc47 has stated, the essential function of the trademark is to guarantee the
identity of the origin of the marked product to the consumer or end user by
enabling him without any possibility of confusion, to distinguish the product or
service from others that have another origin . ”
45
The Lanham Act s. 2
46
Supra Note at 45
47
Canon Kabushiki Kaisha Vs. Metro Goldwyn Mayer Inc 22 Case C-39/97
26
We know that logos, symbols, and names of products and companies can
be afforded protection under trademark law, but that is a very narrow view of
what trademark law now protects. Although it has limits, trademark law, in the
US, through Lanham Act, will also protect slogans, phrases, packaging of
products, and even the look of the product itself. Furthermore, case law has
48
https://ijlpp.com/trade-dress-an-evolving-concept-under-the-ambit-of-intellectual-
propertyrights/
27
49
514 U.S. 159
28
50
Samsonite Corporation v Vijay Sales 73 (1998) DLT 732
51
505 U.S. 763 (1992)
29
43(a) of the Lanham Act without a showing that it had acquired secondary
meaning. In its decision, the Supreme Court rejected the argument that competition
would be hindered by the protection of trade dress design and shape. The Supreme
Court went on to hold that requiring secondary meaning for a non-descriptive
trade dress would hinder improving or maintaining the producer’s competitive
position. The court concluded that any less protection given to trade dress would
be contrary to congressional intent and would undermine the purposes of the
Lanham act, of 1946. In fact, according to the court, trade dress, as well as
trademarks, must be protected to secure to the owner of the mark the goodwill of
his business and to protect the ability of consumers to distinguish among
competing producers…. Trademarks foster competition and the maintenance of
quality by securing to the producer the benefits of good reputation.52 The Supreme
Court believed that by protecting the producer’s property rights in trade dress, the
consumer benefited from less confusion, assurance of predictable quality, and
increased competition.
”
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court in Two Pesos did not provide clear
guidance as to which test to apply in trade dress cases in order to determine
whether the trade dress is inherently distinctive. The court accepted the Jury’s
findings from the district court that the elements of trade dress, in this case, were
inherently distinctive and ruled only on whether secondary meaning was further
required. After the two Pesos decision, the circuit courts struggled with the
boundaries and definitions that needed to be clarified to have uniformity in this
area of trademark law.
The Circuit Courts were divided on the question of the test to be adopted
in finding the inherent distinctiveness of the trade dress after the Two Pesos case.
They developed some tests to be adopted in finding the same. In I.P. Lund
Trading Apps v. Kohler Co53. the First Circuit court followed the test adopted by
the Court of Customs and Patents Appeals (CCPA) in Seabrook Foods, Inc. Vs. Bar
Well Foods Ltd. The Seabrook Foods test was whether the design and shape of a
52
Supra Note at 52
53
18 F. Supp. 2d 92 (D. Mass. 2000)
30
Finally, the Eighth circuit visited the Two Pesos analysis in Stuart Hall Co.
v. Am pad Co 58 . case. This court sought to determine the proper test for
determining inherent distinctiveness in trade dress. It said that Supreme Court in
Two Pesos held that product configuration and product packaging should be
treated uniformly and applied the Abercrombie analysis.
54
568 F.2d 1342 (C.C.P.A. 1977)
55
Ibid
56
1995. 71 F.3d 996 (2d Cir. 1995)
57
40 F.3d 1431
58
187 F.3d 363 (4th Cir. 1999)
31
The court in this case, overwhelmingly made more sense to limit Two
Pesos and reign in the expanding scope of protection afforded to unregistered trade
dress under section 43(a) of the Lanham Act than it did to maintain the status quo
and allow the scope of section 43(a)’s protection to expand further. Justice Scalia,
writing for a unanimous Court, stated, a product’s design is distinctive, and
therefore protectable, only upon a showing of secondary meaning.60
Justice Scalia began the opinion by remarking that a products trade dress is
properly considered a symbol or device subject to protection under Lanham Act
Section 43(a), notwithstanding the lack of textual protection for trade dress and
that the protection afforded to trade dress under sec. 43(a) has recently expanded
to include not only product packaging but also the design of the product itself.
Justice Scalia went on to point out that although section 43(a) includes no textual
distinctiveness requirement, the courts have universally applied a distinctiveness
requirement to trade dress cases because:
59
51 F.3d 780, 783
60
529 U.S. 205 (2000)
32
Having laid the groundwork to follow the reasoning of the Qualitex rather
than Two Pesos, the Wal-Mart decision effectively sounded the death knell for the
doctrine of inherent distinctiveness in product configuration by echoing that
design like color is not inherently distinctive. The court proceeded by clarifying
that word marks and product packaging commonly derive their inherent
61
Wal-Mart, Inc. Vs. Samara Bros., Inc 529 U.S. 205 (2000)
62
Ibid
33
distinctiveness, from the fact that the very purpose of attaching a particular word
to a product or encasing it a distinctive packaging, is most often to identify the
source of the product. Consumers are predisposed to regard such symbols as an
indication of the producer, which is why such symbols almost automatically tell a
customer that they refer to a brand63.
In distinct contrast, however, product designs, like color, differ because
consumer predisposition to equate the design feature with the source does not exist.
On the contrary, Consumers are aware of the reality that, almost invariably, even
“
the most unusual of product designs such as a cocktail shaker shaped like a
penguin – is intended not to identify the source, but to render the product more
useful or more appealing 64 . Wal-Mart is an apparent attempt by the court to
judicially recognize this reality.
Ultimately, the court reasoned that any apparent harshness of their view, a
bright-line rule was intimated by a producer's ability to seek a design patent or
copyright protection for the design of his products. It also reiterated that its
decision in Wal-Mart was not in direct conflict with Two Pesos and that Two
Pesos had absolutely no bearing on the Wal-Mart case because the design of the
restaurant in Two Pesos was more akin to product packaging or some ‘tertium
quid’ than it was to product design. 65
The motivation behind the Supreme Court's approach was confirmed when,
in closing, it provided the following advice to courts confronted with
distinguishing between product design and product packaging trade dress: to the
extent that there are close cases… courts should err on the side of caution and
63
Supra Note at 62
64
Wal-Mart, Inc. Vs. Samara Bros., Inc 529 U.S. 205 (2000)
65
Ibid
34
66
Wal-Mart, Inc. Vs. Samara Bros., Inc 529 U.S. 205 (2000)
35
differences between the two situations, today’s consumers also face potential
confusion in distinguishing between the house and national brands, which flood
the marketplace.67 By drawing artificial distinctions between product packaging
and product configuration, courts separated trade dress law into two categories.
Under the rubric of trade dress product packaging is the actual package in which a
product is marketed. Examples of product packaging include the can for PAM
Cooking spray, OUZO Liquerer bottler, etc.
Trade dress protection also extends to the very design of the product itself,
such as its configuration or shape. Product configuration, as distinguished from
product packaging, involves the product's own three–dimensional shape for
example the shape and appearance of FERRARI automobiles.
The lines of demarcation, however, are not always clear. Some trade dresses will
not fit easily into either category. Product configuration cases have developed the
most controversial area of trade dress law.
test, then there is no need to go further since that test alone demonstrates
functionality. It said that once a design is determined to be functional, the courts
should go no further, and there is no possibility of Lanham Act protection.
”
features (such as the look of the automobile not dictated by functional features or
the design of its grill). The purpose of obtaining a design registration is to protect
novel shapes/configurations/designs devised to be applied to articles that are
manufactured and marketed commercially and the design in question may be a
two or three-dimensional representation of a particular feature. In the case of
automobiles, designs (as a feature) have evolved significantly from the wooden
frame cars of the 19th century to cars made entirely of steel in the 1920s to the
recent Cybertruck.70 Some famous automobile designs that have been registered in
the past include steering wheels of cars, rear-view mirrors, protective coverings,
and even the whole car/automobile itself.
70
532 U.S. 23
37
It is the nature of the automobile industry that the look of different models
is updated from time to time – mostly for a new aesthetic – which makes the
protection of novel designs in this domain significant. Protection for automobiles
under design laws is near ubiquitous – it is available under the national legislation
of most jurisdictions. Additionally, the Hague Agreement Concerning the
International Registration of Industrial Designs75 allows industrial designs to be
protected in multiple countries or regions with minimal formalities. Presently, India
is not a signatory to the Hague Agreement. However, India is a member of the
Paris Convention 71 and hence, priority can be claimed from a convention
application if the design application in India is filed within six months of the
priority date of an application filed in any country or group of countries or
member of inter-governmental organizations to which the Paris Convention
applies. The same is also recognized in the Designs Act in India 72.
71
https://ijlpp.com/trade-dress-an-evolving-concept-under-the-ambit-of-intellectual- property
rights/
72
Supra Note at 59
38
“Incidentally, the remedy for passing off for designs is not statutorily
recognized but there are judicial precedents providing the same. To illustrate, in a
landmark judgment – Carlsberg v Som Distilleries74 – a five-judge bench of the
Delhi High Court dealt with the concept of design infringement and passing off in
beer bottles. The court held that owing to common questions of law and fact
between the causes of action of infringement of registered designs and passing off,
the two suits could be combined and heard together as one composite suit.
Additionally, in the case of Crocs U.S.A. Inc. v Action Shoes & Ors 751, the Delhi
High Court while dealing with infringement and passing off of footwear,
discussed the interplay between trademark and design law, to adjudicate on
whether trademark rights could be claimed over a registered design. Holding to
the contrary, the court stated that a broad claim of passing off under trade dress
and overall get-up could be made provided that there existed an additional/extra
feature to the registered design that qualified as subject matter for trademark
73
Hague Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Industrial Designs
74
Paris Convention for The Protection Of Industrial Property, 1883
75
AIR 1981 Delhi 95
39
protection. If there is a car design that is protected under design law wherein an
additional feature of the car (let us assume an extra tail light) has accrued
significant goodwill and reputation, such that it is only associated with the
proprietor, in such a scenario, an infringer could be restrained from using this
additional tail light as a part of its design by means of the common law remedy
of passing off. Additionally, this remedy of passing off would be available even
after the design registration has lapsed. The discussion on the jurisprudence
relating to automobiles would not be complete without addressing intellectual
property issues pertaining to auto spare parts. While spare parts in themselves
could be the subject matter of a design registration (provided that their design is
devoid of any functional aspect), we have encountered several cases of
trademark infringement and passing off wherein spare parts are labeled with a
certain brand name indicating their corresponding compatibility with a certain
vehicle. A defense that is recognized through precedents and followed in practice
is specifying on the spare part that it is suitable for the vehicle model of a third
party. In the recent case of Elofic Industries & Anr. v Mobis India Limited &
76
Act ., wherein the infringing entity manufactured filters to be used in
automobiles, the court deliberated on what would be the most appropriate way
of non-infringement/fair use by a spare part manufacturer. The court had held that
the use of the phrase adapted to form a part of along with the registered trademark
would be an apt way of breaking the trade connection between the spare part
manufacturer and the trademark owner. There are several such cases pending
before the Delhi High Court which would settle the legal position as to whether
such usage would constitute trademark infringement or not.
Copyright in design drawings the designs of all automobiles and their various
features originate from ideas embodied in sketches, blueprints, and drawings. Are
such two-dimensional blueprints protectable as designs? Do they enjoy copyright
protection? There can be a significant overlap between copyright and design
76
CS(OS) 2802/2015
40
protection since designs too can be represented and registered in two- dimensional
formats. However, what happens when a blueprint of a design yields a design
(product) that is entitled to protection as a design in its own right? Does the
blueprint in itself qualify as an artistic work or is it covered under the protection
granted to the final finished design? This question has long been debated by
courts across jurisdictions.
The Indian Copyright Act provides that once a design is registered under
the Designs Act, it cannot be protected under copyright. An exception is made for a
design that qualifies for protection under the designs statute but is not registered
under it. In this instance, copyright protection is available to the said design
provided it has not been applied by means of an industrial process and not more
than fifty copies of the said design have been made.
77
2017 SCC OnLine Del 8125
78
CS(COMM) No. 903/2018
41
artistic work and hence, independently, no copyright would lie in the same 79.
79
73 (1998) DLT 732
42
CHAPTER III
Article 1 (2) of the Paris Convention (Stockholm Act of 1967) stipulates that the
protection of industrial property has as its object patents, utility models, industrial
designs, trademarks, service marks, trade names, an indication of source or
appellations or origin, and the repression of unfair competition80.
80
[2009 (39) PTC 21 (Del.)]
81
Article 1 (2) of the Paris Convention (Stockholm Act of 1967)
82
Article 5 of the Paris Convention (Stockholm Act of 1967)
43
In 1934, the Hague Agreement was revised in London with Article 1 reading:
Nationals of any of the contracting countries, as well as persons who, upon the
“
territory of the restricted Union, have satisfied the conditions of Article 3 of the
General Convention, may, in all the other contracting countries, secure protection
for their industrial designs by means of an international deposit made at the
International Bureau of Industrial Property at Berne.84
As a result, the relations between contracting countries can be divided into the
following three groups according to each Act effectuated by the Hague
83
Article 5B of the Paris Convention (Stockholm Act of 1967)
84
Article 19 of the Paris Convention (Stockholm Act of 1967)
85
Article 1 Hague Agreement Concerning the International Deposit of Industrial Designs, 1934
44
Agreement.
Group II: Countries for which only the Hague Act is effective
Group III: Countries for which both the London Act and Hague Act are
effective
The Hague Act was revised by coordinating each country’s wishes while
trying to provide contracting countries, including those conducting novelty
examinations with an opportunity to obtain more effective protection through an
international deposit. This Act came into effect on August 1, 1984. The key point of
the Hague Act is that, while the deposit at the International Bureau has the same
effect as completing all the application procedures in each designated country,
designated countries with domestic laws that can refuse protection according to
examination or opposition are obligated to notify the International Bureau of their
refusal within six months from the receipt of the periodical bulletin from the
Bureau. In other words, countries having domestic laws that require a substantive
examination for novelty are allowed to have a right to refuse the protection.
45
I.at least 3,000 applications for the protection of industrial designs have been
filed in or for the state 8 concerned, or
II.at least, 1,000 applications for the protection of industrial designs have been
46
filed in or for the state concerned by residents of states other than that state.
86
https://law.jrank.org/pages/10981/Unfair-Competition-Trade-Name-Trademark-Service-Mark-
Trade-Dress-Infringement.html (last referred to on 07th Sept 2020)
87
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=ecb16a82-4a52-47aa-8d0c-901478bfbdb5 (last
referred to on 05th Sept 2020)
88
Ibid
89
Supra Note at 91
47
90
Supra Note at 92
91
https://www.priceheneveld.com/practice/trade_dress/ (last referred to on 04th Sept 2020)
48
ii. trademarks,
v. patents,
(1) The owner of a protected industrial design shall have the right to prevent
third parties not having the owner’s consent from making, selling or importing
articles bearing or embodying a design which is a copy, or substantially a copy,
of the protected design, when such acts are undertaken for commercial purposes.
(2) Members may provide limited exceptions to the protection of industrial
designs, provided that such exceptions do not unreasonably conflict with the
normal exploitation of protected industrial designs and do not unreasonably
prejudice the legitimate interests of the owner of the protected design, taking
account of the legitimate interests of third parties.
(3) The duration of protection available shall amount to at least ten years93.
92
Supra Note at 96
93
Article 25 TRIPS Agreement
50
Article 2 (1) of the Berne Convention (Paris Act 1971) stipulates that the
expression ‘literary and artistic works’ shall include every protection in the
literary, scientific and artistic domain, whatever may be the mode or form of its
expression, such as books, pamphlets and other writings; lectures, addresses,
sermons and other works of the same nature; dramatic or dramatico-musical
works; choreographic works and entertainments in dumb show; musical
compositions with or without words; cinematographic works to which are
assimilated works expressed by a process analogous to cinematography; works of
drawing, painting, architecture, sculpture, engraving and lithography;
photographic works to which are assimilated works expressed by a process
analogous to photography; works of applied art; illustrations, maps, plans,
sketches and three-dimensional works relative to geography, topography,
architecture or science94.
94
Article 26 - Section 4 of part II, the TRIPS Agreement
51
five years from the making of such work (Article 7 (4)). The term of protection for
general works granted by this Convention shall be the life of the author and fifty
years after the author’s death95.
95
Article 2 (1) of the Berne Convention (Paris Act 1971)
96
Article 2 (7) of the Berne Convention (Paris Act 1971)
52
2. Product means any industrial or handicraft item, including inter alia parts
intended to be assembled into a complex product, packaging, get- up,
graphic symbols and typographic typefaces, but excluding computer
programs. What is important is that a design does not require attributes
97
Ibid
98
UNIVERSAL COPYRIGHT CONVENTION, 1952
53
99
EU, Directive 98/71 EC of the European Parliament
100
Ibid
101
EU, Directive 96/71 EC of the European Parliament
54
8. Term of protection The right holder may have the term of protection
renewed for one or more periods of five years each, up to a total term of 25
years from the date of filing. In the Dane Design Law, which was revised
in accordance with this Directive, the term regarding an ordinary design is
as per the Directive, but the term regarding spare parts lasts fifteen years at
maximum from the filing date. This is because Article 14 of the Directive
leaves the protection of spare parts to each domestic law.104
10. Limitation of the rights conferred by the design right: The rights
conferred by a design right upon registration shall not be exercised in
respect of a) acts done privately and for non-commercial purposes; b) acts
done for experimental purposes; c) acts of reproduction for the purposes of
102
EU, Directive 95/71 EC of the European Parliament
103
EU, Directive 94/71 EC of the European Parliament
104
EU, Directive 93/71 EC of the European Parliament
105
EU, Directive 93/71 EC of the European Parliament
55
3.12 CONCLUSION
106
EU, Directive 92/71 EC of the European Parliament
107
EU, Directive 91/71 EC of the European Parliament
56
As mentioned in the beginning, there are two ideas regarding the legal
protection of industrial designs, i.e., a copyright-oriented approach and a patent-
oriented approach. Several country’s legislation are not necessarily harmonious
with each other. However, at least EU Member States have prepared unified
”
domestic laws after the EU Design Directive became effective, and EU Design
Regulation has been enforced. Hence such conventions and treaties come into
play while maintain some uniformity in law and principles governing the concept
of industrial design/trade dress or whatever nomenclature be used for the said
concept.
57
CHAPTER IV
4.1 INTRODUCTION
The trademark law in India has undergone drastic reform resulting in the
repeal of the Trade and Merchandise Act, 1958, by the Trade Marks Act, 1999. This
Act of 1999 came into force from September 2003. The new Indian Trade Marks
Act, 1999 makes the Indian law at par with international standards. The new Act
recognizes service marks. It has done away with system of maintaining
registration of trademarks in part A and part B with different legal rights, and to
provide only single register with simplified procedure for registration and with
equal rights. The concept of well-known trademarks is introduced to streamline
and simplify the procedure of registration, it is now made possible to file one
single application for registration of mark in different classes of goods and
services. The initial term of protection is also enhanced from the previous 7 years
to 10 years. The new Trademark law has also broadened the definition of
trademarks to include shape of goods and combination of colour and it provides
for registration of collective marks owned by associations etc.
The Trade Marks Act, 1999 is a copy of the UK’s Trade Marks Act 1994
“
as we follow the English Trade Mark laws from the beginning. Unlike the United
States Lanham Act, 1946 the English Trade Marks Act, 1994 and the Indian Act,
1999 do not have provisions like section 43(a) (of Lanham Act) to protect un-
registered trade dress or allow registration of trade dress which qualifies the tests
of distinctiveness and source identifier.
Trade dress can be protected as getup under the law of passing off in UK
and in India. Passing off is a common law remedy for protecting unregistered
Trade Marks. Effectively it seeks to protect the rights of an individual or business,
58
by protecting the goodwill of that business from unfair trading by other parties. It
prevents other parties from carrying on business or selling their products under a
name, mark or description, which could mislead the public by confusing them to
believe that the business/ goods in question are those of plaintiff. Basically,
passing off is connected with protecting unregistered Trademarks. Getup,
packaging, business strategy, marketing techniques, advertisement themes etc. can
also be protected under passing off.
Lord Oliver developed a list of three elements for determining passing off in
Reckitt & Colman Products Ltd Vs. Borden Inc108., Case namely:
So, passing off essentially protects the goodwill of an individual or his business.
Past case laws have established that goodwill can exist in anything like mark,
symbol, device, shape, package, get-up, colour or colour combination of the goods
or any combination thereof. Therefore, Trade Dress can be effectively protected as
get-up under the law of passing off . ”
108
[1990] 1 All E.R. 873
59
marks are intended to protect the sophisticated layouts of stores, including the
interior and consisting of a distinct arrangement of features, colour patterns,
furniture.
Among these is Mary Cohr, seeking protection for the layouts of its ‘store
front’ as well as ‘salon area’ (Application Another applicant has filed for a 3D
trademark over the layout of a Vedic restaurant (Application No. 4100482).
Recently, Godrej & Boyce’s U & Us Home Studio has successfully overcome a
lack of distinctiveness objection and been granted a device mark for its
‘Discussion Area Zone’ (Application No. 4169443). They have also applied to
trademark their ‘Material Library Zone’ (Application No. 4169441) and ‘Color
Visualizer Zone’ (Application No. 4169442). This post discusses some of the
challenges presented by layout trademarks, focusing on the Discussion Area Zone
in particular.109
While there is no reference to layouts in the Trade marks Act, 1999, the
109
https://ijlpp.com/trade-dress-an-evolving-concept-under-the-ambit-of-intellectual-
propertyrights/
60
inclusive definition of ‘mark’ under Section 2(m) has allowed for recognition of
non-conventional marks. The Discussion Area Zone is registered as a device
mark, rather than trade dress or 3D trademark as in other jurisdictions. The Vedic
restaurant application (mentioned above) sought a 3D trademark, but was asked to
change to a device mark. However, store layouts may be more appropriate as 3D
trademarks, considering they are applied in a 3- dimensional form on business
spaces, while device marks usually cover designs in 2D form.
The Discussion Area Zone’s layout consists of a touch table, a TV, three
“
chairs and a designed shelf to enable the customers to plan themes digitally. The
mark initially faced a Section 9(1)(a) ‘lack of distinctiveness’ objection, but a
detailed reply describing the uniqueness and popularity of the said mark has
overcome the same.
110
505 U.S. 763 (1992)
111
C.S.No.452 of 2008
61
which are used without labels. In fact, several non-conventional trademarks like
colour and motion marks are used together with word marks. It follows that the
layouts (3D trademark) for service-providing outlets being integrated into the
service itself cannot be rejected on grounds of requiring labels.
4.6 FUNCTIONALITY
An inward curving panel with TV fitted on one side of the walls for design
presentation and viewing of 3D renderings of rooms.
Arguably, the only elements in this design that do not serve a functional
"
purpose are the leaf-shaped shelves, and the curvature of the chairs and wall.
While a combination of elements which include functional and non-functional
elements can still be distinctive, it is necessary to prove that the manner in which
the features are combined amounts to more than simply the ‘sum of its parts’
(Voss of Norway v. OHIM112). Unlike the Apple Store description, it is not prima
facie clear how this layout made of only 4 elements is nonfunctional as a whole.
Though a Section 9(3) objection was not raised during the examination, in
general, the Trademark office must undertake a careful consideration of the
question of functionality.
To conclude, it can be said that while the Discussion Area Zone trademark
has not dealt in depth with some of these issues, the unique nature of layout marks
doesn’t present any obstacles that cannot be overcome by use of safeguards
already present in the Indian trademark regime.
The Indian gospel on trade dress had for a while been the decision in
Kellog co. Vs. Pravin Kumar Badabhai113 where the Delhi High Court, despite
enumerating the similarities in the trade dress of the plaintiff’s and defendant’s
products, denied an injunction to the former while observing that the test was to
see the products as a whole and in doing so the similarity in certain colour
combinations was outweighed by the differences in the word marks of the plaintiff
and the defendants. The recent years have seen an interesting shift in judicial
perception. While tests for passing off have been interpreted with immense
judicial creativity in relation to essential products such as drugs and
112
Case C- (421/13)
113
T-129/04
64
114
(DLH)-1996-2-64
115
2001 (21) PTC 541 SC
65
held: It is the overall impression that a consumer gets as to the source and origin
of the goods from visual impression of colour combination, shape of the
container, packaging etc. if an illiterate, unwary and gullible customer gets
confused as to the source and origin of the goods which he has been using for
longer period by way of getting the goods in a container having particular shape,
colour combination and getup, it amounts to passing off. In other words if the first
glance of the article without going into the minute details of the colour
combination, get up or lay out appearing on the container and packaging gives
the impression as to deceptive or near similarities in respect of these ingredients,
it is a cause of confusion and amounts to passing off one's own goods as those of
the other with a view to encash upon the goodwill and reputation of the latter.
Colour combination, get-up, layout and size of container are sort of trade dress,
which involves overall image of the product's features. There is a wide protection
against imitation or deceptive similarities of trade dress as trade dress is the soul
for identification of the goods as to its source and origin and as such is liable to
cause confusion in the minds of unwary customers particularly those who have been
using the product over a long period of tim e.116
”
116
2001 (1) AD (Del) 448
66
secondary meaning (as required in the product design/ configuration trade dress
cases in US) is necessary to prove good will and reputation through long use and
existence in the market by the plaintiff. The law relating to trade dress is still in its
infancy, stage in India. This is the only case (Colgate v. Anchor) so far to be
decided by Indian Courts.
It is interesting to note that the new Trade Marks Law 1999 has been
“
expanded to include shape marks and colour combinations as marks. Under this, a
product package (including its colour combination, size, shape etc.) or a product
design/ configuration (as shape mark) may be registrable as a mark. Nevertheless,
passing off may provide a good alternative for protecting unregistered trade dress
and the initiative has already started with the Colgate Palmolive case.
In one of the cases pronounced by the Division Bench of Delhi High Court
where the dispute in the suit related to rights claimed by ITC in the yellow and blue
packaging of Sunfeast Farmlite Digestive All Good Biscuits and contested
that, Britannia have copied a similar color trades dress for its product Nutri Choice
Digestive Zero Biscuits. The Single Judge while ruling in favor of the ITC
observed that within the short span of time, the product of ITC has acquired
popularity which was very evident from the sales of the product.129 Aggrieved by
the said order Britannia filed an appeal before Division Bench who subsequently
reversed the order of Single Judge by making the following observations:
a) the get-up of the yellow and blue combination of the packaging did not
attain distinction and therefore was not exclusively and distinctively associated
with the ITC;
b) ITC mainly relied on its trade mark and trade name in their advertisements;
c) the court did not agreed with the Single Judge's view that within such short
span of time, the yellow-blue packaging of ITC biscuits had become so associated
with ITC so as to enable it to prevent its use by its competitors;
d) Court further opined that distinctiveness is acquired in get-
up when it is not only novel but also possesses some striking feature.
67
In the present case, the get-up and specifically the yellow-blue combination
of packaging of ITC did not fall into that category of distinctiveness. The matter is
still pending before the Supreme Court and has been adjourned sine-die for
exploring settlement.
Another proceeding where the issue of trade dress was discussed last year
was the case of Pidilite Industries Limited Vs Poma-Ex Products117 before Bombay
High Court. Although, the core issue dealt by the court was the infringement of
the Plaintiff's mark FEVIKWIK by the Defendant's mark KWIKHEAL, but the
question of trade dress also played a significant role in reaching the conclusion.
The Plaintiff argued that they have a registered and distinctive packaging
of their product which was created in-house by an employee of the plaintiff during
the course of employment and constitutes an original artistic work in which
copyrights subsist. Defendant on the other hand has not been using its own trade
mark packaging as registered but has been using the packaging which is similar to
that of Plaintiff's. The Plaintiff contention was that the Defendant has used every
singly feature of its product packaging in its minutest details therefore the Plaintiff
has a clear cut case of infringement and passing off and if goodwill and
reputation of the Plaintiff's product is not protected, it will result into irreparable
damage. The Court while agreeing with the Plaintiff held that the packaging of the
Defendant's product was likely to cause confusion among the public as the
packaging of the two products were identical.
The issue of infringement of trade mark Red Sole pertaining to high end
luxury shoe brand of famous designer Christian Louboutin was in question in
Christian Louboutin Sas Vs Mr. Pawan Kumar & Ors 118. in which the Delhi High
Court declared the designer's 'Red sole' a well-known trademark. In this case it was
argued by the Plaintiff that the shoe with red sole clearly identifies Plaintiff's
product distinguishing it from others. The 'RED SOLE' trademark has thus
become the signature of the plaintiff. The trade mark Red Sole has registrations in
117
C.S.No.452 of 2008
118
file:///C:/Users/Admin/Downloads/Trademark%20Infringement%20and%20Passing%
20off‐%20Law%20and%20Important%20Judgments.pdf (last referred to on 05th Sept 2020)
68
Early this year, in M/s Castrol Limited & Anr. Vs Iqbal Singh Chawla &
Anr124., the Castrol Limited sued the Defendants who were involved in selling 4T
oil under the trade mark Lumax Active who were said to have infringing the trade
mark Castrol Active which was separately registered in the name of Castrol
Limited. Castrol Limited, the Plaintiffs here claimed relief in relation to its trade
dress, copyright in packaging, including the shape of the container of the bottle.
The Plaintiffs' case was that the Defendants have copied the exact trade dress,
shape of the bottle, label lay-out and colour scheme of the Plaintiffs which
amounts to infringement of trade mark, copyright as well as makes a case of
passing off. The Court opined that if there is a comparison between trademarks
Castrol Active of the Plaintiff and Lumax Active of the Defendant, there does not
appear to be any deceptive similarity between the marks if it is seen in isolation of
the trade dress, colour scheme, packaging, design, layout, shape and
configuration. Thus, the moment when the rival trademarks are examined in
conjunction with the trade dress, colour scheme, packaging, design, layout, shape
and configuration, it becomes evidentially clear that adoption of the trade mark
Active by the Defendants is clearly a dishonest adoption to encash upon the
goodwill and reputation of the Plaintiffs. In this said case though the Court found
119
2017 (72) PTC 1. (Bom)
69
that the rival marks were different the dishonesty of the Defendants lied in
adopting the exact same trade dress. The Court however added that the said
injunction will not affect the right of the Defendants, if the Defendants use the
word Active in completely different trade dress, colour scheme, packaging,
design, layout, shape and configuration.
CHAPTER V
5.1 INTRODUCTION
Product designs that capture the attention of the marketplace; not for their
“
utility, but due to creativity, innovation or fashion; can be hugely valuable assets
hence companies across a wide range of industries can implement creative legal
strategies to protect their product designs, and should develop a strategy well
before the product is introduced to the marketplace. Protection is not without its
challenges, though, as the law imposes limits on what can be protected and
competitors routinely flirt with the boundaries of acceptable inspiration. There are
three primary sources of protection for nonfunctional product designs: trade dress,
copyright and design patents.125 As discussed below, each has its unique
requirements, benefits and challenges, and each serves a specific purpose.
Trade dress
71
Of the three, trade dress protection offers the longest-lasting protection, but likely
is the most difficult to establish. Under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C.
§1051 et seq., the design of a product is protectable so long as the claimed trade
dress design is not functional, and the trade dress is a clearly articulated design or
combination of elements that has acquired distinctiveness through secondary
meaning. 120 Trade dress is distinctive when consumers identify the trade dress
with a particular source. Courts consider numerous factors to determine whether a
design has acquired distinctiveness, including how long the design has been used,
efforts to promote a connection between the design and the company that offers the
product, and purchasers' association of the design to a single company. It
generally requires substantial time and/or publicity for a company to establish that
its product design has acquired distinctiveness, but there have been exceptions to
that general rule. If the claimed design is or was ever claimed in a utility patent, it
will be very difficult to establish that it is non functional and entitled to trade
dress protection.
Trade dress protection allows a company to prevent third parties from using
a product design that is likely to cause confusion in the marketplace. Where the
trade dress is famous, the Lanham Act also allows the owner to prevent third
parties from diluting its design. Dilution does not require a showing of consumer
confusion, but prevents use of designs that either blur or tarnish a company's
protected design. Like a trademark, trade dress can be federally registered, but
does not need to be registered in order to be protected by the courts. There is no
requirement that the trade dress design be creative, novel or non-obvious, and there
is no consideration of originality or prior art. Typical challenges for a company
trying to protect and enforce its trade dress pertain to how the design is defined,
whether it is functional and whether it has attained secondary meaning and is
associated with a single company. Companies interested in securing trade dress
protection for their product designs should give careful thought to how they will
market the product in a manner to create an association between the product
120
CS (Comm.) 714 of 2016
72
design and the company even before the product is launched to establish protection
as early as possible and maximize potential protection. While look for advertising
is no longer required to establish secondary meaning, it is a classic tool for
establishing market awareness.
Trade dress protection can be for a product's entire design (as with the
registered design of a Coke bottle or the registered design of a Volkswagen Bug or
Beetle), or an aspect of the design. For example, the U.S. Court of Appeals
Second Circuit held that a single color can be protectable in the fashion industry,
overturning the lower court's conclusion that color could never be nonfunctional
for fashion because of its aesthetic quality for fashion. In Christian Louboutin v.
Yves Saint Laurent Am. Holding,121 the Second Circuit considered whether the red
lacquer outsoles of high-fashion women's shoes could be protectable. Plaintiff
Louboutin had obtained a federal registration for its lacquered red soles in January
2008 and in April 2011, sued defendant YSL to prevent its sale of monochrome red
shoes with a red sole. The district court in August 2011 denied Louboutin's request
for an injunction, holding that a single color could not be protectable in the
fashion industry because it was aesthetically functional. The Second Circuit held
that, under Qualitex v. Jacobson Products136 that a single color could qualify for
protection, even for goods in the fashion industry. While the Second Circuit found
that Louboutin could properly claim exclusivity as to lacquered red soles, the
court limited Louboutin's rights and its registration to use of contrasting red
lacquered outsoles and held that YSL could proceed with the sale of monochrome
red shoes that included a red outsole.
India: Protection Of Trade Dress – Developing Jurisprudence by Gautam Kumar, LexOrbis 05th
121
April 2020
73
Copyright
The Copyright Act also may provide companies with a means to prevent
“
the importation and sale of genuine goods that are lawfully manufactured abroad,
but which make their way into the U.S. notwithstanding efforts of the company
122
Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C.
123
562 U.S. 40 (2010)
74
Design patent
Along with trade dress and copyright protection, design patent protection is
taking on an increased role in product design, particularly since the Federal
Circuit's decision four years ago in Egyptian Goddess v. Swisa, 543 Since Egyptian
Goddess, there has been an increase in the number of patent design applications and
claims of design patent infringement, underscoring the potential significant
benefits of this additional protection tool. Design patent protection is used for
products across a wide range of industries, from the design of cookware and
pharmaceuticals, to the design of fashion items, consumer electronics, graphical
user interfaces or screen shots of software programs, and computer-generated
icons. For example, in Crocs v. Int'l
126
Trade Commissioner an action brought before the International Trade
Commission, the makers of Crocs sandals was able to prevent the importation of
competing products that too closely resembled its design patents.
124
568 U.S. 519 (2013) Pg. No. 11-697
125
F.3d 665 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
126
598 F.3d 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
75
Like trade dress and copyright protection, design patent protection is not available
for functional aspects of a product's design. Rather, design patents protect the
ornamental design aspects of an article of manufacture, including surface
ornamentation, not the article itself. Thus, design patents for articles of
manufacture consist of the visual characteristics embodied in or applied to an
article. Compared to trade dress and copyright protection, design protection is
short-lived. Design patents last for only 14 years. But since they do not require a
finding of acquired distinctiveness or even be in use, design patents can provide
valuable protection for a product design while a company is developing its
product and working to establish marketplace awareness for its design.
A design patent owner can prevent others from using a design when, in the
eye of an ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives,
two designs are substantially the same, if the resemblance is such as to deceive
such an observer, inducing him to purchase one supposing it to be the other, the
first one patented is infringed by the other. In other words, the accused article
must embody the patented design or any colorable imitation thereof. 143 Given the
variety of protection options available, their varying requirements and benefits,
there are many creative strategies available to protect product designs. The earlier
strategies are considered and implemented, the greater their chances of success. At
the same time, those involved in design development need to be mindful of the
143
“These are different from trade mark in the way that trade mark deals with
words, logos, phrases, emblem etc. which are affixed on the product in order to
identify the product from other and trade dress is the appearance of the product
which is used to identify the producer. It is the way in which the product/service is
presented to the consumer. This concept was first recognised in U.S. Trade dress
should be non functional in order to get protected legally. In this project the law
related to trade dress protection will be examined in India and U.S.
overall appearance and may include features such as size, shape, colour or colour
combinations, texture, graphics or even certain sales techniques. Trade dress is
available to both registered and unregistered trade dress. If the trade dress is
unregistered, the basis for protection is section 43(a) of the Lanham Act which
provides protection for any word, term, name, symbol, or device, or any
combination thereof used on or in connection with any goods or services, or any
container for goods.
It provides for civil action against any person who uses any word or
combination of words, term, name, symbol or device associated with any goods or
services belonging to another so as to cause confusion or deception with respect to
the origin of the concerned goods or services. It also provides that in a civil action
for trade dress infringement for trade dress not registered on the principal register,
the person who asserts trade dress protection has the burden of proving that the
matter sought to be protected is not functional.
In the case of Two Pesos v Taco Cabana131, Two Pesos owned a growing
chain of restaurants. The restaurants featured bright colours, paintings, murals,
interior dining, patio areas, and overhead garage doors to separate the interior
areas from the exterior, stepped exterior of the building and neon stripes on the
building. Two Pesos was a competing chain that adopted a similar design.
Taco Cabana sued arguing trade dress infringement. The district court and
fifth circuit found the Taco Cabana design to be trade dress and to be infringed by
Two Pesos. The court upheld the conclusion of the district court and court of
appeals that the restaurant design in question was inherently distinctive and thus
required no showing of secondary meaning. The court noted that to require
secondary meaning in the case of an inherently distinctive trade dress would
penalize persons just starting a business who have not yet developed customer
recognition of their mark.
79
line of children’s clothes decorated and marketed the clothes in the U.S. through
retail department stores. Wal-Mart sent a series of photographs of Samara
products to its overseas supplier with instructions to produce copies. The supplier
did so, and the copies were sold at Wal-Mart stores. Samara sued Wal-Mart,
alleging among other things infringement of unregistered trade dress under
Lanham Act, section 43(a). The court made a distinction between product
packaging and product design and stated that ambiguous trade dress should be
classified as product design requiring a secondary meaning to be entitled to trade
dress protection. Thus, the court was in favour of Wal-Mart.
127
505 U.S. 763 (1992)
128
529 U.S. 205 (2000)
80
Trade Marks Act gives the following definition such as: trade mark 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 shape of goods, their packaging and combination of colours.
(q) Package includes any case, box, container, covering, folder, receptacle,
vessel, casket, bottle, wrapper, label, band, ticket, reel, frame, capsule, cap, and
lid, stopper and cork.
(m) Mark includes a device, brand, heading, label, ticket, name, signature,
word, letter, numeral, shape of goods, packaging or combination of colours or any
combination thereof.
Hence the new definition of trade mark under Indian law comprises all the
elements of the trade dress as under U.S. law. The Indian courts have been
recognizing the concept of trade dress from even before 2003. In case of shape of
goods registration of the trademark besides other criteria is still subjected to
provision of subsection (3) of section 9 of the Trademarks Act, 1999, which reads
as follows
A. The shape of goods which results from the nature of the goods
themselves; or
B. The shape of goods which results from the nature of the goods
81
themselves; or129
The shape of goods which gives substantial value to the goods. 130 This
shows that one of the key ideas behind trade dress protection that is functionality
is also recognised under Indian Trade Mark law. In order to determine the issue of
confusion of customers, question arises whether it is overall similarity of trade
dress which is material or the issue is to be decided by comparing the distinguishing
features.
The act provides for passing off action against use of similar trademarks of
another which is not registered out which is very popular among the public and
there is a clear association of the trademark and the product which the public can
easily identify. Indian courts at many times have given their decision basing on
the trade dress factor of the product. These cases are discussed thoroughly below.
129
532 U.S. 23
130
Section 9(3) of the Trademarks Act, 1999
82
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India laid down the parameters for comparison
between two marks in Parle Products (P) Ltd. v. J.P. & Co.131. In this case, the
packets of biscuits manufactured by the appellants and respondents were
practically of the same size, the color schemes of the two wrappers were almost
the same, and the designs on both, though not identical, bore such a close
resemblance that one could easily be mistaken for the other. The Supreme Court
laid down that for deciding whether one mark is deceptively similar to another, the
broad and essential features of the two have to be considered. They are not to be
placed side by side to find out differences in the designs and it would suffice if the
mark bears an overall similarity to the other. After all, an ordinary purchaser is not
gifted with the powers of observation of Sherlock Holmes.
131
2008(4)CHN608
132
AIR 1979 Delhi 114
83
not be pressed too far and the goods in question sold to people belonging to middle
class or upper middle class, who are fairly educated, has to be tested accordingly.
was doubted whether it correctly reflected the position of law on this aspect. This
controversy has arisen on account of the fact that the principles laid down in
Kellogg Company's case were based on the dictum of Lord Halsbury in
Schweppes Ltd.'s case wherein a reference was made to a customer who was so
careless that he did not look and treated the label fairly, but took the bottle without
sufficient consideration and without reading what was written very plainly. Such a
customer was held not a person who would form the basis of a test for passing off.
However, this dictum was a departure from the settled law of the Supreme Court
of India in relation to passing off matters that the case of passing off has to be
decided on the comparison of broad similarities and the test is always from the
point of view of an unwary purchaser.
Lord Halsbury was relied upon and it was laid down that in case of an
infringement or passing off, the broad dissimilarities need to be compared.
In ITC Limited v Britannia Industries Limited139, the Delhi High Court considered
the issue of unregistered trade dress in relation to biscuit packaging. ITC filed the
suit for passing off to safeguard its rights in the yellow and blue packaging of Sun
feast Farmlite Digestive All Good biscuits and restrain Britannia from using a
deceptively similar trade dress for its Nutri Choice Digestive Zero biscuit
packaging. The court granted the injunction; however, the Division Bench reversed
the order on appeal. It held that within a six-month lifespan, the yellow and blue
colour combination had not become distinctive of ITC so as to claim exclusivity
and prevent competitor use.
In the case of Colgate Palmolive & Co. V Anchor Health and Beauty Care
Pvt. Ltd.133 the combination of the colour red and white was in dispute. It was held
133
LAWS(DLH)-1996-2-64
84
that when the colour combination, packaging, shape of container of both the
product is same then consumer confusion will be higher with regard to the origin
of the both the product. If an illiterate naive customer uses another product basing
on the physical appearance of the product he has been using it amount to passing
off.
In other words if the first look of the item without going into the minute
details of the colour combination, getup or lay out appearing on the container and
packaging gives the inkling o deceive in respect of these ingredients, it is a case of
confusion and amounts to passing off one’s own goods as those of the other with a
view to encash upon the goodwill and reputation of the latter.
In another case Cadbury India Limited and Ors. v. Neeraj Food Products134 the
Delhi High Court held the trademark JAMES BOND as physically and
phonetically similar to the registered trademark GEMS of the Cadbury. The High
Court further held the packaging of Neeraj food product to be similar to that of
Cadbury and eventfully Neeraj foods was restrained from using said trademarks as
well as the packaging similar to that of Cadbury.
In the case of United Distillers Plc v. Jagdish Joshi135 & others the plaintiff was
the owner of trademark Johnnie Walker for Scotch whisky. The defendants were
manufacturers of Johnnie Walker Gutka. The plaintiffs sued the defendants for
infringement of trademark and trade dress. The court held that the trade dress used
by the defendant has a similarity with the trade dress of the plaintiff and had
infringed the same . ”
In the case of L’Oreal India Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Henkel Marketing India Ltd.
and An 136
The packaging of L’Oreal products GARNIER- COLOUR
NATURALS and the product of Henkel Marketing India Ltd, PalettePermanent
Natural Colours was alleged to be identical. L’Oreal instituted proceedings for
passing-off arguing that it was a substantial reproduction and/or colourable
imitation of L’Oreal label/trade dress.
134
(2000) 5 SCC 573
135
(1882) 8 A.C
136
C.S.No.452 of 2008
85
The court emphasized on the deceptive similarity between the trade dresses of the
two products which could create confusion in the minds of the consumers. It was
held that, since the trademark of both the products was clearly inscribed in the
respective trade dresses, there was no chance of confusion among the consumers
who are mostly from the middle class or upper middle class. Thus, trade dress
infringement was not made out and L’Oreal lost the proceedings.
A trade mark registration grants the owner a statutory monopoly of the trade mark
in Singapore. The protection granted to a trade mark registration is for an initial
period of 10 years, and it can last indefinitely if the registration is renewed every
10 years.
Although it is not compulsory to register a trade mark in order to use it, a trade
“
the Registry of Trade Marks with an address for service in Singapore to which all
correspondences regarding the trade mark application will be sent. When to File
Unlike patents or registered designs, trade marks that are already in use may still
be registered. There is no time limit as to when the owner may apply for a trade
mark registration. Although there is no time limit for filing, it should be noted that
a suit for an infringement of a registered trade mark is only possible if the trade
mark is registered. The rights conferred to a trade mark registration takes effect
from the date of filing of the application for registration.
Descriptive marks
88
The following are some common examples of marks that cannot be registered
under the trade mark laws in Singapore such as those marks which describe the
goods and services of the business. For instance, marks that describe the quality
(Super or Best), quantity (One dozen), value (Cheap), intended purpose (Cleaner),
or geographical origin.
I.Marks which are signs or indications which are or have become customary
in the trade cannot be registered.
II.Marks have become so well accepted that the term is used to describe the
type of the goods or services and no longer serves to distinguish the
products offered. An example of a trade mark that has become customary in
the industry is escalator.
III.Marks that are generally against public policy or morality are not registered.
For example, a mark that could promote immoral behaviour cannot be
registered.
IV.Marks that attempt to deceive the public. For example, marks that
misrepresent the nature, quality or geographical origin of the goods or
services.
V.Marks that are identical to an earlier mark and the goods or services for
which the trade mark is sought to be registered are identical to the goods or
services for which the earlier mark is protected.
VI. A trade mark may not be registered if it is likely to cause the public to be
confused under these circumstances;
89
Well known marks are offered a greater scope of protection. Even if they
are not registered in Singapore, the owner of a well known trade mark may take
action against the use of a trade mark or business identifier under the following
“
circumstances:137
137
https://www.asil.org/sites/default/files/ERG_IP.pdf (last referred to on 04th Sept 2020)
90
take unfair advantage of the distinctive character of the well known trade
mark.138
iii. A number of factors that may be considered in determining whether a mark
is well known in Singapore, such as:
iv.the degree of knowledge or recognition by the relevant sector of the public
in Singapore;
v.the duration, extent and geographical area of the use or promotion of the
mark;
vi.any registration or application for registration of the mark in any
country;
vii.any successful enforcement of the mark in any country;
viii.any value associated with the mark. Generally,
ix.if a mark is well known to a relevant sector of the public in Singapore, it can
be considered well known in Singapore.
This relevant sector may include actual or potential customers of the goods
and/or services, those involved in the distribution of goods/services or businesses
dealing in the goods and/or services. Identifying a Trade Mark ® and ™ are
common symbols associated with trademarks. ® indicates that the mark is a
registered trade mark and hence protected under trade mark laws. ™ is just a
symbol used to indicate that the mark is used by a business or organisation as a
trade mark. It does not denote that the mark is registered nor protected under trade
mark laws.
Dilution means the lessening of the capacity of the trade mark to identify
138
[142 (2007) DLT 724]
91
The owner of a trade mark should use his mark properly and continuously.
Whenever and wherever possible, a trade mark should be actively applied to
reinforce the trade mark identity with its associated type(s) of goods or
services. He should display the trade mark in every medium in which he uses to
protect his brand or corporate logo (e.g. in packaging, labels, websites,
advertisements, marketing materials, press releases, trade shows and/or
business documents). Furthermore, the trade mark owner should be vigilant to
ensure that the trade mark is used in its proper context. For example, he should
not use a trade mark to describe the product itself. For example, he should use a
XYZ copier instead of a XYZ and make two copies on the XYZ copier instead of
XYZ two copies. Such good practices may prevent a successful claim by an
infringing party that the registered mark has become a generic word and thus
rendered its rights unenforceable under the law. There are numerous examples
of valuable trade mark names that have become common in the trade in this
way (e.g. escalator). 'Genericide' occurs when a trade mark, previously used by
an individual manufacturer for his products, becomes a description of the product
139
Supra Note at 138
140
Supra Note at 136
92
itself. If a registered trade mark has not been used consecutively for five years,
there is a risk of the trade mark being removed from the register. Any interested
party can apply to the Registry of Trade Marks to have an inactive registered trade
mark removed by showing proof of non-use
5.5 CONCLUSION
There is not a lot of difference between the laws of trade dress protection
in both these countries. One of the major difference is in US trade dress gets
registered giving certain conditions while in India the Trade Mark Act does not
recognise the term Trade dress Protection as a result of which it does not get
protection under the act. However certain features of trade dress gets protection
such as colour combination, shape, and packaging of a product can be registered.
In some cases as mentioned above the concept of trade dress has been recognised.
U.S. has a very strong stand point in case of trade dress protection. However India
is also progressing in recognizing trade dress protection.
In case of Singapore it is clear that the laws and principles governing the
law regarding protection of trade dress is well matured and settled. This can be
inferred by having a bare perusal of principles governing the said law and the
approach of respective judicial bodies towards application of said principles. Such
situation infuse confidence amongst business doers to invest more in brand building
and marketing which have multiple positive effects on economy.
”
93
CHAPTER VI
CONCLUSION
Trade dress is a form of intellectual property, which deals with the
visual appearance of a packaged product, which can even be the design of a
building that signify and illustrate the source of the product to the consumers.
Trade Dress broadly encompasses the overall image created by the product
or package and the overall get up of the product. It encompasses features and
characteristics such as size, shape, package, colour combinations, texture,
graphics and even particular sales techniques. A trade dress must necessarily be
non-functional to attain legal protection; otherwise it will become the subject
matter of patent law.
The set of laws that govern and protect unregistered trademarks are also
applicable to trade dress. Trade Dress is a type of commercial shorthand that
provides a source-associating cue to an unthinking consumer. This feature may
make rational minds treat trade dress similar to a traditional trademark. The point
of difference between the traditional trademark law and the law governing trade
dress is that unlike traditional trademark law that protects words or logos, trade
dress law protects the total packaging and design of a product.
The origin of trade dress can be traced back to the United States of
America. Trade dress, back then in the United States was considered as the overall
appearance of labels, wrappers and containers used in the packaging of a
finished or semi-finished product. With the advent of law, a plethora of additional
94
elements of trade dress were included under the ambit of trade dress. The
packaging of a McDonald’s burger, the shape of a bottle of Coca- Cola or even the
theme of a restaurant or eating joint can be considered as an example for the same.
Trade dress as a concept has originated from the legislation of The U.S.
commonly known as The Lanham Act. Under section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, a
product’s trade dress can be protected without formal registration with the PTO. In
relevant part, section 43(a) states the following:
It is the visual appearance of the product, which arises from the final packaging of
a product, which guides consumers in identifying the products they prefer. At
times, even educated consumers find it difficult to differentiate between two
similar looking products. Since many sellers prefer stocking imitation goods in
order to garner better profits, it becomes difficult for genuine trademarked
products to reach all the customers willing to purchase them. The aim behind the
protection of trade dress should be preventing consumers from being misled
into purchasing substandard articles and protection of the interests of genuine
manufacturers, who do not aim to garner profits unreasonably by taking advantage
of the established goodwill and reputation of a product.
95
Unlike the law of the United States, which recognizes the concept trade dress under
Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, the Indian law does not have a separate
provision for the trade dress under its existing Trade mark legislation. However,
the common law of passing off serves the purpose of protection of trade dress
consisting of shape, packaging and combination of colours, etc. The same has
been elucidated in Section 2 (zb) of the Trademarks Act 1999.
The new Trade Marks Act, 1999, which came into force in 2003, is largely
based on the English Trade Mark Act, 1994 and recognized the concept of trade
dress on the lines of The Lanham Act. Through the amended Act of 1999, Trade
Dress has been recognized through a new definition of Trademark, according to
which there is an encompassment of shape of goods, packaging, combination of
colours or any combination thereof.
Broadly speaking, according to Section 2 of the Trade Marks Act 1999, the
following are defined as:
(m) mark includes a device, brand, heading, label, ticket, name, signature, word,
letter, numeral, shape of goods, packaging or combination of colors or any
combination thereof;
(q) Package includes any case, box, container, covering, folder, receptacle, vessel,
casket, bottle, wrapper, label, band, ticket, reel, frame, capsule, cap, lid, stopper an
cork; Hence the new definition of trade mark under Indian law comprises all the
elements of the trade dress as under US law. The Indian courts have been
recognizing the concept of trade dress even before 2003.
”
while extending protection to the right holders in order to protect their trade
dresses or prevent infringement or violation of the same. In 2017, the High Court
of Delhi and Bombay High Court have promulgated orders/judgments which
would add on to the prior cases characterizing customary law relating to assurance
of Trade Dresses.
No specific provision for trade dress has been provided for trade dress in
the Trademark Act of 1999. However, with the development of law, the laws of
“
The basic requirement for a mark to be registered as a trade mark are that
it should be distinctive, capable of graphical representation, capable of
distinguishing the goods or services as originating from a particular source from
that of other similar goods and that mark should not be functional in nature. A
mark may include any word, logo, device, branch, ticket, signature, name, shape,
packaging, and combination of colours or any combination thereof. Traditionally
word marks, symbols or logos were registered as trademarks. Of the late, due to
the technological revolution in communication and mass media and due to the
increased levels of perception of an average consumer on brands, many business
entities are rushing to register nontraditional marks, such as colour, smell, sounds,
97
slogans, shapes etc as trademarks. Trademark offices, examiners and courts are
also neither discouraging nor encouraging these types of marks to be registered. If
they are capable of distinguishing the goods or services and distinctive, they are
being allowed to be registered as trademarks. One such type of development is
trade dress protection. Trade dress involves the total image or impression of a
product and may include features such as size, shape, colour or colour
combinations, textures, graphics or even particular sales techniques. Trade dress
can be registered under section 2 of the US Lanham Act as a trademark if it is
inherently distinctive or has acquired secondary meaning; and is nonfunctional.
However, even without registration non-functional and distinctive trade dress is
protected under Sec.43 (a) of the Lanham Act. While trade dress protection is not
expressly set for the in the Lanham Act, it has evolved and been recognised
through the development of case law. The Lanham Act protects trade dress by
preventing a second comer from offering a product or package that may cause
consumer confusion with the first comer’s product or package. The Two Pesos
case was the first case on the protection of trade dress to be decided by the
Supreme Court of the US. It granted a somewhat broad protection to the trade
dress of a Mexican restaurant by noting that such trade dress was inherently
distinctive and do not require the proof of secondary meaning. This case though
said product packaging trade dress can be inherently distinctive and do not require
the proof of secondary meaning, it did not set out a clear test as to what
constitutes inherently distinctive trade dress. After this case there was a split among
the circuit courts in granting trade dress protection.
However, the split in circuit courts increased further with the Supreme
Court’s decision in Wal-Mart case. Ironically, this case instead of clarifying the
test to be adopted in finding out inherent distinctiveness, divided the trade dress
into two categories as product packaging trade dress and product design trade
dress. Furthermore, it reasoned that product packaging trade dress can be
inherently distinctive and may not need to prove secondary meaning whereas,
product design trade dress cannot be inherently distinctive and need to establish
secondary meaning. This case has major implications on trade dress protection
98
because some products cannot be divided into product package or product design/
configuration trade dress . Though they may be inherently indistinctive, due to the
”
In US, the trade dress law is not settled still. The circuit courts are divided
on the issue of inherent distinctiveness and the trade dress classification into
product package and product configuration trade dress. The two areas of law,
(Trademark & Trade Dress) however, remain distinct in some respects. For
instance, trade dress protection is generally focused more broadly than trademark
protection. Whereas a trademark infringement cases often involve disputes over
minor details, trade dress focuses on the total image or overall impression of a
product.
Under Common Law, trade dress may be protected under passing off
“
which protects the commercial reputation and business goodwill. Past cases
established that trade dress can be protected as get-up under passing off. As far as
India is concerned, it is interesting to note that the new Trademarks Act, 1999 has
expanded the scope of trademark with the inclusion of shape of the goods and
colour combination in the list of marks, which can be registered as trademarks.
So, under this expansion, a product package or product design, which includes
shape, colour combination, may be registered as trademarks. There are no such
registrations filed as of now. Another interesting development regarding India is
that in a recent case, the Delhi High Court granted trade dress protection for colour
combination (of Red & White) and shape of containers (for tooth powder) under
the law of passing off. It noted that due to the high illiteracy levels in India trade
dress of a product has great impact on the consumers and cause confusion in their
minds.
Understanding the differences between design patents and trade dress rights may
be beneficial to an engineer or other product designer involved with designing a
product. The timing of product development and its expected lifecycle can impact
what type of protection may be desirable, and understanding these differences can
help create products that compete longer in the marketplace.
Design patents; on other hand; provide a limited term of protection for the
visual, non-functional characteristics of a product. Design patents can cover a
shape, color, and pattern of an entire product or only a portion of a product. In the
Apple v. Samsung design infringement case, Samsung was found to infringe an
Apple design patent because, even though their Galaxy S 4G employed an overall
different shape, the bezel of the Samsung phone looked substantially similar to
Apple's protected bezel design. That similarity of only a portion of the overall
product was sufficient to infringe.
Trade dress is a type of trademark directed to the distinctive look and feel
of a product or service which identifies its source. To be registrable, a trade dress
needs to serve as a source identifier, be distinctive in the marketplace, be used in
commerce, and be primarily non-functional. Trade dress may include the design
of a product or its packaging. If a product design is identifiable with a
company or source, trade dress rights prevent other products from appearing
confusingly similar to a consumer.
To obtain trade dress rights, the design must be non-functional, and must have
acquired secondary meaning such that the design is identifiable with the source.
For example, the companies associated with the trade dress registrations below are
likely readily identifiable to many of us. If the design involves product packaging,
trade dress rights may arise from inherent distinctiveness.
Trade dress rights do not expire as long as the design is used in commerce
as a source identifier. Once a design acquires secondary meaning, future products
can also benefit if they use the same protected design feature. Furthermore, a
competing product infringes when it is deemed close enough to confuse a
consumer regarding its source. In contrast, infringing a design patent requires an
ordinary observer to find the accused design substantially similar to the protected
design, in context of prior designs in the field – generally a more difficult bar.
To sum it up, design patents and trade dress rights should be considered
when the visual appearance of a product may contribute to commercial success in
the marketplace. These can be important tools for protecting the distinct
ornamentation or design of products which may become associated with a
company. Investment in such protection can enhance its economic benefit to the
owner of the rights.
102
CHAPTER VI
FINDINGS AND SUGGESTIONS
The importance of having independent design legislation and significant
jurisprudential literature on this matter cannot be denied. Design law caters
exclusively to aesthetic appeal and covers intellectual property that is not
trademarks, copyright and patents. Since designs can be registered in both 2D and
3D forms, it is necessary that design law defines an 'industrial drawing', clarifies
the aspect of 'copyright' in design, and distinguishes between copyright over
“
operates and holds itself out to the public. For example, a husband and wife might
register their business under the name Sam and Betty's Bar and Grill, while doing
business as The Corner Tavern. Both names are considered trade names under the
law of unfair competition.
Based on the extremely broad definition of trade dress, the concept has
been used to protect a wide assortment of assets, which, at first blush, would seem
to be incapable of protection. Trade dress theories have been used to protect
restaurant atmospheres, a signature golf hole, the appearance (or configuration) of
a variety of products, colors, the presentation style of a trade show, a comedian's
style, smells, and even sounds. The law regarding the protection of a product's
configuration (the shape and appearance of the product itself rather than its
packaging) is currently undergoing great changes, and the standards used to
determine if a configuration is entitled to protection vary greatly from circuit to
circuit. Accordingly, anyone seeking to protect (or defending against a claim
based upon) a configuration must pay particular attention to the venue chosen for
an infringement suit.
104
Trade dress rights have been recognized in the overall style of trade shows.
evident in the product-configuration context and where utility patent rights and
trade dress rights converge.
RELEVANT PROVISIONS
1. The Lanham (Trade Mark) Act, 1946 [Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act]
BIBLIOGRAPHY
BOOKS
WEBSITES
2. http://respectfortrademarks.org/tricks-of-the-trademark/history-
oftrademarks/
3. https://www.altacit.com/publication/first-amongst-equals-
review-of- thehistorical- perspectives-of-the-trademark-legislation-and-
registration/
5. https://lawtimesjournal.in/non-traditional-trademarks/#_ftn5
6. https://ijlpp.com/trade-dress-an-evolving-concept-under-the-
ambit- ofintellectual- property-rights/
11. https://www.jpo.go.jp/e/news/kokusai/developing/training/textbo
ok/docum ent/index/10_ Treaties_and_Conventions.pdf (last referred to on
04 th Sept 2020)
15. www.mondaq.com