The Interplay between Religious Sensitiveness and Trademark Law in India
Introduction
A mark represents the institution or company to which it belongs and serves as a means of differentiating goods or services among individuals. Marks can be of various types i.e., word marks, service marks, logos, symbols, series marks, etc[1]. Among them, there are religious symbols that are seen as an essential part of religious history in India, a heterogeneous country with a wide range of faiths. Everyone in the country takes pride in their religious beliefs. Religious beliefs are carefully guarded by individuals because they reflect their individuality[2].
The Indian Constitution supplements this tradition by granting citizens the freedom to freely profess, practice, and propagate their religion, subject to reasonable limits under Articles 25–28[3]. It is easy for businesses to associate their products and services with religion since people are so deeply devoted to their faiths. However, what would happen if business houses wanted to trademark the name of the god they worshipped? Many businesses attempt to take advantage of this by adopting symbols that people link with their religions so that people will associate the goods being sold with them. To provide security and prevent this, Indian law has established protection for marks and symbols with religious connotations; hence, if a mark includes anything that might offend a certain class of people or segment of the public due to their religious sensibilities, protection may be denied to such a mark[4]. This was taken in order to protect both the dominant class’s and the minority’s religious sensitivities. As a result, the rise of hypersensitivity to religion, religious texts, and religious symbols determines the jurisprudence around the utilisation of such marks under Indian trademark law, even if they are not strictly prohibited.
What the Law States
A mark over religious symbols, names of holy books, names of God, Goddesses, or other deities, religious figures, pictures of deities, names of religion, or any other name or picture with a religious reference that can be used to differentiate the goods or services of one person from another is considered a religious mark. Since people place a high value on religious symbols and have a strong emotional and spiritual bond with items associated with their faith, using religious symbols and figurines in commerce and business to attract clients has, over the years, proven to be an effective strategy to encourage growth[5]. Hence to regulate the same legislature has formulated the following law with regards to it.
A trademark application may be denied under part 9(2)(b)4 of the Trade Marks Act (TM Act) if the mark “contains or comprises of any matter likely to hurt the religious susceptibilities of any class or section of the citizens of India[6].”
A sizable portion of the relevant group is the criterion for determining if a mark offends a religious group, not the group’s majority view. This exemplifies how “any class or section” is used in laws all throughout the world. A grade must be assigned based on the viewpoint of the relevant group, not the wider public. This guarantees the preservation of the feelings of the concerned group.
Furthermore, a list of notified illegal trademarks is enumerated in the Central Government’s Manual of Trade Marks, Practice and Procedure. The list contains, among other things:
The terms “Lord Buddha,” “Shree Sai Baba,” “Sri Ramkrishna,” “Swami Vivekananda,” “the Holy Mother alias Sri Sarada Devi,” “Balaji,” or their equivalents, as well as the emblems of the Ramkrishna Math and Mission or a colourful imitation thereof; or the names and images of Sikh Gurus, such as Guru Nanak, Guru Angad, Guru Amar Das, Guru Ram Das, Guru Arjun Dev, Guru Hargobind, Guru Har Raj, Guru Harkrishnan, Guru Tegh Bahadur, and Guru Govind Singh; and/or the name and/or picture of Lord
What The Court Has Do In This Context?
The Trademarks Act of 1999 does not forbid the use of names of gods or goddesses, religious symbols, or figurines in and of themselves; But it simply limits the registration of the mark under the Trademarks Act’s Section 9(2)(b), as is shown while reading the clause. The law does not forbid the use of an unregistered mark that offends the group’s religious convictions. As a result, there have been countless cases when the proprietors attempted to commercialize their goods using a religious connotation.
[Image Sources: Shutterstock]
In Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works v. District Judge[7], Allahabad High Court addressed the limits of “religious susceptibility” of a trademark called “Ganesh Beedi”. The trademark’s validity was questioned due to the inclusion of a Hindu deity’s name followed by the phrase “beedi.” The packages of such beedis were tossed in the garbage after use, which was deemed offensive to religious sensitivities. However the court has provided a creative analogy in regards to it. Court stated that after the purpose of the cards is fulfilled, the cards also go to the dustbins with the photographs printed on them, the Court noted, that images of God and goddesses are engraved on invitation cards for weddings and other ceremonies held by Hindus whenever such events occur.” The claim that images of gods and goddesses are being put in trash cans alongside other trash does not offend anyone here either.
In Parul Food Specialities Pvt. Ltd. v. Bhole Baba Milk Food Industries Ltd[8], The Parul food Pvt ltd, sold ghee under the brand “Parul’s Lord Krishna,” which featured Krishna printed in a huge font, whereas the Appellant sold dairy products under the name “KRISHNA.” The Court ruled that the word “KRISHNA” has not gained secondary uniqueness and that it cannot be monopolised because it is a common word for a Hindu god linked with milk and milk products. The Court ruled that the appellants did not have a monopoly on utilising Krishna’s name in connection with dairy products.
The mark RAMAYANA was declared to be unregisterable in Amritpal Singh v. Lal Babu Priyadarshi[9]. The Trademarks Act, 1999’s Section 9(2)(b) was interpreted strict sense in this case, marking the first time that a blanket prohibition on the registration of a religious book’s name has been placed in place. According to the ruling of the Honourable Supreme Court, one cannot use the name of a holy book or religious text as a trademark for products or services. Examples of such texts include the Bible, the Quran, the Ramayana, the Guru Granth Sahib, and others.
In Freudenberg Gala Household Ltd v. Gebi Products[10], The Gala Company used the label mark “LAXMI” to market brooms. Brooms are one of the things that Gebi, another firm, began marketing under the name “MAHA LAXMI.” The Hindu deity known by the names Laxmi and Maha Laxmi is the same. The Court noted that safeguarding a popular term is not the same as protecting a label mark. Determining the degree of similarity requires considering the label as a whole. The Court further declared that the name of a goddess cannot be monopolised.
In Suo motu proceedings vs. Controller General of Patents, Design and Trademarks litigation[11], The registered trademark of the pictures “Attukal Deity” and “Sabarimala of Women” is the subject matter. Regarding “temple services, social services, welfare services, and cultural activities,” the aforementioned trademarks were submitted for registration. According to the Court, the “Attukal Bhagavathy” is the god, and the Trust is in charge of managing the idol’s estate. The unquestionable truth in this case is that the god “Attukal Bhagavathy” was consecrated in the temple whose upkeep is supervised by the Trust. Hence, the court allow the mark to be registered in the name of the trust.
In Shyam Steel Industries Ltd. v. Shyam Sel and Power Ltd[12], The Calcutta High Court’s division bench noted that there is no “infallible” rule that states that God’s name cannot be registered as a trademark when considering an interlocutory motion in a lawsuit brought by Shyam Steel Industries Ltd.
Conclusion
The question of whether religious symbols may be trademarked or not is not one that is settled in stone. It becomes clear that certain rules should be followed, such as the prohibition on registering holy marks or logos. An unfavorable precedent is formed when a trademark is approved for the commercialization of a holy symbol, which other wealthy religious trusts can then take advantage of for their own financial benefit. Religious signage shouldn’t have exclusive rights as doing so encourages commercial use. Constitutional rights must be taken into account by the courts before providing protection. The legislature has not taken a stand on this topic.
To cure this defect, the court must step in and formulate a straight jacket formula; however, it is understandable that religion is a very sensitive topic in a country like India; however, it is the duty of the court to firmly take the stance and evolve the parameters related to religious susceptibilities; however, this responsibility does not solely rest with the judiciary; legislature must also take necessary steps by making necessary amendments to the law and bringing clarity so that it can ease the task of the judiciary.
Author: Yagya Agarwal, in case of any queries please contact/write back to us at support@ipandlegalfilings.com or IP & Legal Filing.
[1] Acharya, M. (2022, February 28). Difference Between Trademark and Service Mark. Cleartax. https://cleartax.in/s/trademark-vs-service-mark
[2] Goldammer, K. M. A. (1999, July 26). Religious symbolism and iconography | Description, Meaning, Types, Influence, & Facts. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/religious-symbolism
[3] Indian Constitution, 1950.
[4] Section 9(2)(b) of the Indian Trademarks Act, 1999.
[5] Aseri, Ankita. (2020). Commercializing religion via trademarking god. Journal of World Intellectual Property, 23(1-2), 75-81.
[6] Section 9(2)(b) of the Indian Trademarks Act, 1999.
[7] 2005 (3) AWC 2097.
[8] 2011 (48) PTC 235 (Del.) (DB)
[9] AIR 2016 SC 461
[10] MANU/MH/1859/2017
[11] W.P.(C). No.14153 of 2009
[12] 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 282
