Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Common Words and Generic Terms - A word is considered common or generic if it is commonly used in the local language, describes qualities of goods or services, or is customary in trade practices ["LIVING MEDIA INDIA LIMITED Vs ZEE MEDIA CORPORATION LIMITED - Delhi"]. The protection of such words depends on whether they are descriptive or suggestive; for example, ‘DUNIYADARI’ was deemed suggestive and not generic, thus eligible for protection, whereas ‘ANANDA’ was limited due to its common, laudatory nature ["LIVING MEDIA INDIA LIMITED Vs ZEE MEDIA CORPORATION LIMITED - Delhi"].
Arbitrary Use of Words - Words applied arbitrarily to a service or product, even if common, may still be protected if they are not descriptive of the goods or services themselves. The key factor is whether the word is used in a suggestive or arbitrary manner, not merely whether it is common ["LIVING MEDIA INDIA LIMITED Vs ZEE MEDIA CORPORATION LIMITED - Delhi"].
Protection of Common Words - Words that are in common use outside their trade mark capacity, especially when they acquire secondary meanings, generally do not enjoy exclusive rights. Passing off, for example, cannot grant a monopoly over common words, and protection is limited when such terms are descriptive or widely used ["Cadila Healthcare Ltd. v. Gujarat Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd. - Delhi"].
Words Used Arbitrarily or in Specific Contexts - The protection of words used arbitrarily (e.g., religious terms like ‘Allah’, ‘Kaabah’, ‘Baitullah’, ‘Solat’) depends on the context and whether their use is lawful and not misleading. The law recognizes religious freedom and may restrict or permit use based on specific policies or directives, but these are subject to legal scrutiny ["Jill Ireland bt Lawrence Bill vs Menteri Bagi Kementerian Dalam Negeri Malaysia & Anor"].
Words in Trade Marks - Words that are descriptive or suggestive may still be protected if they have acquired secondary meaning, but their primary descriptive or common nature limits exclusive rights. The protection often depends on whether the word is used in a manner that signifies a particular source rather than its primary dictionary meaning ["Cadila Healthcare Ltd. v. Gujarat Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd. - Delhi"].
Use of Common Words in Trade Marks - When words are in common use and merely descriptive, they are less likely to be protected unless they have acquired secondary meaning. The distinction between descriptive, suggestive, and arbitrary use is crucial in determining protection ["LIVING MEDIA INDIA LIMITED Vs ZEE MEDIA CORPORATION LIMITED - Delhi"].
Analysis and Conclusion:The protection of common words used arbitrarily hinges on their context and manner of use. Words that are inherently descriptive or in widespread use generally cannot be monopolized unless they have acquired secondary meaning or are used in a distinctive, arbitrary manner. Courts tend to limit exclusive rights over such words to prevent unjustified restrictions on language and trade practices. Arbitrary application, suggestive use, or words with specific contextual significance may still qualify for protection, but this depends on whether their use is lawful, non-misleading, and not merely descriptive ["LIVING MEDIA INDIA LIMITED Vs ZEE MEDIA CORPORATION LIMITED - Delhi"], ["Cadila Healthcare Ltd. v. Gujarat Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd. - Delhi"], ["Jill Ireland bt Lawrence Bill vs Menteri Bagi Kementerian Dalam Negeri Malaysia & Anor"].
In the competitive world of business, brands strive to protect their identity through trademarks. But what happens when a brand relies on everyday language? A frequent question arises: Are common words used arbitrarily to be protected? This query strikes at the heart of trademark law, balancing the need for exclusive rights with the public's right to use language freely.
This article explores the legal landscape surrounding common words in trademarks, drawing from key Indian court judgments. We'll examine when such words may—or may not—gain protection, emphasizing principles like secondary meaning and distinctiveness. Note: This is general information, not legal advice. Consult a qualified attorney for specific cases.
Under trademark law, common words used descriptively or generically are typically not entitled to exclusive protection. Courts are cautious about granting monopoly over language in everyday use, as this could stifle competition and free expression. Protection hinges on whether the word has acquired secondary meaning—where consumers associate it specifically with one source—or if it's a coined term demonstrating originality. BLING TELECOM PVT. LTD. VS MICROMAX INFORMATICS LIMITED - 2010 0 Supreme(Del) 802
As articulated in Bling Telecom Pvt. Ltd. vs. Micromax Informatics Ltd., Where words or phrases in common parlance are sought to be used with exclusivity, the Court should take care to determine which of the parties has ended its journey or traversed appreciably longer way in the use of such words as a trademark or as a title. Normally, proprietary or exclusive use of a common word should not be given jural imprimatur. Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. VS Arg Outlier Media Pvt Ltd - 2020 0 Supreme(Del) 1083
This rule underscores that arbitrary use alone isn't enough; evidence of distinctiveness is required.
Generic terms like Standard have been invalidated for lacking distinctiveness. BLING TELECOM PVT. LTD. VS MICROMAX INFORMATICS LIMITED - 2010 0 Supreme(Del) 802
Indian courts have consistently applied caution. In Globe Super Parts v. Blue Super Flame (AIR 1986 Del. 245), Super and Flame combined formed a coined, distinctive mark worthy of protection. BLING TELECOM PVT. LTD. VS MICROMAX INFORMATICS LIMITED - 2010 0 Supreme(Del) 802
Contrast this with Bhole Baba Milk Food Industries Ltd. Vs. Parul Food Specialities Pvt. Ltd. (CDJ 2011 DHC 1174), where a Division Bench held that registration would give protection for the trade mark as a whole and not to a particular word of common origin. N. Ranga Rao & Sons VS Shree Balaji Associates, Bangalore - 2018 Supreme(Mad) 1553
A practical example is the CYCLE BRAND trademark case. The petitioner, manufacturing incense sticks, claimed their 'CYCLE BRAND' mark was well-known and blocked a rival's 'CYCLE GRASS BROOM' in Class 21. The court dismissed this, ruling:
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a trademark must be proven to be well-known to be entitled to protection, and defensive registration does not apply to generic or common words.
No monopoly over Cycle—a common word—was granted, as the mark wasn't established as well-known. Defensive registration under Section 47 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act 1958 didn't extend to such terms. N. Ranga Rao & Sons VS Shree Balaji Associates, Bangalore - 2018 Supreme(Mad) 1553
This reinforces: Common words don't gain automatic exclusivity via registration alone.
Protection isn't impossible. Key exceptions include:
Without these, even arbitrary use fails. Flaked Oatmeal required proof it wasn't common parlance stock. BLING TELECOM PVT. LTD. VS MICROMAX INFORMATICS LIMITED - 2010 0 Supreme(Del) 802
Trademark principles align with avoiding arbitrary power grants, akin to constitutional scrutiny under Article 14, where regulations conferring unreasonable authority are invalid. Ketan Manohar Kochikar & others VS State of Maharashtra & others - 1993 Supreme(Bom) 462Kochikar Ketan Manohar and others VS State of Maharashtra and others - 1993 Supreme(Bom) 463 Though not directly trademark-related, this highlights judicial wariness of monopolies over ordinary terms.
To safeguard marks using common words:
Courts urge caution: From the dictum laid down in the above cited decisions, it is clear that the common words are not entitled to be protected under Trade Marks Act. N. Ranga Rao & Sons VS Shree Balaji Associates, Bangalore - 2018 Supreme(Mad) 1553
| Scenario | Likely Protection? | Rationale ||----------|-------------------|-----------|| Purely descriptive (e.g., Best) | No | Lacks distinctiveness BLING TELECOM PVT. LTD. VS MICROMAX INFORMATICS LIMITED - 2010 0 Supreme(Del) 802 || Arbitrary but no secondary meaning | Unlikely | Needs source association Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. VS Arg Outlier Media Pvt Ltd - 2020 0 Supreme(Del) 1083 || With secondary meaning | Yes | Proven consumer link || Coined/combined | Yes | Inherently distinctive Hyundai Corporation VS Rajmal Ganna - 2007 Supreme(Del) 2812 |
Common words used arbitrarily are generally not protected as trademarks unless they've acquired secondary meaning, distinctiveness, or originality. Courts prioritize fair competition, preventing language monopolies. Cases like Bling TelecomBennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. VS Arg Outlier Media Pvt Ltd - 2020 0 Supreme(Del) 1083, Globe Super PartsBLING TELECOM PVT. LTD. VS MICROMAX INFORMATICS LIMITED - 2010 0 Supreme(Del) 802, and CYCLE BRANDN. Ranga Rao & Sons VS Shree Balaji Associates, Bangalore - 2018 Supreme(Mad) 1553 illustrate this balance.
For businesses, focus on building strong, unique brands. While arbitrary use offers a starting point, true protection demands proof of marketplace recognition. Always seek professional advice to navigate these nuances effectively.
References:- BLING TELECOM PVT. LTD. VS MICROMAX INFORMATICS LIMITED - 2010 0 Supreme(Del) 802: General principles on word marks and coined terms.- Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. VS Arg Outlier Media Pvt Ltd - 2020 0 Supreme(Del) 1083: Caution on exclusive rights over common words.- N. Ranga Rao & Sons VS Shree Balaji Associates, Bangalore - 2018 Supreme(Mad) 1553: Protection for whole marks, not common words; CYCLE BRAND case.- Hyundai Corporation VS Rajmal Ganna - 2007 Supreme(Del) 2812: Invented words' distinctiveness.
#TrademarkLaw, #IPProtection, #CommonWordsTM
A common or generic term according to Section 9 of the Trade Marks Act means ‘commonly used word in local language, which describes qualities of goods or services and words customary in trade practices’. ... Therefore, the Subject Mark is not generic or common to the trade and is entitled to be protected under the Trade MarksAct. ... In the present case, ‘DUNIYADARI’ is a suggestive Hindi word, which is applied arbitrarily to a distinct service. ... In view of the above submissions, it....
Plaintiffs contend that weapons used for any lawful purpose including self-defense are protected, while Delaware argues that only weapons that are commonly used for self-defense are protected. Delaware’s argument proves stronger. ... no longer brings along his or her own weapon to militia duty, does not prevent us from recognizing the significance of the words used in the 18th century to create the Second Amendment. ... ... 11 presumptively ....
The plain and clear language in DPM’s Note in my view simply means that the 12 words can be used unconditionally while the 4 words cannot be used but the 4 words can be used subject to the condition stated immediately below the 4 words. ... [81]Paragraph 2 of the DPM’s Note stated that 4 words “Allah”, “Kaabah”, “Baitullah” and “Solat” were not permitted to be used and appearing immediately below the 4 words were ....
Passing - off gives no monopoly rights to words or marks of any sort, and this is all the more important when the term is in common use outside its capacity as the plaintiff's trade mark. ... Blue Super Flame MANU / DE / 0606/1985 : AIR 1986 Del. 245, in which two words super and flame which are dictionary words were joined together were declared as coined words and protection was granted. ... II. Reddaway v. ... There is all possibility or likelihood, and in fact it is usually the case, that ....
In other words, the relevant question is what are the modern analogues to the weapons people used for individual self-defense in 1791, and perhaps as late as 1868. ... Under Bruen’s history and tradition test, the government parties bear the burden to show that the banned arms are not in common use—or in other words, are not dangerous and unusual—and to identify historical analogues. ... are not “in common use.” ... Volokh suggested that “Arms” with the same level of practical danger- ousness as those i....
In other words, the relevant question is what are the modern analogues to the weapons people used for individual self-defense in 1791, and perhaps as late as 1868. ... Under Bruen’s history and tradition test, the government parties bear the burden to show that the banned arms are not in common use—or in other words, are not dangerous and unusual—and to identify historical analogues. ... are not “in common use.” ... Volokh suggested that “Arms” with the same level of practical danger- ousness as those i....
In other words, the relevant question is what are the modern analogues to the weapons people used for individual self-defense in 1791, and perhaps as late as 1868. ... Under Bruen’s history and tradition test, the government parties bear the burden to show that the banned arms are not in common use—or in other words, are not dangerous and unusual—and to identify historical analogues. ... are not “in common use.” ... Volokh suggested that “Arms” with the same level of practical danger- ousness as those i....
In other words, the relevant question is what are the modern analogues to the weapons people used for individual self-defense in 1791, and perhaps as late as 1868. ... Under Bruen’s history and tradition test, the government parties bear the burden to show that the banned arms are not in common use—or in other words, are not dangerous and unusual—and to identify historical analogues. ... are not “in common use.” ... Volokh suggested that “Arms” with the same level of practical danger- ousness as those i....
In other words, the relevant question is what are the modern analogues to the weapons people used for individual self-defense in 1791, and perhaps as late as 1868. ... Under Bruen’s history and tradition test, the government parties bear the burden to show that the banned arms are not in common use—or in other words, are not dangerous and unusual—and to identify historical analogues. ... are not “in common use.” ... Volokh suggested that “Arms” with the same level of practical danger- ousness as those i....
In other words, the relevant question is what are the modern analogues to the weapons people used for individual self-defense in 1791, and perhaps as late as 1868. ... Under Bruen’s history and tradition test, the government parties bear the burden to show that the banned arms are not in common use—or in other words, are not dangerous and unusual—and to identify historical analogues. ... are not “in common use.” ... Volokh suggested that “Arms” with the same level of practical danger- ousness as those i....
In Reddaway v. Banham,1896 13 RPC 218 "Camel Hair" was concerned with a trademark in relation to belts made out of Camel hairs. There is undoubtedly some body of authority supporting protection for word marks, or combination of common words. Globe Super Parts v. Blue Super Flame, (1986) AIR Delhi 245 , was a case where the two common words "Super" and "Flame" joined together were declared as coined words and protection was granted. Normally, proprietary or exclusive use of a common word should not be given jural imprimatur.
Similarly, in CDJ 2011 DHC 1174 (Bhole Baba Milk Food Industries Ltd Vs. Parul Food Specialities Pvt. Ltd.), a Division Bench of Delhi High Court has held that the registration would give protection for the trade mark as a whole and not to a particular word of common origin. From the dictum laid down in the above cited decisions, it is clear that the common words are not entitled to be protected under Trade Marks Act.
These words are invented in relation to a particular good. Such words are inherently distinctive and Therefore have to be protected in any case. These words are designed or contrived through imagination for the first time wherein ability as well as flight or effort of imagination is displayed.
In other words, whether they are arbitrary or confer power upon authorities which can be used arbitrarily or unreasonable. In the light thereof we shall first consider each of the regulations separately to decide whether they are ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution.
In other words, whether they are arbitrary or confer power upon authorities which can be used arbitrarily or unreasonable. In the light thereof we shall first consider each of the regulations separately to decide whether they are ultra vires Art. 14 of the Constitution.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
