Upholding constitutional rights

Dear Editor,

The article Tata and the turtles published in the March 2011 issue of your journal is as balanced as the judgment of Justice Bhat in the dispute between Tata and Greenpeace.

The judgment has opened a debate about the extent to which intellectual property rights can be stretched by right owners to claim protection under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

A reading of the relevant provisions of sections 28 and 29 of the act reveal that the registration of a trademark is linked to goods or services. If a person uses a registered mark for goods or services which differ from those for which the mark has been registered, they would not be infringing the registered mark except in the case covered by sub-section (4) of section 29. The Supreme Court in Ramdev Foods Products (Pvt.) Ltd v Arvind Bhai Ram Bhai Patel observed that the purpose of a trademark is to establish a connection between goods and their source, which would suggest the quality of goods. Section 30 of the act specifically states that certain acts would not constitute infringement. The law explicitly states that marks used in connection with honest practice in industrial or commercial matters, which do not take unfair advantage or cause detriment to the distinctive character or repute of a trademark, will not be considered an infringement.