'Pranic Healing' is not a trademark, says Delhi HC

Don't want to miss the best from Business Standard?

'Pranic Healing' is not a trademark as it is an ancient technique of Yoga, a Delhi High Court has held while disallowing the plea of a Philippines-based institute seeking action against a woman from conducting courses on it without proper guidelines.
"...It can be seen that the expression Pranic Healing on the date of the application for the registration was prima facie non-distinctive and was the name of the art or technique of doing exercise which was a facet of Yoga.
"The expression was not capable of distinguishing the services of the plaintiff from others due to its wide spread use in the field dating back from centuries," Justice Manmohan has said.

The court delivered the judgment on a petition filed by the Philippines based Inner Studies Institute established by Late Samson Lim Choachuy known as Master Choa Kok Sui on April 27, 1987 and has trusts in various cities in India as well.
The institute had moved high court seeking injunction against one Charlotte Anderson and others from practicing pranic healing and conducting courses without proper guidelines and issuing certificates or selling substandard teaching material.
Anderson, on the other hand, had submitted a letter of authorization, signed by the Master in his lifetime, entitles her to practice 'Pranic Healing' and even otherwise, she said she was an expert in the field by her own right and that, as a joint author, she has the same intellectual property rights over the work as the Master.

She also contended that there is no copyright subsisting in favour of the institute or the legal heirs of the Master as all information relating to Pranic Healing is available in the public domain.

"Prima facie, it appears to the court that it becomes generic name and cannot be protected being known as name of concept of Yoga at present. Even the Master was not the proprietor of the said expression 'Pranic Healing', hence at this stage, the institute is not entitled to claim the monopoly of the said words," the Court observed.
It, however, directed Anderson and others not to reproduce and sell contents of the books and the trade literature, brochures, CDs, manuals in the manner used by the Master in his books, literature and other material or use them during imparting of courses.

It allowed her to exercise her rights over nine books co-authored by her.