The Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) has allowed a rectification application filed by ITC Ltd against certain trademark registrations on the word 'ayur', obtained by Delhi-based Three-N-Products.
Underlining reasons given by the board earlier in some petitions filed on the same trademark, the board said public interest "would be harmed if this mark remained in the register, thereby preventing other persons in our country access to a common Indian word denoting an ancient system of medicine".
IPAB chairman Justice Prabha Sridevan and vice-chairman S Usha, said: "We had held there that 'ayur' is a generic word and in public interest, it cannot be monopolised by anyone. We had held in that case that in public interest, the respondent cannot be allowed to monopolise the words 'ayu' and 'ayur'."
ITC had earlier applied for registration of the marks Ayurvibha, Ayuruvar and Ayurbhog and had obtained the registration. In May 2004, Three-N-Products started a litigation against this in the Calcutta High Court for restraining ITC from using the said marks or any mark with the word 'ayur' as a prefix or a suffix. An ex parte injunction was granted against ITC in June 2004.
Finding out from the plaint filed by Three-N-Product that it had obtained the trademark for ayur in class 29, 30, 31 and 32, related to food stuffs, ITC filed the petition with the IPAB for rectification.
Three-N-Products had also earlier attacked marks like Mayur, Ayur Research, Yogi Ayur Labs, Ayur Deva and even Guruvayurappan (as Lord Sri Krishna is called in a famous temple in Guruvayur, Kerala), observes the board.
IPAB has given several reasons why it removed the marks from the registry in an earlier litigation related to some other class registrations, and nothing has been placed before the IPAB to reconsider the view, said the order.
"'Ayu' and 'ayur' are words belonging to the public domain and no one can appropriate it exclusively and ayur means life and the words are associated in the public consciousness with Ayurveda and healthy life and no one can appropriate it to oneself," added the order.
"We do not find any reason to differ from our earlier view, which was in respect of goods in class 3 and class 5 in which the respondent was undoubtedly carrying on his trade. His case is weaker with regard to goods in other classes. Therefore, for the reasons which persuaded to us to remove the mark in all other cases and on the facts of this case, too, we allow the rectification applications," said the order.
