Referential Names & Intellectual Property Infringement

With progression of time we are witnessing the rise of Intellectual Property (IP) issues in India across industries. Every new case raises a few new questions and simultaneously rests some old ones. While traditionally IP disputes arose mainly in the pharma  and software industries, recent trends have shown a noticeable surge in other industries including the Appliances and Consumer Electronics (ACE). One such case in the Bombay High Court, belonging to a particular segment of the ACE industry, highlights relevant issues for the entire industry.

This suit for IP infringement was instituted by the multinational electronics company Seiko Epson, against Jet Cartridge (India) Pvt. Ltd. Epson, a company whose very name stands for “Son of Electronic Printer” quite imaginably has a strong IP portfolio around its printers, basis which it alleged that Jet Cartridge, was infringing on their IP rights on two counts- one, that of the registered designs of the nozzles that are used in cartridges, and the other of using their trademark ‘EPSON’ without authorization when they label their products as “Compatible with EPSON”.

Assessing the first aspect involves a simple test of comparing the registered designs with that used by the defendants.   The Indian Industrial Design registrations with numbers 235236 & 235237, titled “Packaging Container ” along with 235238 & 235239, titled “Container Cap with Stopper”, entitles EPSON under the Design Act,  2000, to exclusive use of the designs covered. The order by the court dated 23 November 2016 reflects that the counsel appearing for Jet Cartridge, Dr. Saraf, made a statement- as regards the design infringement, the defendants will change the nozzle of the cartridge from the plaintiffs’ proprietary design and they will do so with immediate effect. The nozzles of all existing products and inventories which have not yet gone into market will also be changed.

Coming to the more interesting part of the case, the argument that the trademark law allows EPSON to an outright exclusive use of its name, even if it were used merely as a reference, was a contentious one. Ordinarily,  in a trademark infringement matter, the court sees whether the defendant used a mark identical or similar to the plaintiff’s mark in a manner that may confuse/ deceive a consumer into believing that the defendant’s goods/ services are actually that of the plaintiff’s. Typical examples include using minor spelling or visual variations, strikingly similar packaging or direct  counterfeiting. In this case, however, the question really was whether the inscription “Compatible with EPSON” on a cartridge packaging would qualify as infringement . If so why, and if otherwise why not?

On one side, the argument stands that a clear indication is provided that the cartridge does not belong to EPSON but is merely compatible for use with EPSON printers and hence not misleading. While on the other hand, would it be unrealistic to assume that a casual customer might be led to believe that the company selling the products are authorized by EPSON to do so, and is indirectly buying it from EPSON. Honorable Justice Gautam Patel, had the following to say on this aspect:

Ms. Oberoi for  the plaintiffs  would have it that the defendants are prohibited  from  using the name EPSON  at all, even in a purely  descriptive sense to demonstrate  compatibility, because this is the plaintiffs’ trademark , even if the defendants do not use that word  as a trade mark  but only as a descriptor  to identify compatibility. Prima facia, this does not seem to be a supportable or tenable proposition  in law. A laptop repair service may, for instance, say that it can repair  laptops of  various  makes and brands and names these, but not use these as trademarks. Persons make various kinds of accessories (screen  protectors, peripherals,  etc.)  and  these  are  often  denominated  as  being compatible  with  a certain name  product:  mobile  phones, for instance, of specified makes and brands. This use is not illicit. The plaintiffs  enjoy  a  monopoly  in the  mark  and  are  entitled  to prevent unauthorized  use of  the mark. The defendants are clear that they do not use the name as a mark but only to identify that their cartridges are compatible with printers manufactured by the plaintiffs. There cannot be the kind of monopoly that Ms. Oberoi suggests. At her instance, I  will leave contentions open in  this regard till the replies and rejoinders are filed.

While the court was open to further deliberation and debates over its initial view on the subject matter, as the trend goes, the dispute was settled between the parties. The consent terms dated 20 December 2016 that were tendered to the court had Jet Cartridge reaffirming its undertaking to change the nozzle designs altogether, whereas EPSON agreed to their use of “Compatible with EPSON” on their packaging. Thus, an important perspective regarding the legal principles and consequences on the use of referential naming was set.

Author: Abhishek Pandurangi, Partner, Attorney of Law at Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorneys. In case of any queries please contact/write back to us at abhishekp@khuranaandkhurana.com.

Leave a Reply

Archives

  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • September 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010