INTRODUCTION
In order to be
registrable, the trademark should be capable of being represented graphically
and be capable of distinguishing the goods and services of one person from that
of another. Sections 9 and 11 of the Trademarks Act (“the Act”), provide that
in order to attain registration, the mark should be distinctive in nature. Such
distinctiveness could, however, be acquired by such trademark over the period
of time by gaining recognition in public. In the course of gaining recognition
and popularity amongst its customers, registered trademarks also fall prey to
common usage and journey into the public domain. The consequence of such
popularity is losing out on distinctiveness. The trademark owner thus, loses
all his rights over the trademark.
If consumers
understand the trademark to be the name of the product itself, as opposed to
identifying its exclusive source, that trademark loses its distinctiveness. The
common or the popular usage of the term leads to association of the particular
product with that particular trademark or brand that its source. The trademark
becomes the "common descriptive name" of a certain product, and the
trademark owner will no longer have an exclusive right of its use.
A trademark’s
popularity digs the grave for that trademark itself. A generic mark means a
term which is the common descriptive name of class of goods or services. The Merriam-Webster
dictionary defines 'Escalator' as "a moving set of stairs that carries people
up or down from one level of a building to another." The term Escalator
was however formerly a trademark of the Otis Elevator company before it became
a victim to its own success and died a generic death. Similarly, Dalda, Xerox and
Aspirin, which was originally a brand name has now been diluted to bear
reference to the product itself.
Causes of
Genericide
A trademark
suffers due to genericide simply because of its continuous usage by the public. The
more popular the product, the chances of it dying a generic death increase.
Some of the popular trademarked names that have now become generic because of
the wrongful and continuous use by the public are Cellophane, Zipper, Kleenex,
Thermos, Popsicle, Dry Ice etc.
A trademark can
become generic due to several reasons. First, the product was of first of its
kind and thus enjoyed monopolistic status in the market. Therefore, the public
associated the trademark with the good rather than the source of the good.
Another reason for trademark genericide can also be the lack of a suitable
substitute term for the good. One such example would be of ‘Escalator.
'Escalator' is a catchy and fanciful term which is easier to use in
conversations than moving staircase which was manufactured by the Otis Elevator
Company. Another reason for trademark genericide can be the paradoxical
behaviour of companies regarding their own trademark. Companies want their
products to become well known but they definitely do not want the public to use
the trademark to denote the product rather than the source of the product.
Unskilful advertising and inadequate control measures are the reasons why a trademark
becomes a generic term.
The Legal
Outlook and Possible Solutions
Famous companies
like Google, Rayban, and Xerox are now battling the war of genericide of their
marks and are fighting towards saving them. In 2012, the Intellectual Property
Appellate Board (“IPAB”), while deciding B.V Ilango vs. Rank Xerox
Ltd., held that if a company or brand had taken extensive measures to
rectify and police the incorrect usage of their trademarked term including
sending cease and desist notices, it will not be considered as a generic term.
The statement of the IPAB – "perhaps the respondent has acted just in time
to save its mark losing its life...." shows that Xerox is
indeed in a precarious position and must act pro-actively so as to prevent its
trademark from dying a generic death.
Google, one of
the world’s most prestigious and well- known trademarks, launched Uniform
Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UNDRP) proceedings after a third party
filed several domain names which combined the word Google with another word.
The Plaintiff, David Elliot, purchased over 700 domain names with the word
“Google” in them. After Google successfully won a domain name dispute, Elliot
filed to cancel Google’s trademarks. In supporting his claim, Elliot contended
that the GOOGLE mark had become generic because the public frequently uses the
wording "Google" as a verb. The court, ruled in favour of Google
however, clarifying that using a mark as a verb does not necessarily render the
mark generic as long as the mark continues to perform its statutory
function—that of distinguishing a product or service from those of others and
to indicate the product's or service's source. The court pointed out that, even
if a mark is used as a verb exclusively in the indiscriminate sense, the mark
has still not become generic if a majority of the consuming public continues to
use the mark to distinguish the product or service of choice from those offered
by competitors. The district court dismissed the claims and the Ninth Circuit
affirmed the dismissal. In order to prevent such further indiscriminate usage, Google
has published "rules for proper usage" of all its trademarks, partly
to help stem the use of "Google" as a verb.
In order to
avoid the genericide, the owners of the trademark should:
In order to prevent
their trademarks from becoming generic, the companies or the brand owners
should remain on their toes and take swift actions against it. For e.g. Adobe
has a whole page dedicated to trademark guidelines. The guidelines very clearly
state that the public should not use the term 'Photoshop' as a noun or a verb. It
is however an uphill task to control how the public uses a trademark owned by
the other person or company. However, if a trademark is hugely popular in its
field, it may not be feasible to monitor its public usage. The enforcement of
correct usage of the term may prove very difficult.
Areness strictly adheres to the rules laid down by the Bar Council of India. By accessing this website, www.arenesslaw.com, you, accept, acknowledge and confirm that you are seeking information relating to Areness and/or its resources of your own free will, accord and that there has been no act of solicitation, advertisement, personal communication or inducement of any kind whatsoever by Areness or/and its members. The data available at this website is for informational purposes only which has been curated by Areness for the sole purpose of information and awareness to the interested visitors/ public in general. The information and material on this website are for the sake of general awareness and represents information in the manner of illustration and personal opinions and in should no manner be construed as legal advice. Careful attention has been given to ensure that the information provided herein is accurate and up-to-date. However, Areness and its member firms shall not be responsible for any shall not be liable for any loss or damage caused due to any inaccuracy in or exclusion of any information, or its interpretation thereof. We use cookies on its website to improve its usability. This helps us in providing a better user experience and also in improving the website further. By continuing to use the website without changing your privacy settings, you agree to use its cookies. By using this website, you have given your unequivocal consent and undertaking that you accept the aforesaid terms and the privacy policy as well as terms of use of this website. The contents of this website are the intellectual property and proprietary information of Areness and any reproduction of data herein shall be deemed to be violation of the applicable laws.
Leave a Comment