legal concept the assignment covers the intellectual property

13
1 Table of Contains 1. Executive Summery 5 2. Introduction & Background 6 3. Point of view of Managing director and Marketing manager 7 4. Intellectual Property Act No 36 of 2003 7 5. Brand name infringement 9 6. Some argument support to managing director 9 7. Intellectual Property Act No 36 of 2003 Section 103(1) 12 8. Generic signs or indications 13 9. Some argument support to managing director 14 10. Recommendations & Conclusions 15 11. Annexure 16

Upload: royal-ceramics-lanka-plc

Post on 22-Jan-2018

309 views

Category:

Law


2 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Legal concept the assignment covers the intellectual property

1

Table of Contains

1. Executive Summery 5

2. Introduction & Background 6

3. Point of view of Managing director and Marketing manager 7

4. Intellectual Property Act No 36 of 2003 7

5. Brand name infringement 9

6. Some argument support to managing director 9

7. Intellectual Property Act No 36 of 2003 Section 103(1) 12

8. Generic signs or indications 13

9. Some argument support to managing director 14

10. Recommendations & Conclusions 15

11. Annexure 16

Page 2: Legal concept the assignment covers the intellectual property

2

1. Executive Summary

This assignment is based on Legal concept the assignment covers the Intellectual Property Act

36 of 2003, and other concept relates to the unfair competition and Admissibility of a mark.

We have selected the Spirits of Srilanka to apply the theory which would make the assignment

easier to understand and more users friendly.

To explain the two major topics we have divided the assignment in to two tasks. Which the

task one we talk about Trademark infringement, Unfair competition and Intellectual Property Act

36 of 2003 section no 160. And we have used some example to explain the scenario.

And In the task two we have talk about Intellectual Property Act No 36 of 2003 Section

103(1), Generic signs or indications and some example that is relevant to the scenario. Finally

we concluded our assignment by giving the recommendation.

Page 3: Legal concept the assignment covers the intellectual property

3

2. Introduction & Background

“SPIRITS OF SRILANKA” is a brewer and seller of locally manufactured beer in srilanka and

leader in field. Its general brand name is SOS. It sells a brand of beer under the name “Extra

Beer” with a distinctive mark and a gets up. This mark is registered under the INTELLECTUAL

PROPERTY ACT 36 OF 2003. Within the few years it reached its target Arrack Consumers

shifted to this “Extra Special beer” as it contained more than 8% of Alcohol as against standard

beers that had less than 4 % alcohol content.

“POWER OF SRILANKA” a recently established brewing company also. Introduced a bear

under the same “Extra Special Beer” with their own general Brand “POS”. In the registered

Trade mark their general brand “POS” Extra Special Beer, and a macho man showing thumbs up

sign was found in the label.

So SOS is contemplating filling a case against POS for the following:

- POS is infringing the SOS’s right as the registered trade mark owner.

- POS is Guilty of Unfair Competition Within the section 160 of IPA

In this scenario there is a conflict between Marketing Manager and Managing Director.

Page 4: Legal concept the assignment covers the intellectual property

4

1. Point of view of Managing director and Marketing manager

This assignment focus on two side of argument about this scenario that is

The managing director’s point of view: POS is infringing the SOS’S Rights as the

registered trade mark owner. And according to the Act of Competition Contrary to

Competition contrary to honest trade practices sprits cannot allow this to go on and

observe that their market penetrated by a new comer. SOS was the creator of this brand

and they need to have the exclusive rights to use it.

The marketing manager’s point of view :In accordance with the Intellectual Property

Act No 36 of 2003 sec no 103(1), it could be a tough legal battle as ‘Extra Special Beer”

could be classified as description of the goods and it be argued that no person can claims

exclusive rights to the use of such words.

2. Intellectual Property Act No 36 of 2003

Intellectual Property Act No 36 of 2003 is an n act to provide for the law relating to

intellectual property and for an efficient procedure for the registration, control and administration

there of: to amend customs Ordinance ( Chapter 235) and high court of the provinces (special)

provisions act no, 10 of 1996, and to provide act no : 10 of 1996. This is describes about

Intellectual property is an intangible property. Intangible property has a unique features, created

by human intellect, covers the ideas, inventions, literary creations, unique names, models, logos,

industrial processes, computer software programs, it has a monetary value, it is owned, sold or

licensed to another person to use.

In the act of Intellectual Property Act No: 36 2003, Section no 160 describes the unfair

competition. This term is particularly applied to the practice of endeavoring to substitute one’s

own goods or products in the market for those of another for the purpose of deceiving the public.

This deception is commonly accomplished by imitating or counterfeiting the name title, size,

color scheme, patterns, shape or distinctive peculiarities of the article, or by imitating the shape

color, label, wrapper or general appearance of the package in such as way as to mislead the

general public or deceive an unwary purchaser. Section no 160 Describes more subject matter

about the unfair competition following points are describes in the section no 160:

Any act or practice carried out or engaged in the course of industrial or commercial

activities that are information contrary to honest practices shall constitute an act of unfair.

Page 5: Legal concept the assignment covers the intellectual property

5

The provisions of this section shall apply independently of, and in addition to, other

provisions of the Act protecting inventions, industrial designs, marks, trade names,

literary, scientific and artistic works and other intellectual property.

Any act or practice carried out or engaged in, in the course of industrial or commercial

activities, that causes, or is likely to cause, confusion with respect to another's enterprise

or its activities, in particular, the products or services offered by such enterprise, shall

constitute an act of unfair competition.

Confusion may, in particular, be caused with respect to-

(a) a mark, whether registered or not;

(b) a trade name ;

(c) a business identifier other than a mark or trade name ;

(d) the appearance of a product;

(e) the presentation of products or services ;

(f) Celebrity or a well known fictional character.

Any act or practice carried out or engaged in, in the course of industrial or commercial

activities, those damages, or is likely to damage, the goodwill or reputation of another's

enterprise shall constitute an act of unfair competition, whether or not such act or practice

actually causes confusion.

Any act or practice carried out or engaged in, in the course of any industrial or

commercial activity, that misleads, or is likely to mislead, the public with respect to an

enterprise or its activities, in particular, the products or services offered by such

enterprise, shall constitute an act of unfair competition.

Reference: http://www.customs.gov.lk

3. . Brand name infringement

Some specific elements measured in the Trademark Infringement are:

1. Strength of the mark

2. Proximity of the goods

3. Similarity of the marks

4. Evidence of actual confusion

5. Marketing channels used

6. Type of goods and the degree of care likely to be exercised by the purchaser

7. Defendant's intent in selecting the mark

8. Likelihood of expansion of the product lines

Page 6: Legal concept the assignment covers the intellectual property

6

4. Some argument support to Managing director

According to this scenario SOS is contemplating filling a case against POS for the following:

POS is infringing the SOS’S Rights as the registered trade mark owner

POS is guilty of unfair competition within the section 160 of IPA

According to Trademark Infringing POS used the name that is same as POS. brand name Extra

Special Beer is developed by SOS and its symbol is a tough macho man holding a glass of beer

is found in the label. Same as SOS label POS Created like a macho man showing thumbs up sign

was found in the label.

Brand name of SOS was developed with a specific target customer in mind and has spent million

in promoting. They just can’t give the benefits of their brand name to another new comer who

had not spent a cent in developing the brand. POS is also using a tough macho character that

spirits used in the logo although the man looks different. But this insignificant different because

there is an only different between the SOS creates Macho man holding a glass of beer and POS

creates like a macho man showing thumbs up sign. So it is misleading and the common man will

buy POS product assuming it is spirits Product.

When considering unfair competition we must consider some more facts such as

1. Similarity of the Brand marks - In this scenario similarity of the mark is high. POS’s

Brand name of ‘Extra special beer” and Macho man character are similar to SOS. So SOS

can sue the case against POS because of unfair competition and they already registered

their General brand name of SOS and macho Character. So they only have rights to use

this brand name.

2. Proximity of the goods – There is a higher proximity between the SOS Product and POS

product. Both products are beer. So there is higher probability to confuse about the

product by the customers.

V.I. Examples for unfair competition

Trademark infringement - such as using the Coca-Cola® trademark on a soda

container manufactured by a competing beverage maker.

You tube Vs Cn Boo (figure-1) – Same symbol used in both products

Page 7: Legal concept the assignment covers the intellectual property

7

Samsung Galaxy Vs Apple iPad : (Figure 2) shows the similarity between the

Samsung Galaxy Tab and the Apple iPad; the cause of a patent infringement lawsuit

by Apple. Apple claims that Samsung infringed on their “utility” patents or how the

device is used. The judge actually held up the 2 devices for the Samsung lawyers to

examine simultaneously and when asked which is which the lawyers had a hard time

doing so. Anytime a product or service does the same thing a patented product or

service does, in shows the similarity between the Samsung Galaxy Tab and the Apple

iPad; the cause of a patent infringement lawsuit by Apple. Apple claims that Samsung

infringed on their “utility” patents or how the device is used. The judge actually held

up the 2 devices for the Samsung lawyers to examine simultaneously and when asked

which is which the lawyers had a hard time doing so. Anytime a product or service

does the same thing a patented product or service does, infringement occurs.

Obviously whoever holds the patent wins and the copycat loses.

Lake Mary High School Vs DODGE : (Figure 3) shows an example of trademark

infringement of the Dodge Ram logo. A Florida high school used the logo and had

been putting it on everything from t-shirts to their gym floor. Although the logo didn’t

incorporate the outer “shield” component of the Chrysler owned logo, the automaker

approached the school board and the logo has now been dropped completely. Just

because the logo was modified a bit doesn’t mean it can be used without consent.

STARPREYA COFEE vs. STARBUCKS COFEE ( Figure 3 )

So above factors also explains that SOS can sue the case against POS. In accordance with

Intellectual property act also (described in under the heading of Intellectual property act) tells,

Intellectual property is an intangible property. Intangible property has a unique features, created

by human intellect, covers the ideas, inventions, literary creations, unique names, models, logos.

So in this scenario also this Brand name and logo on label also created by SOS. They created it

through their ideas, research and development and market analysis, they invented this “EXTRA

SPECIAL BEER” and the macho man character.

In according to the act of Intellectual Property Act No: 36 2003, Section no 160, unfair

competition applied to the practice of endeavoring to substitute one’s own goods or products in

the market for those of another for the purpose of deceiving the public. In this scenario POS is

also trying to misleading the customer through the name of “Extra special Beer” and macho man

character.

Page 8: Legal concept the assignment covers the intellectual property

8

Act of the POS carried out likely to cause, confusion with respects to SOS products, so in the

IPA 2003 Act also that the confusion may in particular, be caused with respect to

(a) a mark, whether registered or not;

(b) a trade name ;

(c) a business identifier other than a mark or trade name ;

(d) the appearance of a product;

(e) the presentation of products or services ;

(f) Celebrity or a well known fictional character.

So activity of POS leads to the bad goodwill reputation because of any activity of POS cause to

the customer well. So SOS can sue against to POS.

5. Intellectual Property Act No 36 of 2003 Section 103(1)

A mark shall not be registered

(a) It consists of shapes or forms imposed by the inherent nature of the goods or services or

by their industrial function.

(b) Which consists exclusively of a sign or indication which may serve, in the course of

trade, to designate the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, value, place of origin or

time of production, or of supply, of the goods or services concerned ;

(c) It consists exclusively of a sign or indication which has become in the current language

of in the bona fide and established practices of trade in Sri Lanka, a customary

designation or the goods or services concerned.

(d) It is incapable of distinguishing the goods or services of one enterprise from those of

another enterprise.

(e) It consists of any scandalous design or is contrary to morality or public order or which, in

the opinion of the Director General or of any court to which the matter may be referred to

as the case may be, is likely to offend the religious or racial susceptibilities or any

community.

(f) It is likely to mislead trade circles or the public as to the nature the source, geographical

indication the manufacturing process, the characteristics, or the suitability for then

purposes, of the goods of services concerned.

(g) which does not represent in a special or particular manner the name of an individual or

enterprise ,

Page 9: Legal concept the assignment covers the intellectual property

9

(h) It is, according to its ordinal signification, a geographical name or surname.

(i) which reproduces or imitates armorial bearings, flags or other emblems, initials, names

or abbreviated names of any State or any intergovernmental international organization or

any organization created by international convention, unless authorized by the Competent

Authority of that State or international organization ;

(j) Which reproduces or imitates official signs or hallmarks of a State, unless authorized by

the Competent Authority of that State

(Reference: http://www.customs.gov.lk)

6. Generic signs or indications

Trademark distinctiveness is an important concept in the law governing trademark and service

marks. A trademark may be eligible for registration, if it performs the essential trademark

function, and has distinctive character. Registrability can be understood as a continuum, with

"inherently distinctive" marks at one end, "generic" and "descriptive" marks with no distinctive

character at the other end, and "suggestive" and "arbitrary" marks lying between these two

points. "Descriptive" marks must acquire distinctiveness through secondary meaning -

consumers have come to recognize the mark as a source indicator - to be protectable. "Generic"

terms are used to refer to the product or service it and cannot be used as trademarks.

A descriptive mark is a term with a dictionary meaning which is used in connection with

products or services directly related to that meaning.

An example might be Salty used in connection with saltine crackers or anchovies. Such terms

are not registrable unless it can be shown that distinctive character has been established in the

term through extensive use in the marketplace.

Word does not become non descriptive by being misspelt. E.g. Electrix for electrical apparatus

(http://en.wikipedia.org)

Page 10: Legal concept the assignment covers the intellectual property

10

7. Some argument support to Marketing Manager

The view point of the marketing manager is that it could be a tough legal bottle as ‘Extra

special beer” could be classified as description of the goods and it is argued that no person can

claim exclusive rights to the use of such words. He specially refer to see 103 (1) B of IPA 2003.

In accordance with IPA 2003 103 (1) act A mark should always have a distinctive character. If

not it cannot serve as a mode of distinguishing the goods or services of different enterprises.

E.g. Invented word will create a distinctive character.

Example : Distilleries Co. of SL Ltd VS Randenigala Distilleries Lanka Pvt Ltd. S.C. Appeal

No-38/99 - 2005/2006

According to marketing manager point of view “Extra Special Beer” is a type of high alcohol

Beers. Beers which are content high alcohol percentage as above mentioned may consider as

“Extra Special Beers”. Therefore it cannot consider as a newly developed product or a private

name which is belong to a particular person or a company.

.

So in this case SOS uses the common terms that mean not an invented word. So referring to

the section no 103 of IPA Act SOS cannot sue against to the POS.

Also the get up of “POS” is not similar to “SOS”, even though they have used their general

brand name as “POS”, Extra Special Beer, and tough macho man showing thumbs up sign in

their register mark. The characters which have been used for their trade mark are totally different

from the get up of “SOS”. Therefore “POS” total get up is appeared in a different way when

comparing with “SOS”.

Due to above factor common customers can identify “SOS” Brand clearly and that will not

mislead by “POS”. And customers who are buying continuous from “SOS” product they will not

change their consumer pattern to “POS”. So SOS cannot file the case against to POS.

Page 11: Legal concept the assignment covers the intellectual property

11

8. Recommendation & Conclusion

Arguments of both Managing Director and Marketing Manager have their own opinion but

referring to legal point and reality, we can consider both arguments are correct. But the argument

of marketing manager will be more reliable and logical when compare to managing directors. If

the company file the case, if the case favorable to against party, it is a big loss to company. And

competitor can enjoys more advantages from this case. This is consume more time and expense.

So we can advice to this company to not to go to a legal action.

Page 12: Legal concept the assignment covers the intellectual property

12

9. Annexure

Figure 1 Figure 2

Figure 3 Figure 4

Page 13: Legal concept the assignment covers the intellectual property

13