The Supreme Court has held that a person cannot claim the names of a holy or religious book as a trademark for his goods or services.
“The name of a religious book, cannot become the subject matter of monopoly for an individual... There are many holy and religious books like Quran, Bible, Guru Granth Sahib, Ramayan, etc., to name a few. The answer to the question as to whether any person can claim the name of a holy or religious book as a trademark for his goods or services marketed by him is clearly ‘no’,” the Supreme Court laid down the law.
The recent judgment delivered by a Bench of Justices Ranjan Gogoi and R.K. Agrawal came on a dispute regarding Patna-based trader, Lal Babu Priyadarshi, who applied for a trade mark by name 'Ramayan' for his incense sticks and perfumeries.
Rejecting the trader's choice of name, Justice Agrawal, who wrote the verdict, observed that “the word 'Ramayan' represents the title of a book written by Maharishi Valmiki and is considered to be a religious book of the Hindus in our country. Thus, using exclusive name of the book 'Ramayan' for getting it registered as a trademark for any commodity could not be permissible”.
The court refers to how the trader also had photographs of Lord Rama, Sita and Lakshman shown in the label, taking it as a “clear indication that he is taking advantage of the Gods and Goddesses which is otherwise not permitted”.
The judgment referred to the Eighth Report on the Trade Marks Bill, 1993 submitted by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on April 21, 1994 in this regard.
“We find that the Committee expressed its opinion that any symbol relating to Gods, Goddesses, places of worship should not ordinarily be registered as a trademark. However, the Committee did not want to disturb the existing trademarks by prohibiting their registration as it will result in a chaos in the market. At the same time, the Committee trusted that Government will initiate appropriate action if someone complaints that a particular trade mark is hurting his religious 11 susceptibilities,” the apex court observed.
