Holy books and gods cannot be registered as trade marks for selling goods, the Supreme Court has stated in a case in which an incense firm gave its perfumes the name 'Ramayan'. The Patna firm, Om Perfumery, applied for registration of trade mark by name Ramayan with a device of crown for incense sticks. Another firm selling the same products under the name 'Badshahramayan' objected to Om Perfumery claiming trade mark for Ramayan. It argued that a religious book cannot be monopolised as a trade mark. The registrar rejected the objection as there was a crown over Ramayan and the word could be distinguished in relation to the goods. On appeal, the Intellectual Property Appellate Board overruled the registrar and held that holy books cannot be registered. The Supreme Court upheld this view in the case, Lal Babu vs Amritpal Singh. The judgment said, "there are many holy and religious books like Quran, Bible, Guru Granth Sahib, Ramayan, etc. The answer to the question whether any person can claim the name of a holy book as a trade mark for his goods or services is clearly, No." Moreover, Section 9(2) of the Trade Marks Act prohibits such use. Further, the judgment continued, "photographs of Lord Ram, Sita and Lakshman are also shown in the label which is a clear indication that the firm is taking advantage of gods and goddesses which is otherwise not permitted. However, if any other word is added as suffix or prefix to the name or the design of the words changed, it may be considered for registration. But in the case of Om Perfumery it was not done."
Stockbrokers get fee continuity
The Supreme Court last week dismissed the appeal of the Securities and Exchange Board of India and ruled that stock brokers who had converted their individual/partnership membership into a corporate entity prior to April 1, 1997, are entitled to the fee continuity benefit. In this case, Sebi vs Alliance Finstock Ltd, stock brokers who were previously members of the Bombay Stock Exchange in their individual capacities or as partnership firms opted to form corporate entities. Sebi denied fee continuity, but the Securities Appellate Tribunal overruled it and granted the benefit retrospectively. The court upheld that view.
Meter inspectors saved from disgrace
The Supreme Court has expunged the remarks of the Allahabad High Court against the inspectors of UP Power Corporation Ltd and the electricity appellate authority in a case in which a consumer was overcharged for consumption through a faulty meter. A new meter was installed and the charges went up steeply. The consumer moved the high court alleging illegality in the measurement. The high court allowed her petition and castigated the inspectors and the appellate authority. The court further asked the authorities to record the adverse remarks in the confidential reports of the officials and even the appellate body. NTPC appealed to the Supreme Court, which stated that though there were some procedural irregularities in the reading of the meter, "it is difficult to digest any allegation of motivated conduct on the part of the officers."
RTI covers building plans of private firms
The Bombay High Court has ruled that information regarding development plans of a building company can be disclosed by the municipal authorities on an application under the Right to Information Act. In this case, Ferani Hotels Ltd and Nusli Wadia, the two parties had an agreement to develop certain lands in Mumbai. The relationship turned sour and the agreement was terminated, leading to a suit in the high court. Meanwhile, Wadia moved an application before the public information officer of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai seeking details of the architectural plans and reports submitted by the company to the municipal commissioner and his approval. When the information was denied, Wadia moved the state information commissioner, who ordered the release of the information. The company appealed to the high court, arguing that the information sought did not serve any social or public interest, it was only for private interest. Moreover, it would harm its business interest and would violate its intellectual property rights. The information was also trade secrets, the company argued. The commissioner rejected these contentions and maintained that the development plans were of public interest as they would affect citizens and buyers of flats and commercial units. The high court upheld this view and stated that the term 'information' included information relating to any private body. Development plans have to be submitted to the municipal authorities for approval. The documents are part of public records," the judgment said.
Bank guarantee must be respected
The Delhi High Court last week stated that invocation of a bank guarantee can be stopped only if it can be shown that there was fraud, irretrievable injury/injustice or special equities. In this case, Zillion Infra Projects Ltd vs Fab-Tech Works & Constructions, Zillon had issued a letter of intent to the opposite party for construction of an NTPC electricity project near Nagpur. Fab-Tech had given a bank guarantee. Differences cropped up between them and the disputes were referred to arbitration. Zillion invoked the guarantee, which was opposed by the other party in the high court. The single judge restrained Zillion from encashing the guarantee. On appeal, the division bench allowed it and emphasised that the guarantee should be respected irrespective of the disputes pending between the parties.
Higher standards for pollution tests
The Rajasthan High court has dismissed the appeals of water and pollution test laboratories and upheld the notification of the state pollution control board announcing that the board would accept analysis reports only from the laboratories recognised by the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests. Omega Test House and other laboratories argued that they have been accredited by the National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration Laboratories and there was no adverse report against them. The board contended that it wanted higher standards and it was not bound to accept the reports of these laboratories. The high court stated that the dispute raised technical issues and the National Green Tribunal was the right authority to decide those.
