LOWENBRAU vs. LOWENBRAU- A NON-USE CONTROVERSY

Gajendra Khichi, an intern at Khurana and Khurana talks about the case of non-use of the trademark. Through this post, he gives special emphasis on the case of M/s. Lowenbrau Buttenheim vs. M/s. Lowenbrau Munchen, which created quite a stir regarding the non-use of the trademark.

The object of the trademark law is to protect the rights of the bona fide users of the mark and not to create trademark holders who do not intend to use the mark but register it only for the purpose of preventing others from using the mark. The Trade Marks Act, 1999 prevents such registration and even if the mark is registered without intention to use it, the same can be removed from the register on application.

This post analyses the concept of removal of the mark for non-use under as provided under Section 47 on the basis of the recent decision of IPAB in M/s. Lowenbrau Buttenheim vs. M/s. Lowenbrau Munchen, is a case of non-use of a trademark where an ex parte order was passed against the respondent by the IPAB

The respondent in this case was the registered owner of the following trademarks:
Sr. No. Type Application No. Class Filling Date Registration Date
1. Label 280783 32 12/06/1972 15/03/1999
2. Label 196881 32 08/07/1960 15/11/1962
3. Word 642375 32 18/10/1994 23/03/2005
4. Label 258875 32 19/08/1969 20/08/1988

The respondents had not used the trademark. Even though they had obtained registration as early as in the 1960s, they had decided to manufacture and sell beer only in September 2007.

On the other hand, the applicant is the registered proprietor of the trademark Lowenbrau Buttenheim in Germany registered on 05/08/1988. A company under the name Lowenbrau Buttenheim India Pvt. Ltd. was incorporated by the applicant in India as early as 14.04.1999. The goods of the applicant under trademark Lowenbrau Buttenheim were available in India since 1999 through its licensee. Applicant argued that the respondents have concealed the fact about the coexistence of M/s. Lowenbrau Buttenheim, Germany. It was also argued that the applicant is serving its goods in Germany, the United States, and Korea through its establishments under the trademark Lowenbrau Buttenheim since 1880. So the applicant is the first user of the mark.

The court observed that respondents have although obtained registrations as early as 1962, 1988, 1999 & 2005 respectively but have not used it in trade. The respondents are only preventing others from using which is not a good practice.

Analysis

Section 47 of the Act provides that when the mark has not been used, it can be removed from the register. The said Section prescribes two conditions as observed in, Shri Kanishk Gupta vs. Liberty Footwear Company it was held that under Section 47 two things has to be proved by the applicant viz. non-use and absence of bona fide intention to use the trademark when the application for registration was made. A distinction has been made between clause (a) and clause (b) by saying that under clause (a) applicant has to prove both absences of bona fide intention on the part of the applicant for registration as well as non-use up to a date three months before the date of the application for revocation. While clause (b) is applicable where there was no bona fide use of the trademark for five years from the date of actual registration of the mark up to a date three months from the date of application for revocation. The fact that the registered proprietor has a bona fide intention to use the trademark at the date of application of registration becomes immaterial and the trademark is liable to be removed.

The IPAB in this case rightly held that where the proprietor of a mark gets registration and there is no use by him, in this situation the mark is liable to be removed from the register. The trademark law protects the mark against use by others only where use is bona fide but where the proprietor merely sits on the mark no protection is available as the later has not been considered as a good practice under law.

ORA/212 TO 215/2008/TM/DEL, Decided on 6th May 2013

MIPR 2008 (3) 0227 – ORA/104/2006/TM/DEL

Follow us on Twitter: @KnKIPLaw

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

seventeen − 13 =

Archives

  • 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
  • October 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