Tuesday, April 5, 2011

ADVERTISEMENT LAWS OF INDIA- ITS TIME FOR A UNIFORM LEGISLATION


“Advertising is the foot on the accelerator, the hand on the throttle, the spur on the flank that keeps our economy surging forward”
Robert W. Sarnoff

            We live in the era of globalization where new products are being marketed within a splash of time. So in this competitive environment, every representation of a product or service is unique and is all about what ‘others are not’. These practices indeed raise questions about truthfulness and fairness of representation of products and services. If a person is about to start a business, even it’s a product or service or magazine or newspaper, the first thing he look into it is how he can market it. The basic idea behind advertising is that it is just a presentation, which may be oral or written, to induce consumption to make people buy things which they actually do not want. When it comes to India, advertising has a profound impact on how people understand life, the world and themselves, especially with regard to their values, choices and behavior.
            It is a naked truth that advertising is a business strategy which is in fact a powerful tool for enhancing, maintaining and developing brand equity. Therefore, it is crucial enough for companies to protect the content of an advertisement and to ensure that it is in line with the applicable laws. Even now many won’t realize the fact that which are the applicable laws governing advertising in India. At this point of time, it is pertinent to note that as far as India is concerned there is no as such law is there for regulating advertisement in any media. All one has to look into is a series of legislations and regulations relating to advertisements. But the fact is a common man should show pretty good amount of patience by going through all these rules and regulations as these will not as such constitute a complete structure on what one has to abide on the matter of advertisements.

ADVERTISING LAWS OF INDIA
As mentioned earlier the Government of India has not set up a regulatory body in India to regulate advertisements. But as in due course depending on the nature of the grievances, the power to regulate advertisements may be exercised by a vast variety of authorities, including the courts, Central and State Governments, tribunals or the police authorities. In addition to that numerous legislations also deal with advertisement provisions in part not in toto unfortunately. The rules, regulations and legislations include the following:-
1.      Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI)
2.      Constitution of India
3.      Consumer Protection Act, 1986
4.      Information Technology Act, 2000
5.      Indian Penal Code, 1860
6.      The Young Persons (Harmful Publications) Act, 1956
7.      Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986 
8.      The Cigarettes and other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003
9.      The Cigarettes (Regulation of Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 1975
10.  The Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1955
11.  The Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940
12.  The Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950
13.  Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) (Stock-brokers and Sub-brokers) Rules, 1992 - Code of Conduct for Stock-brokers
14.  Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 1995
15.  Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) (Mutual Funds Regulation), 1996: SEBI Guidelines for Advertisements by Mutual Funds
16.  Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) (Disclosure and Investor Protection Guidelines), 2000
17.  The Prenatal Diagnostic Techniques (Regulation and Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1994
18.  The Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994
19.  The Representation of the People (Amendment) Act, 1996
20.  The Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998
21.  The Infant Milk Substitutes, Feeding Bottles and Infant Foods (Regulation of Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 1992
22.  The Competition Act, 2002
23.  The Contract Act, 1872
24.  The Civil Defense Act, 1968
To scrutinize certain principles and fairness in the sphere of advertising, Advertising Standards Council of India was established in India in 1985. ASCI deal with complaints received from consumers and industry against such advertisements which are false, misleading, indecent, illegal, leading to unsafe practices or unfair to competition and are in contravention to the advertising code[1]. Even though there is no as such provision for regulating advertisement policy in the Constitution of India, which should be adopted by press or media, the Supreme Court has given guidelines for the same through a series of decisions[2].
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provides better protection of the interests of consumers and to make provision for the establishment of consumer councils and other authorities for the settlement of consum­ers' disputes and for matters connected to it, including protection against unfair trade practices.[3]
             India is one of the very few countries in the world besides Singapore to have legislated Cyber laws.[4] The IT Act specifically empowers that anyone who publishes in the electronic form, any material which is lascivious or which  tends to degrade persons who are likely to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it, shall be punishable with imprisonment and fine[5]. Even there is a provision in the IT Act, which applies to any offence by which any person shall be punished irrespective of his/her nationality if the act constituting the offence involves a computer, computer system or computer network located in India[6].

As per the provisions of Indian Penal Code, 1860 certain advertisements are considered as criminal offences. It is dealt under different provisions of the Code[7]. The Young Persons (Harmful Publications) Act, 1956 prevents the dissemination of certain publications harmful to young persons. To be more précised harmful publication indicates such publications which would tend to corrupt a young person whether by inciting or encouraging him to commit offences. The Act also proclaims that whoever advertises or makes known by any means that any harmful publication can be procured from or through any person, then he shall be punished with imprisonment or with fine, or with both[8].
Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986 prohibits indecent representation of women through advertisements[9] or in publications, writings, paintings, figures or in any other manner and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The Cigarettes and other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003 and the Cigarettes (Regulation of Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 1975, states that no person shall advertise for the distribution, sale or supply of cigarettes, and also shall not take part in the publication of such advertisement, unless the specified warning is included in such advertisement[10]. The Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954 (DMRA) controls the advertisement[11] of such drugs which is said to provide magical remedies and to deal with other matters relating to it.
             As per the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (DCA), no person shall himself or by any other person on his behalf offer for sale[12] any drug or cosmetic which is not of a standard quality, or is misbranded, adulterated or spurious. The Act gives similar restrictions to advertisements for traditional drugs such as Ayurvedic, Siddha and Unani. The Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950 is enacted to prevent the improper use of certain emblems[13] and names, for professional and commercial purposes[14].

            In the exercise of the powers conferred by section 30 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) Act[15], 1992, the Board makes the regulations on the code of conduct for Stock-brokers to be known as SEBI Stock-brokers and Sub-brokers Rules in 1992. The provisions of the Rules specified that a stock-broker or sub-broker is prohibited from advertising his business publicly unless permitted by the stock exchange, including in their internet sites, by its subsidiaries, group companies etc. The Prenatal Diagnostic Techniques (Regulation and Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1994, contains provision[16] which prohibits advertisements relating to predetermination of sex. The Act provides for the prohibition of advertisements of any kind for any body or person pertaining to facilities for pre-natal diagnosis of sex available at any centre or place.

The Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994 provides for the regulation of removal, storage and transplantation of human organs for therapeutic purposes and for the prevention of commercial dealings in human organs and for matters relating to it[17] and provisions are there for the punishment for commercial dealings in human organs.[18] While detailing the provisions of the Representation of the People (Amendment) Act, 1951 (RPA)[19], it is observed that during the period of forty-eight hours before the conclusion of the poll for any elections in that polling area, a person shall not display to the public any election matter by means of cinematograph, television or other similar apparatus[20]. The statute even provides penalty for anyone including the advertisers who contravene the above provision with imprisonment or fine or with both.

Now when we analyze the Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998, it is seen that a State Government has the discretionary powers to organize, conduct or promote a lottery, including advertising thereof subject to some conditions[21] specified in the Statute. It is also provided that the State Government may prohibit within itself the sale of tickets of a lottery organized, conducted or promoted by every other state[22]; if any contravention on the above the Central Government may, by order published in the Official Gazette, prohibit a lottery organized, conducted or promoted thereof[23]. The penalty[24] clause of the Act is such that if any person acts as an agent or promoter or trader in any lottery organized, conducted or promoted in contravention of the provisions of the Act or sells, distributes or purchases the ticket of such lottery, he shall be punishable with imprisonment or with fine or with both.
In online advertising scenario, the law related to gambling is applicable to online gambling. The online lottery is the most popular form of internet gambling in India. Most companies who markets/distributes/conducts the state government-sponsored lotteries through the internet are restricted from selling their services in the states that banned lotteries. So it is advised that the companies (as a safeguard) seek an undertaking from their consumers relating to their residence under which the advertisers who publishes the same should also make a note of it.
The Infant Milk Substitutes, Feeding Bottles and Infant Foods (Regulation of Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 1992[25] as Amended in 2003 regulates the production, supply and distribution of infant milk substitutes, feeding bottles and infant foods with a view for protecting and promoting breastfeeding and for the matters relating to it including advertisement[26] of the same[27].  The Competition Act, 2002 provides prohibition of certain agreements in respect of production, supply, distribution, storage, acquisition or control of goods or provision of services, which causes or is likely to cause an appreciable adverse effect on competition within India[28].
The provisions of Trademarks Act, 1999 clearly emphasize that the following are considered as trademark infringement if it is advertised in such a way as to[29]:-
a)               takes unfair advantage of and is contrary to honest practices in industrial or commercial matters; or
b)               is detrimental to its distinctive character; or
c)               is against the reputation of the trade mark.
Thus if used properly and without any malafide intention, then comparative advertisement can prove beneficial otherwise that may mislead consumers resulting into irreparable loss as well as legal battles[30].
As per the Contract Act, 1872, the advertisements for gambling, lottery and prize games have held to be wagering contracts and thus void and unenforceable[31], are prohibited in India. While reading the provisions of the Act along with the ASCI guidelines it is understood that even the incorporation of a visual representation of such gaming room or table could be construed as indirect advertisement.[32]

The Civil Defence Act, 1968 gives power to the Central Government to make rules for securing civil defence[33] for prohibiting the printing and publication of any book or other document containing matters prejudicial to civil defence[34]. Rules could also be made for demanding security from any press used for the purpose of printing/publishing of any book or other document containing matters prejudicial to civil defence[35].

ITS TIME FOR A UNIFORM LEGISLATION!!!!

It is an undisputed fact that advertisement plays a vital role in building up any business. The aim of advertisement is to attract the sales and enhance the visibility of the products and services of the company among the consumers. Through an advertisement, a company can build an image which it wants to make in the minds of the people. Therefore, nowadays, companies spend a huge amount of their resources on advertising and promotional strategies. Now there is even a new medium for advertisers to explore, the Internet!!!

           Thus it is evident from this blog that there are no specific legislations governing advertising in India, other than ASCI even which is not up to the mark to govern advertising spectrum. The changing context of liberalization and globalization required better regulation and strengthening of the institutional support. Even the IT Act is currently under severe scrutiny, as its scope leaves a lot to be desired. The fast growing internet transactions has unnerved evils, including those relating to online advertising. It is evident that all that is needed a codified uniform legislation for Advertising Laws and its time for India to lead the road ahead!!!!!!





[1]See  http://www.ascionline.org/ for Advertising Code. The ASCI Code is a self-regulatory code which is not legally binding on parties. However, in practice ASCI members include various media, publishers etc. who normally abide by decisions of the Complaint Complaints Council set up by ASCI. The ASCI Code covers all media including the online media. Please also refer to the section on General Requirements. Disobedience of ASCI’s decision does not lead to any civil or criminal consequences. Its enforcement mechanism is through non-publication of the contravening advertising by its media members.
[2] Hamdard Dawakhana v. Union of India AIR 1960 SC 552; Tata Press Ltd. v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd (1995) 5 SCC 139.
[3] As the Monopolistic and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1984 is repealed after the coming into force of Competition Act, 2002 the unfair trade practices provisions of the MRTP Act will be enforced under the Consumer Protection Act.
[4] Guide to Cyber Laws (Information Technology Act, 2000, E-commerce, Data Protection & the Internet, Rodney D. Ryder, 2nd Edn. Reprint 2005, p.399.
[5] Section 67 of the IT Act, 2000
[6] Section 75 of the IT Act, 2000
[7] Section 292 (1) of Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 292(2)(d) of Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 292 (2)(e) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 292- Exceptions, Section 292 A of Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 292 A (e), (d) of Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 293 of IPC, 1860; Section 294 A of IPC, 1860, Section 153 A of IPC, 1860, Section 153 B of IPC, 1860
[8] Section 3 of the Harmful Publications Act, 1956
[9] Section 2(a) of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986 defines advertisement- "Advertisement" includes any notice, circular, label, wrapper or other document and also includes any visible representation made by means of any light, sound, smoke or gas.
[10] Section 5 (1), the Cigarettes and other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003 (CTPA)
[11] Section 2(a) of the Drugs and Magical Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements Act), 1954 defines " advertisement " includes any notice, circular, label, wrapper, or other document, and any announcement made orally or by any means of producing or transmitting light, sound or smoke;
[12] Section 18 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940
[13] Section 2(a) of the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950 defines emblem as any emblem, seal, flag, insignia, coat-of-arms or pictorial representation specified in the Schedule.
[14] Schedule of the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950 enumerates the list of emblems and names which are prohibited from improper use in professional and commercial purposes.
[15] Visit http://www.sebi.gov.in/acts/act15ac.html
[16] Chapter VII Prenatal Diagnostic Techniques (Regulation and Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1994
[17] Preamble of The Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994
[18] Chapter VI, Section 19 of The Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994
[19] Section 126 of The Representation of the People (Amendment) Act, 1951 (RPA)
[20] Section 126 A is inserted in THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (SECOND AMENDMENT)
BILL, 2008 which provides a person shall not conduct any exit poll and publish or publicise by means of the print or electronic media or disseminate in any other manner, whatsoever, the result of any exit poll during such period, as may be notified by the Election Commission in this regard. For the purpose of this section, ‘‘electronic media’’ includes internet, radio and television including Internet Protocol Television, satellite, terrestrial or cable channels, mobile and such other media either owned by the Government or private person or by both;
[21] Section 4 of the Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998, the conditions includes the following:-
a)         Prizes shall not be offered on any pre-announced number or on the basis of a single digit;
b)       The State Government shall print the lottery tickets bearing the imprint and logo of the State in such manner that the authenticity of the lottery ticket is ensured;
c)        The State Government shall sell the tickets either itself or through distributors or selling agents;
d)       The proceeds of the sale of lottery tickets shall be credited into the public account of the State.
e)        The State Government itself shall conduct the draws of all the lotteries;
f)        The prize money unclaimed within such time as may be prescribed by the State Government or not otherwise distributed, shall become the property of that Government;
g)       The place of draw shall be located within the State concerned;
h)       No lottery shall have more than one draw in a week;
i)         The draws of all kinds of lotteries shall be conducted between such periods of the day as may be prescribed by the State Government.
j)         The number of bumper draws of a lottery shall not be more than six in a calendar year;
k)       Such other conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government.
[22] Section 5 of the Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998
[23] Section 6 of the Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998
[24] Section 7(3) of the Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998
[25] The Act is named as The Infant Milk Substitutes, Feeding Bottles and Infant Foods (Regulation of Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 1992 as Amended in 2003 (IMS Act) visit http://www.bpni.org/docments/IMS-act.pdf
[26] Section 2(a) of The Infant Milk Substitutes, Feeding Bottles and Infant Foods (Regulation of Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 1992 as Amended in 2003 (IMS Act): “advertisement” includes any notice, circular, label, wrapper or any other document or visible representation or announcement made by means of any light, sound, smoke or gas or by means of electronic transmission or by audio or visual transmission;
[27] Preamble of The Infant Milk Substitutes, Feeding Bottles and Infant Foods (Regulation of Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 1992.
[28] Chapter II of the Competition Act, 2002
[29] Section 29(8) of Trademarks Act, 1999.
[30] Reckitt Benckiser v Hindustan Lever 2008 (38) PTC 139; Pepsi Co Inc v Hindustan Coca Cola Ltd 2003 (27) PTC 305 (Del)
[31] Section 24 to 30 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
[32] Chapter III, Clause 6(d) and (e) of the ASCI Code.
[33] Chapter II of the Civil Defence Act, 1968
[34] Chapter II, Section 3(1)(w) of the Civil Defence Act, 1968
[35] Ibid, n.122

Sunday, April 3, 2011

TRADE MARK: CROSSBORDER REPUTATION - CONFLICTS

With the passage of time our entire world has become almost like a big city in view of the tremendous advancements made in the field of today's technology. Today's world is a world of computers and internet, which are the basis of our technological achievements. These achievements are reflected in the field of transport such as railways, ships, and airlines also.

 In the current era, if a particular product is launched in a country its goodwill and reputation, which is the sole authority of the seller that he attained by selling his products in the market, is not limited to the four corners of that particular country. The status and benevolence of those goods are of inherent importance and shall reach to every nook and corner of the world through magazines, newspapers, television, telephone, cinemas and Internet. Thus it is a known phenomenon that when a commodity hits the market of a particular country anywhere in the world its trade mark surpasses the physical frontier of a geographical region and gains a trans-border or extraterritorial reputation even though it is not imported to that particular country. This happens because in today's world the information about the goods of an overseas trader and his product trade mark is available in any region where his goods are not being imported and therefore not being used.

This is where the importance of protecting trans-border or spillover of international trademark reputation of foreign companies arise. As the passing over of time and technology it has become imperative to recognize and protect such intellectual property rights among countries around the globe. Cross-border reputation, has its origin under the English law and is put forth in Section 35 of the Indian Trade Mark Act, 1999 by which the courts in India have recognized action by overseas plaintiff on the basis of passing off exclusively upon the reputation or status of his goods or services on the foreign land

Indian courts have protected such trans-border or spill over international trade mark reputation by way of various significant precedents. A Supreme Court judgment in 1996 clearly established that international companies that have an international trademark and enjoy a cross border reputation outside of India, can protect their IPR in India without the need of having an actual presence in India.[1]

In re N.R. Dongre v. Whirlpool Corporation, 1996 PTC (16) 583 (SC) the court considered the doctrine of "cross-border reputation" for the first time in detail. The plaintiff herein had registered their trademark Whirlpool in India in 1977. Nevertheless, the renewal of the mark had not been done after the expiry date. The said mark had a world-wide reputation and the defendant had been using this mark on their washing machines. The plaintiffs sold some of their machines to the US Embassy in India. They have made advertisements in quite a few internationally circulating magazines also which had circulation in India. As a result the plaintiff moved to file a suit against the defendant for passing-off. The Delhi High Court granted injunction which was latter reaffirmed by the Supreme Court. The court in its verdict held as follows:

"… a product and it’s trade name transcends the physical boundaries of a geographical region and acquires a transborder or overseas or extra-territorial reputation not only through import of goods but also by it’s advertisement. The knowledge and awareness of the goods of a foreign trader and it’s trade mark can be available at a place where goods are not being marketed and consequently not being used."

It was further held that "In today’s world it cannot be said a product and the trade mark under which it is sold abroad, does not have a reputation or goodwill in countries where it is not available. The knowledge and awareness of it and its critical evaluation and appraisal travels beyond the confines of the geographical area in which it is old."

"Dissemination of knowledge of a trademark in respect of a product through advertisement in media amounts to use if the trademark whether or not the advertisement is coupled with the actual existence of the product in the market."

The drift towards broader protection of cross-border trade reputation seems likely to continue. It has a broadly based consensus in common law jurisdiction. [2] The main circumstance for this sort of transnational concern is the common law proceedings in passing off. The decisions of Orkin in Ontario and Disney (mall proceedings) [3] in Alberta have established a previously apparent trend to construe the tort of passing off widely enough to afford transnational reputation or business goodwill. The perception and principle on which the passing-off action is based is that a man cannot sell his own goods under the guise that the goods are produced by another man.

It is necessary for a seller to safeguard his right of previous use of a trade mark as the benefit of the name and reputation received by him cannot be taken advantage of by another seller by imitating the mark and getting it registered before he could get the same registered in his favour. It is necessary for a business that is looking to prove sufficient reputation in a market in which it have  not yet started to trade must have cogent direct evidence that its product is known to a considerable number of people in that market.

The Delhi High Court coined the concept of ‘first past the post’ which settled the law in relation to different approaches towards cross-border reputation. With the opportunities in the field of economy and broader terms of globalization the concept has gone through various swings. The principle of cross-border reputation hails well known trade marks, whose legal protection is clearly well-established in the jurisdiction of trademark. In acknowledgement to the most modern notion of trademark protection, the Trade Marks Act, 1999 guarantees protection to the well-known trademarks thereby abiding the requisite of Article 16 of TRIPs, which grants protection of trademarks.

Even though courts in India were very keen in protecting well-known trademarks, constitutional recognition is a stride to the right direction. A symbol is not possible to register if it is fallaciously similar to a well-known mark in India and by using it could take unwarranted benefit of, or be harmful to the unique character or reputation of the previous trademark. In addition, the most significant characteristics with respect to well-known trademarks are:

(i)                 Acquaintance or recognition of the trademark in the significant parts of public
(ii)               Advertisement of trademark
(iii)             Duration, geographical area and extent including registration and use

This standard follows even the trademarks of overseas companies, and so the characteristic of well-known trademark is not just limited to the field of Indian trademarks community, but the effects are reflected world-wide to the globalization and cross-border reputation of the mark. Even though courts have put forth numerous limitations or restrictions for deciding a case on the basis of cross-border reputation there are still several loopholes in the functioning of the concept. The question of cross-border or spill over international reputation has been considered in numerous cases by the courts leading to important judicial precedents.

No one can disagree with the fact that courts dealing with intellectual property in India have recognized the notion of cross-border reputation in the recent period. But the views expressed by different high courts are different at several point of time. The Bombay High Court in Kamal Trading Co., Bombay v. Gillette U.K.Limited Middle Sex, England, 1988 PTC 1, held:

 “…It is necessary to note that the goodwill is not limited to a particular country because in the present days, the trade is spread all over the world and the goods are transported from one country to another very rapidly and on extensive scale. The goodwill acquired by the manufacturer is not necessarily limited to the country where the goods are freely available because the goods though not available are widely advertised in newspapers periodical, magazines and in other medias. The result is that though the goods are not available in the country, the goods and the mark under which they are sold acquires wide reputation. Take for example, the televisions, and Video Cassette recorders manufactured by National, Sony or other well Japanese concerns. These televisions and V.C.R’s are not imported in India and sold in open market because of trade restrictions, but is it possible even to suggest that the word "National" or "Sony" has not acquired reputation in this country? In our judgment, the good will or reputation of goods or marks does not depend on its availability in a particular country. It is possible that the manufacturer may suspend their business activities in a country for short duration but that fact would not destroy the reputation or goodwill acquired by the manufacturer.” [4]

In Apple Computer Inc. Vs. Apple Leasing & Industries,1993 IPLR 63 DEL, while adopting the same notion Delhi High Court held that it is not necessary in the context of the present day circumstances that the free exchange of information and advertising through newspapers, magazines, video television, movies, freedom of travel between various parts of the world, to insist that a particular plaintiff must carry on business in a jurisdiction before improper use of it’s name or mark can be restrained by the court.[5]

In Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba vs. Toshiba Appliances Co.,1994 PTC 53, the Calcutta High Court relied significantly to ‘use of mark’ in relation to goods than cross-border reputation. The observation was that there are no goods at all in physical existence, there could be no use of the mark in relation to those. It is the same, if the goods are in the physical existence somewhere else than in Indian market. For, however big the foreign market of a trader might be, and however famous his trade mark might be all over the world, yet to qualify for use of the mark in relation to the goods within Trade & Merchandise Marks Act of 1958, such use must be made in India and not abroad. [6]

Furthermore, the court held that a mere use of the mark in advertising on other publication media is insufficient as ‘use’ because if it were not so, trafficking in trade marks could be legally indulged in, for a mark could be registered and then kept alive merely by advertisement without ever putting any goods into the market.[7]

Although, the Division Bench of the same court in M/s J.N. Nicholas (Vimto) Limited v. Rose and Thistle,1994 PTC 83, declared that the use of a trade mark does not necessarily imply actual sale of the goods bearing such mark. Use can be in any form. Mere advertisement without having even the physical existence of the goods in the market can be said to be a use of the mark.[8]

In re of Aktiebolaget Volvo v. Volvo Steels Limited , 1998 PTC 18 the Division bench of Bombay High Court again reiterated the principles established with regard to the doctrine of cross-border reputation where the court considered subsequent events like the intention of the party to go into the Indian market as touching the balance of convenience which is a factor that governs the prudence of the courts in granting injunctions in the case involving the subject matter. Nonetheless, with respect to cross-border reputation the division bench relied on the Whirlpool case and held that cross-border reputation is recognized in India and to constitute the same actual sale is not necessary for the plaintiff to ascertain its reputation and goodwill in India.

When considering the case of Milmet Oftho Industries & Ors. Vs. Allergen Inc., (2004) 12 SCC 624, the Supreme Court finally established the law related to cross-border reputation. The appellant was an Indian pharmaceutical company who manufactured "Ocuflox". The same product was manufactured by an overseas company, who was the respondent in the case. Both products were a medical preparation for the eyes. The claim of the respondent was that they have been using the mark from September 1992 and thereafter they marketed the product in different countries around the world and have not yet entered the Indian market. The appellant obtained registration from the Food and Drug Control Administration in August 1993, i.e., almost a year after the respondent. In view of that the respondent filed a suit for injunction against the appellant for passing off and the court held in favor of the respondent stating as follows:  " the mere fact that the respondents have not been using the mark in India would be irrelevant if they were first in the world market”

Another case in which the Supreme Court gave a verdict affirming the doctrine was the Blenders Pride Case. In this particular case the plaintiffs were the manufacturers of Blenders Pride Whisky which having world famous reputation around the world from the year 1973 onwards. The product was available in almost all countries of the world and it was known in India. The plaintiff had a desire to exploit the Indian market as well. They applied for approval for the manufacture of whisky by the name Blenders Pride and upon getting the approval they started manufacturing it by the name Blenders Pride in India since 1995. Nevertheless, they had manufactured it for a couple of months in the year 1993 to 1994 and stopped the same sometime in 2005. The production was stopped almost for 11 months. The Court held the following:

  “the Plaintiffs having come out with ‘Blenders Pride’ whisky first in the international market were first past the post; even though the Defendants were the first to do so in India. The fact that the product of the plaintiffs was not manufactured or sold in India from 1973(when it first entered the market) till 1995 when it became freely available in India, is of no consequence.”[9]

Today international trade is rapidly growing in a pace with the developing technology and innovations in every field. These changes make it imperative that intellectual property rights need to be appropriately recognized and protected as a global community. Indian judiciary in its various decisions have increasingly recognized cross-border reputation of trademarks thereby repeatedly safeguarding spillover reputation even if the mark is not actually used in India. Most of the decisions reflect the concern in relation to the misappropriation of foreign marks. However, it is pertinent for overseas traders who hold such marks to act proactively for implementing their goodwill internationally established through their products by registration of those trademarks and instituting timely action and suitable proceedings for enforcing the same.






Submitted by
Vinitha Prasannan
Sources:
[1] http://www.mondaq.com/article.asp?articleid=87398
[2] http://books.google.co.in/books?id=951eZzbuxjEC&pg=PA106&lpg=PA106&dq=trademark+spillover+reputation&source=bl&ots=sti2WMZvxA&sig=wsHw9m-1IsSYgIlwTBTHoR1FUd8&hl=en&ei=1tn-SoffKMm9kAWSr5zzCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CBIQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=trademark%20spillover%20reputation&f=false
[3] Orkin Exterminating Co.Inc. V. Pestco of Canada and Walt Disney Productions v. Triple Five Corp., 1985 supra note 14.
[4] http://unitedipr.com/subpage.php?id=19&subid=37
[5] Ibid
[6] Ibid
[7] Ibid
[8] Ibid
[9]http://74.125.153.132/search?q=cache:5ltT0WR701MJ:www.patentoffice.nic.in/whats_new/Trademark_Potential_IP_Tools.pdf+blender%27s+pride+case&cd=8&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=in&client=firefox-a
http://ns2.ipo.gov.uk/o05809.pdf


Friday, April 1, 2011

IMMOVABLE PROPERTY AND INVESTMENT RIGHTS BY NON-RESIDENTS IN INDIA

Foreign Exchange Management Act or FEMA

The act which deals with acquisition and transfer of immovable properties in India, FEMA, has been introduced by RBI in the year 1999 to substitute the earlier Foreign Exchange Regulation Act or FERA which was enforced in the year 1973. FEMA came into being in the year 2000. The key idea behind the enactment of the Act was to encourage the country's foreign payment and trade and also to bring together all the regulations and laws related to foreign exchange. Government has taken tremendous measures for effective implementation of the Act in India.

The applicability of the Act is not only limited to all parts of India but also includes all agencies, branches and offices outside India which is owned or controlled by any person who is an Indian resident. In India the acquisition and transfer of immovable property by an NRI or non-resident Indian, PIO or Person of Indian origin Resident outside India comes under FEMA.  The act authorizes an NRI or PIO for the following activities:

  1. To hold and transfer an immovable property other than an agricultural property situated in India. Agricultural property includes any plantation or farmhouse.

  1. To acquire and transfer immovable property in India other than Agricultural or plantation property.

  1. It allows a person resident outside India with an RBI permission to establish a branch, office or other place of business in India (excluding a liaison Office) to acquire an immovable property in India which is necessary for or incidental to carrying on the permitted activity.

  1. The act administer the repatriation of the sale proceeds by an NRI or a PIO, of an immovable Property (other than agricultural land or plantation property or a farm house) in India subject to the fulfillment of certain specific conditions.

  1. It precludes some activities such as the acquisition or transfer of immovable property in India by citizens of certain neighboring countries, whether such individual is a resident of India or not.

  1. It precludes the transfer of an immovable property in India by a person resident outside India without prior permission of RBI.  (other than an NRI or a PIO i.e., a foreigner.)[1]
In this context it is pertinent to explain the prerequisites of an NRI or a Non-resident Indian. An individual who fall in the category of a "resident" should posses any of the following prerequisites:
  1. Such persons should have been in India for a period of at least 182 days in the preceding year. Their presence shall not be for a continuous 182 days.
  2. Such persons should have been present in India in the previous 4 years and should have stayed here for not less than 60 days during the last year in consideration.  
All other persons who do not posses any of these prerequisites are called 'Non ­Residents'.
A Person of Indian Origin is another important category of people with regard to transfer of immovable property under this Act. Those persons shall fulfill any of the following conditions described below:
  1. The person who is not a citizen of Pakistan or Bangladesh or Sri Lanka or Afghanistan or China or Iran or Nepal or Bhutan.
  2. The person has held an Indian passport or;
  3. A person whose either parents or any of his grand-parents was a citizen of India under the Constitution of India or the Citizenship Act, 1955 (57 of 1955); or
  4. The person who is a spouse of an Indian citizen or a person referred to in sub-clause (a) or (b).
Reserve Bank of India vide Notification No.FERA.152/93-RB dated 26th May 1993 grants general permission for acquisition and transfer of properties for foreign citizens of Indian origin.

RBI grants general permission for acquisition of property for carrying on permitted activities

Companies other than banking companies that are not incorporated under any of the law in force in India is granted general permission by RBI to acquire and hold any immovable property that is essential for any activity permitted by Reserve Bank under section 28 or section 29 of FERA 1973.

RBI has granted general permission to acquire or hold any immovable property by those companies, other than banking companies that are not incorporated under any of the law in India which is essential for any activity permitted by Reserve Bank under Section 28 or Section 29 of FERA 1973. Those companies are required to submit to Reserve Bank a declaration in form IPI 5 not later than 90 days from the date of acquisition of the immovable property. Foreign companies permitted under section 29 of the Act to open liaison offices or to post representatives in India are exempted from the above general permission.  

General Permission for Acquisition/Disposal of Residential/Commercial Properties by Foreign Citizens of Indian origin

Foreign citizens of Indian origin, whether residing in India or not, are granted general permission to purchase and dispose  immovable properties situated in India other than agricultural land, farm house or plantation property respect to the following conditions:

Acquisition or Disposal of Residential Properties in India other than Gift

  1. Property acquired by purchase or inheritance for an individual's bona fide residential use that is transferred by way of sale. There is no restriction on the number of residential properties acquired or disposed of under the general permission. Exception to this is mentioned below.

  1. Sale consideration for the purchase of property shall be from a foreign exchange remitted from outside India through ordinary banking channels or funds that are drawn from the purchaser's NRE (non resident external) FCNR (Foreign Currency Non Resident) account with a bank in India.

  1. The acquired property is not let out except under a circumstance where there is an immediate requirement for the buyer's own residential use.

  1. By submitting a declaration to the Central office of Reserve Bank on the acquisition within a period of 90 days from such acquisition in form IPI 7 along with a certified copy of the document as an evidence of transaction and bank certificate evidencing the consideration.

  1. If the property is held by a non-resident foreign citizen of Indian origin then the income acquired by way of sale proceeds or rent of the property or income accrued out of investment of such proceeds is credited to his NRO account or to the Resident Rupee Account with a bank in India.


  1. The Reserve Bank would consider applications for the repatriation of sale proceeds up to the consideration amount remitted in foreign exchange for the purchase of the property with respect to residential properties acquired on or after 26th May 1993, i.e., only up to two such properties provided the sale takes place after three years from the final purchase date of the deed or from the date of payment of final installment of consideration amount, whichever is later. Such applications should be made to Reserve Bank within 90 days of the sale of the property in form IPI 8.

Acquisition or Disposal of Residential property by Gift

1.      Properties can be acquired, transferred or disposed of by way of gift from or to a relative who may be an Indian citizen or a person of Indian origin whether resident in India or not. i.e., up to two houses.

2.      No gift tax is payable by a person in India with the abolition of gift tax.

Acquisition or Disposal by way of inheritance or sale of commercial property in India

  1. Properties, other than agricultural land/ farm house/plantation land, in India can be acquired by way of inheritance or purchase. Properties are transferred and disposed of by way of sale. There is no restriction placed on the number of properties acquired or disposed of under general permission subject to some specific exceptions.

  1. Sale considerations can be done through foreign exchange remitted from outside India through usual banking channels or money withdrawn from the purchaser's NRE/FCNR account maintained with a bank in India.

  1. It is required to submit a declaration to Reserve Bank within 90 days in form IPI 7 about the acquisition of the commercial property or final final payment of sale consideration together with a certified copy of documents evidencing transaction and consideration paid.

  1. With respect to commercial properties purchased on or after 26th May 1993, the Reserve Bank would consider applications for repatriation of original investment up to the consideration remitted in foreign exchange for the properties acquisition provided the sale of the property is after a period of three years from the date of final purchase deed or from the date of remittance of final installment of consideration amount, whichever is later. The balance sale proceeds of the properties should be credited to the seller's NRO account or Resident Rupee Account with regard to foreign citizens maintained with a bank in India. Those applications for repatriation should be made within 90 days of the sale of the properties to the Reserve Bank in form IPI 8.

General permission for letting out of Residential property in India by Non-resident Indians and persons of Indian origin

Permission is granted by the Reserve Bank to let out any immovable property in India held by a non-resident Indian or a person of Indian origin with an exception that the rental income or any investment of such income shall not be repatriable outside India at any time and such income should be credited to the owner's ordinary Non-Resident Rupee account within a bank in India.



Submitted by:

Vinitha Prasannan

Sources:

http://www.delhilaw.firm.in/articlenews/nriinvestment_property.htm
http://www.rbi.org.in/SCRIPTS/ECMUserChapterDetail.aspx?Id=354&CatID=13