M/s. Hindusthan Development Corporation Ltd. v. The Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks (1954-5) 59 C.W.N. 320 : AIR 1955 Cal. 519

M/s. Hindustan Development Corporation Ltd. v. The Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks (1954-5)||Case Summary 

Introduction

Hindustan Development Corporation is a case of the year 1955 that was basically concerned about the grounds for the registration and non-registration of a trademark. This case was decided under the provisions of Section 6 of the Trade Marks Act of 1940. Similar provisions regarding S.6 of the above-mentioned Act are also mentioned in S.9 of the currently followed Trade Marks Act, 1999.

Facts 

The appellant was involved in the business of manufacturing hydrogenated groundnut oil for which they wanted to register the word "Rasoi" as its trademark. The present issues in this case were raised over the refusal to register the trademark by the Respondent authority. 

Issues

1. Whether the word "Rasoi" has a direct reference to the character or quality of the goods within the meaning of S.6(1)(d) of the Trade Marks Act,1940 (old Act).
2. If the word "Rasoi" does not have such direct reference then whether it has still to be proved as being distinctive to be eligible to get registered.
3. Whether the word "Rasoi" can not be registered on the ground that it is a common word of the language.

Contentions of the appellant 

1. By referring to the Tabloid case, the appellant contended that the word "character" or "quality" in S.6(1)(d) means a mere composition of the goods.
2. The word "Rasoi" does not directly refer to the goods' character or quality.

Ratio Decidendi

1. By referring to the Murray's New English Dictionary the Court observed that the word "character" or "quality" of the goods means their nature or peculiarity or quality and not merely their compositions. Also the Tabloid case never intended to limit the word "character" or "quality" as the compositions of the goods.
2. The word "Rasoi" means cooking, kitchen, cooked food has direct reference to the character or quality of the goods i.e., groundnut oil which is admittedly used for cooking purposes, hence it is ineligible to be registered.
3. By referring to the case In the Matter of an Application by Fanfold Ltd., this court held that the mark's distinctiveness must be proved for registering under any clauses of S.6(1). Therefore, even if the mark "Rasoi" does not have such direct reference as provided by S.6(1)(d), it has still to be proved as being distinctive to be eligible for registration.
4. The commonality of a mark doesn't place an absolute bar from registration. A common word can also be registered as a trademark in exceptional circumstances i.e. where the word lost its primary meaning and has now been recognized as a particular good.

Decisions

1. Dismissed appeal
2. The word "Rasoi" has a direct reference to the character of the goods that are used ordinarily for cooking purposes, hence it is barred by S.6(1)(d).

Summary

The apex court dismissed the appeal of the appellant company which applied for the registration of the word "Rasoi" as a trademark for its product (hydrogenated groundnut oil) before the respondent authority rejected the registration. The Court observed that S.6(1)(d) bars registration of the word which has a direct reference to the character or quality of the goods. Also, the Court cleared the meaning of "character" or "quality" which is related to the nature or peculiarity or quality of the goods and not merely their material compositions. The court also held that the distinctiveness of the word has to be proved even if it doesn't have any direct reference to the character or quality of the goods. 

Also Read - 

1. The Imperial Tobacco Co. of India Ltd.
2. Geep Flashlight Industries v. The Registrar of Trade Marks, AIR 1972