Introduction
The Supreme Court’s decision in Lal Babu Priyadarshi v. Amritpal Singh is an important judgement in Indian trademark jurisprudence dealing with the registrability of religious names and titles of holy books as trademarks. The case addressed a question that goes beyond conventional trademark disputes and touches upon public interest, religious sensitivities, distinctiveness of marks, and the extent to which exclusive proprietary rights can be claimed over expressions that form part of the cultural and religious heritage of society.
The judgement is significant for businesses, brand owners, intellectual property practitioners, trademark registries, and consumers because it clarifies the limits of trademark protection under the Trade Marks Act 1999. The Court examined whether the title of a revered Hindu religious text, namely “Ramayan”, could be monopolised by a single trader for commercial goods. In doing so, the Court provided important guidance on the concepts of distinctiveness, public juris, religious susceptibility, and absolute grounds for refusal of registration.
The ruling remains a leading authority on the principle that names of holy and religious books ordinarily cannot become the exclusive proprietary domain of an individual trader through trademark registration.
Case Overview
| Particular | Details |
|---|---|
| Case Title | Lal Babu Priyadarshi Vs Amritpal Singh |
| Date of Judgment/Order | 27.10.2015 |
| Case Number | Civil Appeal No. 2138 of 2006 |
| Neutral Citation | (2015) 12 SCALE 76 |
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Honourable Judges | Hon’ble Mr Ranjan Gogoi and Hon’ble Mr Justice R.K. Agrawal |
| Subject | Trademark Registration of Religious Names and Holy Books |
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellant, Lal Babu Priyadarshi, carrying on business under the name Om Perfumery, filed an application before the Registrar of Trade Marks seeking registration of the trademark “RAMAYAN” along with a device of a crown in Class 3 in respect of incense sticks, agarbattis, dhoop and perfumery products. The appellant claimed use of the mark from the year 1981.
The respondent, Amritpal Singh, who was previously a dealer of the appellant’s products and was conducting business under the name Badshah Industries, opposed the registration. The opposition was filed under Sections 9, 11(a), 11(b), 11(e), 12(1), 12(3) and 18(1) of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. The respondent contended that the mark “RAMAYAN” was the name of a revered Hindu religious book and therefore could not become the subject matter of monopoly by any individual trader.
The Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks rejected the opposition and held that the mark consisting of the word “RAMAYAN” together with a crown device was capable of distinguishing the appellant’s goods and was not prohibited from registration. Consequently, the opposition was dismissed.
Aggrieved by the decision, the respondent preferred an appeal before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). The IPAB reversed the order of the assistant registrar and held that the mark was not registrable. The Board observed that the word “RAMAYAN” lacked distinctiveness and had become common to the trade.
The appellant thereafter approached the Supreme Court challenging the order of the IPAB.
Dispute Before the Court
The principal question before the Supreme Court was whether the registration of the word “RAMAYAN”, being the title of a holy religious book of Hindus, was prohibited under Section 9 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
The appellant argued that mere use of the name of a religious book could not automatically result in refusal of registration. It was contended that the mark had acquired distinctiveness through long and extensive use and that the word “RAMAYAN” was capable of distinguishing the appellant’s products from those of other traders. The appellant further relied upon prior use and asserted that no evidence existed to show that the use of the mark hurt religious sentiments.
The respondent contended that the title of a sacred religious book could not be appropriated as a private monopoly. It was further argued that numerous traders across India were already using the word “RAMAYAN” in relation to similar products, demonstrating that the expression had become common to the trade and lacked distinctiveness.
The Court therefore had to determine whether such a mark satisfied the statutory requirements of distinctiveness and whether registration would be contrary to the principles embodied in Section 9 of the Trade Marks Act.
Key Legal Issues
- Whether the title of a holy religious book can be registered as a trademark.
- Whether the word “RAMAYAN” possesses sufficient distinctiveness.
- Whether the mark had become public domain and common to the trade.
- Whether registration would violate Section 9 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
Reasoning and Analysis of the Court
The Supreme Court undertook a detailed examination of Section 9 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which sets out the absolute grounds for refusal of registration. The provision prohibits registration of marks that are devoid of distinctive character, marks that have become customary in trade, marks likely to deceive or cause confusion, and marks likely to hurt religious susceptibilities.
The Court observed that the legislative intent behind Section 9 is to prevent the grant of exclusive proprietary rights over expressions that lack distinctiveness or whose registration would be contrary to public interest. The court emphasised that trademark law is intended to distinguish one trader’s goods from those of another and not to confer monopoly rights over expressions that belong to society at large.
An important aspect of the judgement was the court’s reliance upon the Eighth Report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on the Trade Marks Bill, 1993. The committee had expressed the view that symbols relating to gods, goddesses, and places of worship should ordinarily not be registered as trademarks. Although the report did not impose an absolute prohibition, it reflected legislative concern regarding the commercialisation of religious symbols and expressions.
The court held that “Ramayan” is not merely an ordinary word but the title of one of the most revered religious texts of Hinduism, traditionally attributed to Maharishi Valmiki. The court observed that permitting registration of the exclusive word “RAMAYAN” would effectively allow a trader to claim a monopoly over the name of a sacred religious book. Such a result would be inconsistent with the objectives of trademark law and public policy.
The court further noted that the label used by the appellant contained depictions of Lord Rama, Sita, and Lakshman. According to the Court, this demonstrated an attempt to derive commercial advantage from religious associations and religious figures.
Another significant factor was the evidence showing that more than twenty traders were using the word “RAMAYAN” in relation to similar products in Patna and elsewhere in India. The court concluded that the word had become public juris and common to the trade. Once a mark becomes common to trade, it loses the distinctiveness necessary for trademark protection.
Precedents Considered
| Case | Purpose |
|---|---|
| Registrar of Trade Marks v. Ashok Chandra Rakhit Ltd., AIR 1955 SC 558 | Distinctiveness and registrability |
| K.R. Chinna Krishna Chettiar v. Sri Ambal & Co., AIR 1970 SC 146 | Distinctiveness and market reputation |
| Corn Products Refining Co. v. Shangrila Food Products Ltd., AIR 1960 SC 142 | Distinctiveness and goodwill |
| National Bell Co. v. Metal Goods Manufacturing Co. (P) Ltd, (1970) 3 SCC 665 | Loss of distinctiveness and public trust |
While reaching its conclusions, the Court discussed and referred to several important precedents. The appellant relied upon Registrar of Trade Marks v. Ashok Chandra Rakhit Ltd., AIR 1955 SC 558, concerning distinctiveness and registrability. The Court distinguished the decision and found that it did not support registration of the impugned mark.
The appellant also relied upon K.R. Chinna Krishna Chettiar v. Sri Ambal & Co., AIR 1970 SC 146, and Corn Products Refining Co. v. Shangrila Food Products Ltd., AIR 1960 SC 142, in support of arguments relating to distinctiveness and market reputation.
The respondent relied upon National Bell Co. v. Metal Goods Manufacturing Co. (P) Ltd, (1970) 3 SCC 665, where the Supreme Court recognised that a trademark may lose its distinctiveness and become public juris through widespread use. The Court accepted and applied this principle in the present case.
The Court ultimately concluded that the title of a holy religious book cannot ordinarily be appropriated as a trademark and that the appellant had failed to establish that the word “RAMAYAN” had acquired such exclusive distinctiveness as to justify registration.
Final Decision of the Court
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board. The Court found no infirmity in the IPAB’s conclusion that the trademark “RAMAYAN” was not entitled to registration.
The Court held that the appellant could not claim exclusive proprietary rights over the title of a revered religious book and that the mark lacked the distinctiveness required under the Trade Marks Act. The parties were left to bear their own costs.
Point of Law Settled
The judgement establishes that the title of a holy or religious book ordinarily cannot be monopolised through trademark registration. A trader cannot claim exclusive proprietary rights over expressions that form part of the religious and cultural heritage of society.
The decision further clarifies that where a mark has become common to the trade or public jury, it loses the distinctiveness necessary for registration. The judgement also reinforces the principle that trademarks associated with religious sentiments must be examined carefully in light of Section 9 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
The ruling continues to serve as an important precedent governing trademark applications involving religious names, sacred texts, and culturally significant expressions.
Key Takeaways
- Titles of holy religious books generally cannot be monopolised through trademark registration.
- Distinctiveness is an essential requirement under Section 9 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
- A mark that becomes public domain loses trademark protection.
- Religious names and symbols are subject to stricter scrutiny during trademark examination.
- Trademark law protects distinctive commercial identifiers, not expressions belonging to society at large.
Case Details
| Title of the Case | Lal Babu Priyadarshi Vs Amritpal Singh |
| Date of Judgment/Order | 27.10.2015 |
| Case Number | Civil Appeal No. 2138 of 2006 |
| Neutral Citation | (2015) 12 SCALE 76 |
| Name of Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Name of the Honourable Judge | Hon’ble Mr Ranjan Gogoi and Hon’ble Mr Justice R.K. Agrawal |
| Written By | Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi |
Disclaimer
Images used herein do not reflect actual images used in Judgement, and the same are for illustrative purposes only. Readers are advised not to treat this as a substitute for legal advice, as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
