The word Khadi invokes a lot of sentiment in an Indian heart. The humble fabric handwoven by the many artisans of India played an important role not in the independence movement during the colonisation but also provided a source of income and independence to many villages and their residents.
Accordingly, the Khadi and Village Industries Commission also known as KVIC has been rightfully protecting its user claim over ‘Khadi’ as well as the symbol ‘Charkha’ since 1956 with a complete registration of all its marks in 2014. The Commission has successfully registered itself as the proprietor of hundreds of trademarks in its initiative to protect and promote ‘Khadi’ in India and other countries including, Russia, China, Germany, Australia, the UK & Bhutan.
The Commission deems itself as “a unique institution” that links India’s rich past, present and future into a functional plane “through self-reliance and sustainability.”
However, the commission has had to face many private competitors who have time and again coveted the trademarks and symbols registered by KVIC, a similar incident happened this year, in the case of ‘KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES COMMISSIONS V. RAMAN GUPTA AND ORS.’
The case dealt with a permanent injunction plea regarding the infringement of trademark rights, passing off, rendition of accounts, damages, delivery up, etc. of the plaintiff’s registered marks and symbols.
In the Plaint, the plaintiff provided the detailed layout of its offered products and services which spans beyond Indian craftsmanship to include medical products such as hand sanitisers, hand washes etc. The plaintiff also provided an exhaustive list of all the websites and social networking tools it uses to promote itself and make sales nationally and internationally to its customers clearly making use of the infringed marks ‘KHADI’ along with the “Charkha logo’. Accordingly, it established its brand recognition and the market usage of the registered trademarks.
The Plaint was brought against the defendant using ‘KHADI BY HERITAGE’ and the ‘Charkha logo’ in various forms. Plaintiff raised caution against the defendant’s claims as “manufacturers of Organic, Natural & Eco-friendly Cosmetic & allied products under the name and brand of Khadi by Heritage.” Asa result, it could lead to confusion in the mind of the customer regarding some affiliation between the two entities and their products/product qualities.
Furthermore, the plaintiff’s contention regarding the medical products offered by the defendant such as PPE kits, hand sanitisers etc. especially concerns regarding the quality of the said products was also noted.
It must be noted that the Defendants, in this case, failed to present themselves before the court.
The case was presided over by Justice Pratibha M. Singh (Justice Pratibha is a revered veteran in the judiciary and has been dealing with intellectual property matters in the Delhi High Court) in the capacity of a single-judge bench. The court found the plaintiff’s claims to be valid and relied on the precedents of Disney Enterprises Inc. & Anr. v. Balraj Muttneja & Ors. (2014) as well as S. Olicer Bernd Freier GMBH & Co. KG v. Jaikara Apparels & Ors. (2014) in order to pass the ex-parte decree in the favour of the plaintiffs.
The Court found Plaintiff’s claim over the registered trademarks, and symbols to be valid, moreover, it was found that in the examination reports cited by Defendant, the registered marks of the plaintiff had been mentioned, which was also backed by the also ordered plaintiff’s opposition to the said registration application.
In its decree, the court not only allowed for the permanent injunction on the defendant’s use of the infringing trademarks also ordered but also ordered for all of its pending registration applications to be rejected. Finally, it also ordered a compensation of INR 10 Lakhs in the form of damages and INR 2 Lakhs in the form of costs to be awarded to Plaintiff.
The Khadi & Village Industries Commission has also recently taken up the matter of the protection and recognition of its trademarks with the Ministry of External Affairs, Ministry of Commerce & Permanent Mission of India at UN, Geneva under article 6ter of the Paris Convention.
The article in question “protects armorial bearings, flags and other State emblems as well as official signs and hallmarks of the States party to the Paris Convention. The signs published with World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) under this act are prevented from being registered or used as trademarks, across the world, without authorization.”
Under the 2013 MSME regulations, the Commission is empowered to grant as well as demand royalties from any producer using the Khadi mark. Accordingly, it has issued notices to entities in the national and international market for misappropriating its symbols as well as indulging in unfair trade practices.
From a third person’s point of view, the efforts of the commission have been inching towards creating a monopoly, which may be deemed as restrictive under the principles of fair competition. The Charkha symbol is an intrinsic part of the nation’s history and hence monopolising it commercially gives the effect of monopolising the history shared by an entire nation and hence may be deemed to be slightly a cause of worry. One also cannot ignore the fact that the Commission deals in a wide range of products, some of which go beyond the scope of the element of Indian craftsmanship which is associated with the Charkha and Khadi.
However, the Commission’s efforts to protect its claims are definitely something to acknowledge and learn from.
