India: After initial hiccups Arnab Goswami changes the name of his new venture to ‘Republic TV’
On
November 1, 2016, the nation was shocked when the face of ‘The Newshour’, Mr.
Arnab Goswami stepped down as the Editor-in chief of its parent news channel
Times Now. Few days later, Mr. Goswami announced that he will launch his new
venture, a News Channel called ‘Republic’. Republic made its social media debut
with the launch of a Twitter handle and Facebook page and is also in the
process of launching its website republicworld.com.
After
initial optimism on social media, his new venture quickly plunged into controversy
when Subramanium Swami, a senior BJP Leader, and a member of the Rajya Sabha
(Upper House of the Indian Parliament) addressed a letter to the Ministry of
Information and Broadcasting alleging that the name of Mr. Goswami’s proposed news
channel ‘Republic’ violates the provisions of the Emblems and Names (Prevention
of Improper Use) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act”). In his
opinion, use of the word ‘Republic’ for commercial purposes is expressly
prohibited by the said Act, and Mr. Swami very aptly iterated this fact in his
letter to the Ministry.
The
issue at present here is whether the use of the word ‘Republic’ is in
contravention to the Act. Reading the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the
Act will throw some light on the primary reasons for the promulgation of the
said Act. It states that-
“The General Assembly of the United
Nations Organization recommended in 1946 that members of the United Nations
should take necessary legislative or other appropriate measures to prevent the
use, without proper authority, and in particular for commercial purposes, of
the emblem, the official seal and the name of the United Nations and of the
abbreviations of that name. A similar recommendation has since been received
also from the World Health Organization for prevention of the use of its name
(and abbreviations), emblem and official seal. Instances have also come to
light of the use in India (and abroad) of the Indian National Flag and emblem
and of the names or pictorial representation of Mahatma Gandhi and other
national leaders, for commercial and trade purposes and in a manner likely to
offend the sentiments of the people. The provisions of the Indian Trade Marks
Act, 1940, Indian Patents and Designs Act, 1911, Indian Merchandise Marks Act,
1889, and the Indian Companies Act, 1913, are not adequate to prevent these
abuses. The
Bill seeks to prevent the improper use of these names, emblems, etc., for the
purpose of trade, business, calling, profession, patent or design and to impose
a penalty for misuse of emblems, etc., specified in the Schedule and empowers
the Central Government to make additions, and amendments in the Schedule as and
when necessary”
According
to news reports, Swamy contended in his letter to the Ministry that item 6 in
the schedule to the Act prohibits the use of the word ‘Republic’. Item 6 to the
schedule to the Act reads as follows: “6. The name, emblem or official seal of
the President, Governor, Sadar-i-Riyasat or Republic or Union of India.” Section
9(2)(d) of the Trademarks Act,1999 also imposes an absolute restriction on the
registration of marks which is in contravention with the Emblems and Names (Prevention
of Improper Use) Act,1950.
The
Indian Government and the Judiciary have not taken strong note of instances of
violations of the provisions of the Act. There are of course sporadic instances
of cases where the judiciary ordered the authorities to take steps. For
instance, in the case of Ravikanth Shinde
v Managing Director, Gujarat Heavy Chemicals Ltd. and Ors[1].
The Respondents in this case were manufacturing ‘kitchen salt’ under the
trademark Dandi with the pictorial representation in the background which
creates an impression of Mahatama Gandhi. The Andhra Pradesh High Court directed
the authorities concerned under
the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use)
Act, 1950, to take steps in accordance with the Act to ensure that
Mahatma Gandhi's picture or the name Dandi is not used for any commercial
purpose.
Mr. Goswami’s trademark application, a copy of which
can be found over here, was subsequently filed on November 20, 2016, in
Class 35, which relates to advertisement and publicity services. It is
pertinent to note, that the Trademark Registry did not raise any objection on
the basis of Section 9 (2) (d). However, it did raise an objection based on
Section 9 (1) (a) in the following words: “As the mark is a common
surname/personal name/geographical name/ornamental or a non-distinctive
geometrical figure and as such it is not capable of distinguishing the goods or
services of one person from those of others.”
However, this controversy was put to rest
subsequently, as Mr. Goswami has since rebranded his channel to ‘Republic TV’.
For general information of our readers, we have
listed a few marks both in India and Abroad below a substantial part of which
contains the word ‘Republic’ -
Table – 1: List of marks in India containing the word ‘Republic’
Table – 2: List of marks in the United States bearing the word ‘Republic’
[1] 2003(4)ALD400
No comments:
Post a Comment