In a further cementing step, to aid the establishment of the boundaries of one’s cognitive processes, and to provide legal rights towards the same, the Indian Trademark registry increased the recognition form from its ‘intellectual and visual’ ability to an ‘intellectual and audible’ ability.
What followed was India’s first sound trademark (1), (2), whereby, the Indian Trademark Registry (Delhi Office) awarded Sunnyvale, California-based Internet firm Yahoo Inc.’s three-note Yahoo yodel, a mark relating to its yodeling sound [listen here (3)]. A sound trademark1 essentially refers to an audible rendition such that it is capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one undertaking from those of other undertakings.
The US practice of registering an audio or video reproduction of the sound (for a Trademark) reveals that a detailed written description of the application should also be included, while the Europe practice dictates that the sound mark should be represented graphically through musical notation. Such practices are fairly logical.
In sync and in continuum with such ‘non-conventional’ marks, WIPO, the United Nations agency, has now initiated an Intellectual Property Conference (4) in Singapore (first time in Asia) in order to revise its 1994 treaty on global trademarks.
What presumably follows next, is the incorporation of another one of the human senses as an attribute towards distinction of products, typically, the nose, and its associated characteristic, the smelling function, e.g. the smell of a perfume or any product, for that matter.
PatentInc*. Viewpoint:
We await to see the appropriate filing requisites for increasingly intangible matter. Also, the question now arises as to whether we should take cue from these to also expect further incorporation of the remaining two senses, viz., the ‘taste’ and the ‘feel’ of a product. Is it going too far? Or how far is too far?
In any case, defining of such visual and further non-conventional marks, more importantly with a viewpoint in cases of potential infringement and justifications sought thereof, is going to be an upheaval task, mainly because of the non-precedential subject matter. Till the time being, let the mark holders rejoice in the sentiment of acquiring new non-tangible lengths and breadths, and increase their monopolistic stranglehold towards completely defining their product.
References:
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_trademark
2. http://www.livemint.com/2008/08/22002259/Yahoo-awarded-India8217s-fi.html
3. http://www.uspto.gov/go/kids/soundex/75807526.mp3
4. http://www.financialexpress.com/news/Revised-trademark-treaty-may-cover-sound-&-smell/40242/
*PatentInc. - – a proprietary outfit in the field of Intellectual Property, India.
What followed was India’s first sound trademark (1), (2), whereby, the Indian Trademark Registry (Delhi Office) awarded Sunnyvale, California-based Internet firm Yahoo Inc.’s three-note Yahoo yodel, a mark relating to its yodeling sound [listen here (3)]. A sound trademark1 essentially refers to an audible rendition such that it is capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one undertaking from those of other undertakings.
The US practice of registering an audio or video reproduction of the sound (for a Trademark) reveals that a detailed written description of the application should also be included, while the Europe practice dictates that the sound mark should be represented graphically through musical notation. Such practices are fairly logical.
In sync and in continuum with such ‘non-conventional’ marks, WIPO, the United Nations agency, has now initiated an Intellectual Property Conference (4) in Singapore (first time in Asia) in order to revise its 1994 treaty on global trademarks.
What presumably follows next, is the incorporation of another one of the human senses as an attribute towards distinction of products, typically, the nose, and its associated characteristic, the smelling function, e.g. the smell of a perfume or any product, for that matter.
PatentInc*. Viewpoint:
We await to see the appropriate filing requisites for increasingly intangible matter. Also, the question now arises as to whether we should take cue from these to also expect further incorporation of the remaining two senses, viz., the ‘taste’ and the ‘feel’ of a product. Is it going too far? Or how far is too far?
In any case, defining of such visual and further non-conventional marks, more importantly with a viewpoint in cases of potential infringement and justifications sought thereof, is going to be an upheaval task, mainly because of the non-precedential subject matter. Till the time being, let the mark holders rejoice in the sentiment of acquiring new non-tangible lengths and breadths, and increase their monopolistic stranglehold towards completely defining their product.
References:
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_trademark
2. http://www.livemint.com/2008/08/22002259/Yahoo-awarded-India8217s-fi.html
3. http://www.uspto.gov/go/kids/soundex/75807526.mp3
4. http://www.financialexpress.com/news/Revised-trademark-treaty-may-cover-sound-&-smell/40242/
*PatentInc. - – a proprietary outfit in the field of Intellectual Property, India.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment