ISKON v ISKON Apparel Pvt. Ltd.  

INTRODUCTION 

In common parlance, a trademark is any name, sign, design, logo, or symbol that is used to distinguish the goods of one company from those of another. Section 2(1)(zb) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, defines ‘trademark’ as a mark which is capable of being represented graphically and capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one person from those of others, and may include the shape of goods or their packaging and combinations of colours.[ii] By registering a trademark, a company or a person prohibits others from using their name, logo, slogan, product design, or packaging without their authorisation.

On the similar lines, An unapproved use of a registered trademark is called trademark infringement. When goods or procedures are used to cause confusion, dilution, or uncertainty regarding who is really in possession of the trademarked good or service, it is considered infringement. If they believe there is infringement on their trademark, the rightful owner of the mark may file a lawsuit and pursue legal action. A judge has the authority to stop a defendant from using a trademark if the plaintiff can provide evidence of the mark's misuse. The owner is typically compensated with financial relief as well.

Trademarks are essential instruments that organisations and businesses use in today's global economy to set themselves apart from competitors' goods and services. ISKCON v. ISKCON Apparel Pvt. Ltd. is a seminal case in India concerning the safeguarding of a religious organization's trademark. The plaintiff, ISKCON, is a religious organisation that was established in 1966 and is well-known for its spiritual teachings, temples, and activities. The case has gained prominence both domestically and internationally. At first, the plaintiff sent summonses and notices to the defendant ordering them to cease using their registered brand. Eventually, the Plaintiff had to sue the defendant for passing off and trademark infringement after receiving no answer from the defendant.

In a world where branding and intellectual property have grown in value, the ensuing legal battle brought to light the growing significance of trademark protection for religious institutions. This article will examine the main legal questions raised by the case, the parties' arguments, the verdict, and its ramifications for Indian trademark law and religious organisations.

BACKGROUND

In order to prevent Iskcon Apparel, a clothing manufacturer located in Delhi, from using the trademark "ISKCON," the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON) filed an application in the High Court of Bombay in 2020. Known by popular name as the Hare Krishna movement, ISKON is a Gaudiya Vaishnava Hindu religious organisation that was established in 1966 by A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada in New York. The organization, promotes the teachings of Lord Krishna as detailed in ancient Vedic scriptures. Over the decades, ISKCON has grown into a global religious organization with hundreds of temples, cultural centers, and followers across the world. Spiritual talks, the distribution of religious books, the running of schools, and altruistic endeavours like food distribution are all part of ISKCON's activities. With its temples, the organisation has made a big impact in India; the most notable ones are in Mumbai, Mayapur, and Vrindavan. Because of its vast outreach initiatives, ISKCON has gained significant goodwill and recognition over the years, and as a result, its name and logo have become synonymous with the teachings of Krishna consciousness. As a result, it has demanded the status of a well-known trademark in India.

However, ISKCON Apparel Pvt. Ltd. defended itself by arguing that "ISKCON" was a generic term representing the teachings of Krishna consciousness, which belonged to the public domain and could not be monopolized by a single organization. They also contended that their business was not religious in nature and, therefore, did not compete with ISKCON’s activities.

However, The submission went on to state that ISKCON is a trademark that has been registered under multiple names. Additionally, since 1994, ISKCON has maintained ownership of the domain www.iskcon.org. The court's single judge bench acknowledged that the term "ISKCON" was created by the organisation and that it should definitely receive the strongest level of protection. Its reputation and goodwill have grown significantly over time, both in India and elsewhere. The Trade Marks Act, 1999's Section 2(1)(zg) defines "well-known trademark" in India, and the Court determined that ISKCON satisfies this requirement in light of the aforementioned. As such, the Court issued a permanent injunction prohibiting Iskcon Apparel from making use of the ISKCON trademark.

FACTS

Plaintiff ISKCON claimed in this lawsuit that defendant ISKCON Apparel Pvt. Ltd., an online clothing retailer, had violated their trademark rights. Plaintiff asserted that products bearing the ISKCON trademark logo, including books, magazines, calendars, greeting cards, clothing, and other items, are given out for free or at a significant discount to its adherents. The plaintiff discovered the infringing material in February 2020 while doing research online.

According to the plaintiff, they served the defendant many notices in an effort to get them to stop using their trademark. The plaintiff was compelled to initiate an infringement lawsuit as the later, nevertheless, ignored the notices that were posted. The Defendant changed the name of its business from Iskcon Apparel Pvt. Ltd. to Alcis Sports Pvt. Ltd. shortly after the accusations were made, but they kept the term "previously known as Iskcon Apparel Pvt. Ltd." on their websites and prominently displayed the brand name ISKCON on all of their merchandise.

The Plaintiff argued that the mark ‘ISKCON’ is innately idiosyncratic and deserves protection. Its coveted and well-established goodwill and reputation was the subject of another argument. Therefore, continuing to use the "ISKCON" mark on apparel would give the false impression that the Plaintiff and the Defendant were connected in some way.

JUDGEMENT

The Hon'ble Single Judge panel of Justice B. P. Colabawalla decided that the Defendant intentionally used the trade name ISKCON in order to capitalise on the reputation that the Plaintiff had built up through the use of the aforementioned trade mark. In its decision, the court concluded that ISKCON's trademark is "well-known" in India based on the company's offerings, standing, and goodwill there. The court also decided that even though the defendant is now called Alcis Sports Pvt. Ltd., the use of the phrase "Formerly known as Iskcon Apparel Pvt. Ltd." on its website violates trademark laws and creates passing off due to the plaintiff's registrations and goodwill in the aforementioned ISKCON marks. The court further decided that when the Plaintiff registered the trademark, the word "ISKCON" was not in use. Due of its exclusive connection to the plaintiff, the ISKCON trademark should have robust legal protection. Because of this, the court decided that only the Plaintiff has the right to use the trademark and forbade the Defendant from using it in any way, even by using the phrase "formerly known as Iskcon Apparel Pvt Ltd."

Hon’ble High Court gave this judgement based on four important commandments of the Trademark Law, which are elucidated below:

1) ISKCON, the plaintiff's trademark, is well recognised.
The Hon'ble High Court ruled that ISKCON is a well-known trademark in India with broad acceptance as well as global recognition, goodwill, and popularity. It was evident that no organisation has ever claimed ISKCON, and as a result, the Plaintiff is the only party with the exclusive right to use this registered trademark. Those who are loyal to or follow this religious organisation might purchase goods from the defendant's website thinking they are part of the genuine ISKCON and wind up being conned out of money.

2) The trademark is well-known all across the world.
Even outside of India, the public has come to know ISKCON well. The plaintiff opened numerous centres across multiple countries, including Malaysia, the Philippines, South America, and North America. As a result, the Court decided that the Plaintiff meets the requirements outlined in Section 1(6) of the Indian Trade Marks Act, 1999, and that the defendant is not permitted to use the aforementioned trademark.

3) The trademark has been in use ever since
The plaintiff was able to prove, through the presentation of certain pieces of evidence, that they had been using the ISKCON from the start and that it was well known when the defendant used it. The name ISKCON has been in use since the first ISKCON temple was built in India in 1971. It is dubious that the defendant utilised the name and pretended to be unaware of its existence when in fact it has over 600 temples across the globe, including one in India.

4) The Plaintiff has previously undertaken a number of actions.

There had previously been several infringers, according to the record that was brought before the court for the litigation hearing. It was demonstrated to the court that the plaintiff had previously filed lawsuits in a number of forums against numerous infringers, proving their ownership of the trademark and the products and services offered under its name.

CONCLUSION

The difference between a well-known and common trademark can be clearly identified. A famous trademark is likely to be well-known to the general public, independent of the goods or services it offers, even while any respectable trademark may only be well-known to customers interested in the particular kind of goods or services for which it was initially created. Every business's success depends on a trademark's official designation as a well-known trade mark.The name of a well-known trademark, such as Iskcon, was obviously employed by the defendant to make money. In addition to being a well-known religious organisation, the plaintiff uses its name to promote its doctrine through goods sales.

Using such a well-known name would give the Plaintiff's supporters the false impression that the Defendant's products are connected to the Plaintiff. Iskcon was deemed a well-known mark after all the requirements outlined in sections 11(6) and 11(7) of the Trademarks Act, 1999 were cross-checked and found to be met in this instance.

The ISKCON v. ISKCON Apparel Pvt. Ltd. case is a landmark judgment in the field of trademark law, with significant implications for religious organizations in India. It reinforces the idea that trademarks are not limited to commercial entities but can extend to religious and charitable organizations that have built a global reputation and goodwill. The ruling safeguards the identity and distinctiveness of ISKCON while setting an important legal precedent for the protection of religious trademarks.

At the same time, the case opens up broader questions about the balance between protecting intellectual property and ensuring that cultural and religious names remain part of the public domain. As the global economy continues to evolve, and religious organizations expand their outreach activities, cases like this one will continue to shape the landscape of trademark law in India.