Introduction

• The case relates eligibility of term ‘Rasoi’ to get registered under Trademark Act, 1940.

Facts

• A type of cooking material made mainly from hydrogenated vegetable oil has started being used in India, often referred to by the inappropriate name 'Vanaspati'.
• The Hindustan Development Corporation Ltd. has its own product called 'Rasoi', which they introduced in 1948. It is made from groundnut oil.
• Before introducing their product to the market, the company applied to register the word 'Rasoi' in English and all Indian languages as their trademark for the 'refined deodorized groundnut oil for cooking purposes' they manufactured.
• However, the registration of the trademark was refused and communicated to the company. As a result, the company filed an appeal against the decision of the Deputy Registrar.
  • They based their opinion on the grounds that Section 6(1)(d) of the Trademark Act, 1940 states that a trademark cannot be registered if it directly refers to the character or quality of the goods.
• The terms "character" and "quality" were defined and examined in the context of the case.

Issues Involved

• Whether the term ‘Rasoi’ directly referred to the character or quality of the oil product?
• Whether the term ‘Rasoi’ needed to be distinctive to be eligible for registration under the Trademark Act, 1940?
• Whether granting a trademark for a common word like ‘Rasoi’ would unfairly monopolize language and restrict others from using it?

Observation

• The Calcutta High Court concluded that the term ‘Rasoi’ did indeed directly refer to the character and quality of the oil product. Thus, it was ineligible for registration under Section 6(1)(d) of the Trademark Act, 1940.
• Even if the term did not directly refer to the product's character or quality, the court ruled that it still needed to be distinctive for registration.
• Finally, the court held that common words like ‘Rasoi’ could not be monopolized as trademarks unless they had lost their primary meaning and become associated with specific products through long usage, which wasn't the case here.

Conclusion

• The court's judgment rejected the registration of ‘Rasoi’ as a trademark, citing its direct reference to the product's character and quality, the necessity of distinctiveness, and the principle against monopolizing common words.