The Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB), removing the Gujarat-based soaps and detergent giant Nirma's trademark for its proposed metal products, condemned the company's "excessive monopolistic" attitude.

It, however, allowed the trademark for its other products such as detergents and other industrial goods.

According to Mumbai-based Nirmal Industrial Controls Pvt Ltd's petition filed with IPAB, the Registrar of Trademarks, in 2001, refused its (Nirmal Industrial Control's) application seeking Nirmal trademark for some of its products on the ground that it was opposed by Nirma Chemical Works as it was "deceptively similar" to its trademark Nirma.

Nirmal Industrial Controls, manufacturer of pressure control valves, regulators, safety shut-off systems and various other metal instruments, has in its petition filed with IPAB submitted that it has been using the brand Nirmal since 1973. Whereas, in 1984, Nirma applied for a trademark registration for its proposed product category metal products as 'proposed mark' and was granted. Hence, Nirmal has sought removal of Nirma's 'proposed mark'.

Counsel for Nirma argue that the trademark Nirma was registered for across 42 product categories including the company's proposed metal products under a specific class of the Copyright Act. Besides, the brand was registered for its range of consumer and industrial products in 100 countries and millions of consumers are using those products. And, the company has been planning to diversify into some metal products, and registered the same trademark (Nirma).

The order issued by the IPAB Vice-chairman, S. Usha, and Technical Member, V. Ravi, said that the particular Registrar has erred. None of the documents submitted by Nirma shows any proof of use of the trademark 'Nirma' by the company for any metal products (of a particular category) that Nirmal seeks the trademark for.

"Everybody knows that Nirma is a very powerful and a superstar brand. But the conduct of the respondent presents excessive monopolistic problems based on an absolutist position taken by the registry."

The order also said that such a ruling by the Registrar raises glaring question mark on the conduct and knowledge of the official concerned. "The Registry should not act as a hand-holding emissary of a well-known marks, but should stay focused on the merits of each case".

Related Topics