We reported that the Attukal Bhagawathy Temple Trust (“Trust”) in Kerala had secured trademark
protection for the picture of its deity (Trademark No. 1420800) and the title ‘Sabarimala of Women’ (Trademark No. 1420799) under Class 42 (for temple Services, social services, welfare services and cultural activities). The Division Bench of the Kerala High Court initiated suo moto case against the aforesaid registrations in early 2009 based on a petition faxed by Mr. Praveen Raj. The High Court later appointed Mr. Santhosh Mathew, Partner, M/s. Ninan and Mathew Advocates, as the amicus curiae.The High Court rendered its judgment on the aforesaid matter today. [For my earlier post analysing the legality of grant of trademark, see here].
The Court ended the suo moto proceedings and declined to grant relief on merits. It was clarified that the the grant shall not adversely affect the devotees’ right to worship. The Trust, by virtue of the registration, can restrain others from providing services in the name of the Deity for monetary benefits. However, charitable services in the name of the Deity cannot be restrained.
[As the judgment was delivered only a couple of hours back, I do not have a copy of the judgment. I shall later carry a detailed post on the judgment. Presently, I am just carrying a post on the operative part of the judgment (as I could gather from my sources in Kerala HC).]
Thank you Mathews for this breaking news. I received the following message from a friend who was present while judgement was read out.
”Court held that only services in the name of temple was protected. The registration will not affect the right of the devotees to worship the deity. Since there is no absolute prohibition under the act for grant of trademark to a deity picture, court held that the act of trademarking the deity picture and the sobriquet ‘sabarimala of women’ by the temple trust was ok. However the temple trust shall use the trademark only for the services registered by it.”
I think the court considered the matter purely according to the provisions in Trademark Act.
What about the moral side ?
According to me, the action of the temple authorities in trademarking the deity picture sends a wrong message to public that a place of worship also is a “business outfit”, since trademark certification is intended for protecting the ‘goodwill’ of a business undertaking.
Trademark indicates the source of manufacture or trade origin of the goods or services. It is not fair for the temple trust to call itself a business undertaking and proprietor of a trade
New Indian Express report –
“
The Kerala High Court on Thursday dismissed a plea against a decision by the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks granting certificate of trademark on the picture of the deity at Attukal Devi Temple and the description that the temple is the ‘Sabarimala of women.’
Dismissing the plea, the High Court observed that the trademark restricts commercialisation of services offered in the name of the deity and prohibits such activity by others. “We do not see any merit in the grievances projected by the petitioner against the registration of trademark on the picture of the deity at Attukal Devi Temple,” said a Division Bench comprising of Chief Justice Manjula Chellur and Justice K Vinod Chandran.
The High Court was considering a plea in the form of a faxed letter from R S Praveen Raj of Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioner pointed out that the Temple Trust got the certificate of trademark from the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks on March 9, 2009 to exclusively use the picture and the appellation.
The Trust had said that it would help in preventing unauthorised use of the picture and title.
The court issued the verdict after considering the arguments of advocate Sathosh Mathew who was appointed as Amicus Curiae to help the court. Presenting his arguments, the advocate said that Attukal deity is common and the same cannot be monopolised by the Trust.”
Deccan Herald Report –
“
Kochi: Kerala high court on Thursday dismissed a suo motu plea against the decision of the Controller-General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks to grant certificate of trademark on the picture of the deity of Attukal Devi temple and the description that the temple is a ‘Sabarimala of women.’
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Manjula Chellur and Justice K. Vinod Chandran observed that by using the trademark the temple restricts the commercialisation of services and prohibits such activity by others.
“We do not see any merit in the grievances projected by the petitioner against the registration of trademark on the picture of the deity,” the bench held. The court was considering a letter faxed by R.S. Praveen Raj of Thiruvananthapuram. The court initiated the proceedings in 2009 while Justice B.R. Bannurmath was the Chief Justice.
According to the petitioner, the temple trust had got the certificate of trademark from the Controller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks on March 9, 2009 to exclusively use the picture and the appellation.
The trust had claimed that it would help prevent unauthorised use of the picture and the title. The action of the temple authorities sent a wrong message that a place of worship was a ‘business outfit,’ the petitioner held.
The petitioner was of the opinion that the place of worship is reduced to a business entity engaged in trade and commerce. The court considered the arguments of advocate Santhosh Mathew who was appointed as amicus curie to help the court. He argued that Attukal deity is common and that the same cannot be appropriated or monopolised by the trust.”
http://newindianexpress.com/cities/kochi/Petition-against-trademark-on-temple-dismissed/2013/09/13/article1781981.ece
http://www.deccanchronicle.com/130913/news-current-affairs/article/hc-upholds-tm-status-devi-picture
Hello Mathews,
I tried looking for the judgment. I could find it neither on the Kerala High Court Website nor did I find it on Manupatra. Can you please direct me to a source from where I can get the judgment?
Thank you.
Kind regards,
Kanan Dubal