Aug 29, 2013 | General
Businesses usually register their trademarks in order to protect their brands and to prevent third parties from taking advantage of the goodwill and reputation they have built in the economy. They register their trademarks all over the world and proactively seek to prevent any infringement by taking quick legal action against infringers. There are some landmark cases with respect to trademark infringement in India which clearly show how registration protects the company and prevents loss.
- Starbucks Corporation v. Sardar Buksh Coffee & Co
Starbucks is an American multinational chain of coffeehouses, established in 1971. It is headquartered in Seattle and is currently the largest chain of coffeehouses in the world.
In India, Starbucks is known as Tata Starbucks Private Limited and branded as Starbucks “A Tata Alliance”. It is a 50:50 joint venture between Starbucks Corporation and Tata Consumer Products. In 2001, Starbucks registered their trademark- the name STARBUCKS along with their world-famous logo of the long-haired crowned maiden.
In 2015, a small local vendor started small coffee chain in Delhi with the name SardarBuksh Coffee & Co. Using this name, the business grew in size and popularity and soon was converted into a private limited under the name SardarBuksh Private Limited. Not only did their name sound similar to that of Starbucks but their logo also resembled the coffee giant’s.
Starbucks sued the chain in the Delhi High Court under the grounds of “Duplicitous word mark and logo” and deceptively similar analogy (derived from Section 2(1)(h) read in Section 11 of Trademarks Act 1999) . The court took into account that the products offered by the two companies are similar. In the event that the offerings are different, then having a similar or near identical name does not constitute an infringement.
The Defendant agreed to change their name within 2 months and their new name is Sardardji Bakhsh Coffee & Co. They added the condition that no other business can use the word Bakhsh and they reserve the right to sue if used. The logo has not been changed.
This is not the first time Starbucks has filed suits for the infringement of their trademark. Restaurants and coffee shops in Texas, Oregon and even in Canada have been at the receiving end of notices and suits for infringement from the multinational giant.
A small café in Pakistan known as Sattar Buksh also received notice of IP violations. Fortunately they were not taken to court as they contested that their name has been in existence for over 500 years. Unlike Sardarji Bakhsh, they did change their logo to avoid yet another potential legal battle.
- The Coca-Cola company v. Bisleri International Pvt Ltd
The Coca- Cola company is an American multinational beverage corporation established
In 1892. It is headquartered in Atlanta and is famous for the sugary drink Coca-Cola. The Coca-Cola company is engaged in the manufacture, production, retail and marketing of alcoholic as well as non-alcoholic beverages, syrups and concentrates. It is the largest
Coca Cola purchased and acquired the intellectual property and formulation rights as the goodwill of Maaza from the Indian beverage company Bisleri International Private Limited. The two companies signed a deed containing the following chief clauses:
- Goodwill acquisition
- IPR transfer
- No-use, no-compete clause
- Relinquishment and compensation of the rights to franchise
In 2008 Bisleri filed an application to register the trademark Maaza in Turkey and subsequently began export under the same trademark. They were under the impression that the agreement signed was related only for any transactions or use in India and was not to be considered in case of any exports. Coca-Cola soon filed a suit for trademark infringement in the Delhi High court once they became aware of the situation.
Three issues were raised in the court:
- Is there any infringement of the Trademark or passing off?
- Does Delhi High Court have jurisdiction over the matter?
- Does the Plaintiff is entitled to get a permanent injunction?
The Plaintiffs argued the trademark Maaza was assigned to Coca-Cola. Thus, any manufacture, whether within India or for export using the trademark will account to infringement. The Defendants argued that the product was sold in Turkey and not in India and thus there is no infringement of rights. They further added that the trademark was registered by them worldwide and they could use and sell the product using the trademark anywhere in the world except India.
On considering the facts and issues in the case, the court was of the opinion that any delivery of goods from one’s own country to another (exports) will constitute a transfer by sale within the country of origin of the goods exported itself. If any trademark is infringed in the process, it will be considered as infringement. The court ordered an interim injunction against the Defendant that would prevent them from using the trademark Maaza in India or abroad. It also answered the issue with regard to jurisdiction: since the Defendant is a manufacturer from India, the Delhi High court can entertain this case.
- Yahoo! Inc. v. Akash Arora & Anr
Yahoo! Inc is an American web service provider and search engine. It was established in 1994 and provides a range of services such as Yahoo mail, news, sports, finance and even an advertising platform. The Defendant in this case, Akash Arora, started providing his own web-based services which were similar to Yahoo!’s while also using a trademark that phonetically resembled theirs. This case is considered as a landmark case of cybersquatting in India.
The Plaintiff, Yahoo! Inc, has registered the trademarks Yahoo as well as Yahoo.com since 1995 and have an established reputation and goodwill associated with the same. The trademark was registered in 69 countries but was not registered in India. The Defendant offered services under the name Yahoo India and also applied for registration of this trademark which was approved.
Yahoo! Inc sued Akash Arora for deceptively employing a trademark that was almost identical to their own as well as offering nearly identical services as theirs. They sought a permanent injunction against the Defendant.
The issue of the case being:
- Whether a website or domain name is eligible for protection under the ambit of intellectual property rights
- Where the Defendant’s act of carrying out near identical services and registering the domain Yahoo India can be considered as an infringement of the trademark of the Plaintiff.
While the Defendant put forth very logical and reasonable arguments, the Delhi High court felt that Akash Arora was trying to take advantage of the high reputation and goodwill of Yahoo! Inc by making use of an identical name and providing the same services. The court was of the opinion that using near identical domain names might fool the users into believing that both are the same source. Akash Arora was held responsible for passing off and an injunction was passed restraining from further and future use of any such deceptive and similar marks.
- Zara Fashion v. Zara Food
Zara is a Spanish apparel retailer established in 1975 in Spain. It specialises in fast fashion and is famous globally. Zara is currently part of the Inditex group (the largest apparel retailer in the world).
In 2013, the global retailer (Plaintiff) sued a Chennai based restaurant (Defendant) for infringing their trademark. The restaurant was named Zara Tapas Bar.
The Plaintiffs argued that ZARA was a trademark which was registered by them in more than 85 countries and was a very well established and reputed brand. They have had a presence in India since 1986 (when it started its assembling operations) even though their first store opened only in 2010. In 2003, the Defendant opened their restaurant with the name Zara Tapas Bar. Two years later, the Plaintiff became aware of the Defendant’s intention to register the mark Zara Tapas Bar and sought to contradict the application. The Defendant’s hope for a co-existence agreement was refused and dismissed by the Plaintiff.
The Defendants argued that they were using the mark Zara Tapas Bar and not just Zara but this was contradicted by evidence. On social networking site, the name Zara was more often used. They added that they had been using the same for more than 10 years and that Zara was a common dictionary word and typical name in several countries. They also said that the mark had become public property (Publici Juris) and that several marks had the name Zara in them as well. On further investigation, it was discovered that it was after an outing to Paris that the Defendant decided to adopt the name where there are over 40 stores of Zara.
The court found out that the word Zara is not a dictionary word nor is it non-exclusive and this showed that the Defendant was using the name to take advantage of the apparel brand’s success and reputation. Thus, the Delhi High court ruled in favour of the Plaintiff and ordered the restaurant to change its name. Even the Defendant’s arguments that the services offered were vastly different and thus there would not be confusion among consumer were dismissed by the court. The court also ruled that with respect to the argument on Publici Juris, the Plaintiff had the right to decide whether to sue or take legal action against other infringers if they wish.
Author: Smriti Subramanian, Student of Christ (Deemed to be University)
References:
- https://www.sbs.com.au/language/english/starbucks-sues-india-s-sardarbuksh-for-copycat-brand-name-and-logo
- https://lawcirca.com/the-coca-cola-company-vs-bisleri-international-pvt-ltd-20-october-2009/
- https://blog.ipleaders.in/5-landmark-cases-for-trademark-infringement-in-india/
- https://www.legalwiz.in/blog/5-famous-trademark-cases-for-businesses-to-learn-from
- https://online.yu.edu/cardozo/blog/famous-intellectual-property-cases
- https://lawcutor.com/2020/06/06/yahoo-inc-vs-akash-arora-anr/
- https://www.sonisvision.in/blogs/post/case-study-on-zara-fashion-or-food
- https://www.dotnice.com/zara-vs-zara-a-trademark-tale/
Please contact us at info@origiin.com to know more about our services (Patent, Trademark, Copyright, Contract, IP Licensing, M&A of companies)
Subscribe to YouTube Channel HERE
Join LinkedIn Group: Innovation & IPR
WhatsApp: +91 74838 06607
May 18, 2013 | Trademark
Hamdard National Foundation (India) & Anr. vs. Sadar Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., [ROOH AFZA vs. DIL AFZA] is a rather notable and recent example of the protection sought for the specific term used in a trademark, in which the individual terms are frequently used during specific product segment. The complainant, Hamdard National Foundation (India), is a charity organization founded in 1906 that places importance on distributing profits to promote the welfare of the community. The Hamdard business earnings have effectively gone to its establishment for many decades. The Complainants have manufactured and supplied Unani and Herbal medications, creams, flavorings, and non-alcoholic refreshments. The respondent company, Sadar Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. has been producing Unani medications, syrups, and plant-based items since 1949, when M/s. Sadar Dawakhana founded it.
Facts of the Case
The present complaint was filed since the respondent was infringing on the complainants’ trademark, ‘Rooh Afza,’ and passing off its goods as the complainants’ using the name ‘Dil Afza.’ The plaintiffs claim that they have established a significant reputation and brand image about ‘Rooh Afza,’ with total revenue of Rs.30, 983.57 lakhs in 2019-20 and up to Rs.16, 281.41 lakhs till August 2020. The plaintiffs have invested a substantial amount of money on advertising, as made evident by their expenditure of Rs.459.10 lakhs through 2019-20 and Rs. 577.89 lakhs through 2020-21, up to August 2020. The plaintiffs have also defined the decades in considerable detail when the trademark ‘Rooh Afza’ was first allowed to register for such products. For a hundred years, the claimants’ product/sharbat was marketed in containers with the brand ‘Rooh Afza,’ with a unique color scheme, design, collection, and placement of components, most prominently a different and interesting floral pattern.
Issues raised
- Whether the defendant violates the plaintiff’s trademark rights?
- Whether the defendant’s registered trademark have legal validity?
- Is the defendant’s trademark likely to induce confusion amongst the consumers if used for competing products?
Plaintiff’s Argument
- The plaintiffs filed this claim to protect their trademark once they noticed in early 2020 that the defendant had developed ad campaigns publicizing its sweetener, having the mark ‘Dil Afza,’ in misleadingly similar ringlet containers to those of ‘Rooh Afza’ container. Furthermore, the defendant was using a confusingly similar label, and styling for its goods with bad intent. On June 10, 2018, the mark ‘Sharbat Dil Afza’ in the defendant’s name seemed to have been requested to be registered based on ‘intended to be used.’
- The plaintiffs contended that injunctions would probably be provided against the defendant. Since the defendant had used its trademark for medications, i.e., under Class-32, it expected certification in Class-5 in 2018, claiming that it had used the mentioned product for medications since 1949. The medications certificate, on the other side, was obtained just in 1976, however, the plaintiffs had already been supplying and advertising their brand as ‘Rooh Afza’ since 1907, many years before when the defendants registered their trademark in 1942.
- Roof Afza is a very popular trademark that fulfilled the definition of a “well-known trademark” as defined in Section 2(1)(zg), Trade Marks Act of 1999. Acquiring a drug permit was inadequate to assert use, and the defendant cannot release any paperwork, notwithstanding the opportunity to show that the expression ‘Dil Afza’ was in use from 1949. The trademark was claimed to have been acquired fraudulently since no evidence of use was provided to the Registrar. As a result, the registration was declared void, and the defendant has been unable to seek benefits u/s 28 of the Act. Distinctions in labelling and brand identities have also been considered insignificant due to the risks of confusion.
Defendant’s Argument
- The defendant firmly opposed to approving of plaintiff’s request for any injunctive order, claiming that u/s 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the violation claim was null and void since both marks were registered.
- The defendant claimed that the term ‘Afza’ has now become popular in the syrup market, with many businesses in the sharbat/syrup market using it. The counsel contended that the plea makes reference to ‘Hamdard’ as well as to ‘Rooh Afza,’ because it was ‘Hamdard,’ not ‘Rooh Afza,’ which was the renowned and prominent label, not ‘Rooh Afza,’ isolated. The plaintiffs did not obtain separate registrations for the terms ‘Rooh’ and ‘Afza,’ and the registration was for the whole title, i.e., ‘Rooh Afza.’ Meanwhile, the defendant had registered the entire ‘Dil Afza’ term and had not registered the terms ‘Dil’ or ‘Afza’ independently. Such filings would have been barred u/s 9(a) and (c) of the Trade Marks Act of 1999 and Section 11 of the Act. Furthermore, because ‘Afza’ is the common term used and there was a substantial distinction between the terms ‘Dil’ (meaning ‘heart’) and ‘Rooh’ (meaning ‘spirit’), no category of purchasers would be deceived into thinking that perhaps the defendant’s commodity was indeed linked to that of plaintiffs. All who want to purchase ‘Rooh Afza’ will indeed purchase ‘Rooh Afza.’ Thus, despite the common use of the word ‘Afza,’ there’s no space for confusion.
- The defendants also claimed that now the term ‘Dil Afza’ had been used in Class-5 from 1949. The term ‘Rooh Afza’ has also been used in Class-5. From 1949 until 2020, there had never been any doubt. Consequently, justifying that the defendant’s usage of the title “Dil Afza” for sharbat flavourings cannot be deemed dishonest or intended to provoke confusion. It was contended that since the defendant had developed its brand image, it was not a requirement for the defendant to obtain a misleading mark to profit from the plaintiffs’ goodwill.
- They also claimed there could be no confusion in distinguishing ‘Dil Afza,’ and ‘Rooh Afza,’ owing to the products’ design, styling, and labeling. The plaintiffs’ packaging comprised flowers, while the defendant’s packaging included fruits; the texts were distinctive; the defendant’s label also included the owner’s mark of ‘Sadar’ and its inscription at the top centre, clearly suggesting the origin of goods to be the defendant and to have nothing to do with plaintiffs’ mark of ‘Hamdard’; The colour of the cap is different as the plaintiff’s bottle has a yellow cover, whereas defendant’s bottle has a brown cover.
- Therefore, the plaintiffs can only claim the entire phrase for which they had obtained registration, and similar terms used in the sector cannot be offered distinctiveness. Furthermore, the plaintiffs had failed to prove that the term “Afza” had obtained a slightly different meaning, which was purely associated to their brand. Finally, no injunction order could be awarded because the remedy sought in the interim application was essentially the same as sought in the primary suit.
Judgment
On 6th January 2022, the Court pronounced the judgment in the matter. It was held that:
- Both the plaintiffs’ and defendants’ marks, Rooh Afza and Dil Afza, are registered. A legitimate trademark registration gives the registered owner an exclusive authority to use trademark, except that the if two individuals are registered owners of similar trademarks, their exclusive entitlement to get any of those trademark rights cannot be imposed against one another.
- The defendant’s mark could not be validly certified since it is nearly identical to the claimants’ trademark, which was registered in 1942 as well for the same products, i.e.,’sharbat.’ So there is a possibility of general misunderstandings.
- Also, the plaintiffs’ allegation of having established a strong goodwill and brand image in connection with their brand name ‘Rooh Afza’ cannot be ignored even on preliminary grounds.
- There is indeed a significant difference between both the words and no indistinguishable mark exists.
- The similarity is preferred because both ‘Dil’ and ‘Rooh’ elicit powerful emotions and have the word ‘Afza.’ Even as courts have repeatedly noticed, the requirement to be used in evaluating misunderstandings emerging in the head is of a buyer with flawed recollection and regular subjectivity.
- Even if the consumers were particularly fond, it is hard to fathom that the use of the terms ‘Rooh’ and ‘Dil’ will indeed cause confusion due to its strong sentimental overtones. Buying a bottle of sharbat may evoke emotions, although not to the profundities anticipated by the plaintiffs. All who recognise this prominent feeling will, in any case, be capable of distinguishing between ‘Rooh’ and ‘Dil.’ Nevertheless, the courts expressed concern about the consumer, for whom the words ‘Dil’ and ‘Rooh’ will not have the same meaning in regular usage. The two words’ understandings are indistinguishable.
- In addition, the complainants do not indicate having to apply for or obtaining registration for the restricted usage of the term “Afza.” Consequently, the plaintiffs may just contend privilege for the entire phrase ‘Rooh Afza,’ rather than each of the two elements that create the brand name.
- Nevertheless, the request is denied, with the defendant ordered to maintain accurate records of ‘Dil Afza’ revenues.
Conclusion
Consequently, the plaintiffs can only assert privilege over the entire term ‘Rooh Afza.’ Regardless of the fact that Dil Afza arrived the industry in 1976, there seems to have been peaceful equilibrium with no misunderstandings in the heads of consumers for this long time in the much more delicate healthcare industry. Consequently, Dil Afza won a favorable ruling, bolstering the notion of the phrase combination in use for trademark rights.
Author: Adyasha Das, Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad
Please contact us at info@origiin.com to know more about our services (Patent, Trademark, Copyright, Contract, IP Licensing, M&A of companies)
Subscribe to YouTube Channel HERE
Join LinkedIn Group: Innovation & IPR
WhatsApp: +91 74838 06607
Dec 23, 2012 | Contracts, IPR & Business
Contracts are used to regulate and legitimize essentially all business transactions. They are, of course, appropriate instruments in contexts other than standard buy-sell and employment agreements. Any situation involving a reciprocal exchange of promises will almost always need the use of a formal, written contract. This is certainly relevant when significant intellectual property (IP) is under consideration. Contracts must be employed by companies with valuable IP to ensure that their internal employees and any external vendors or consultants who have access to their IP information act responsibly, regardless of the timing or duration of that access. Furthermore, corporations must clearly indicate who possesses the proprietary rights over the IPs to employees who are involved in or responsible for IP development.
The symbiotic link between copyright and contract law is examined in this article. The intellectual property bargain, or the delicate balance that purportedly exists in present IP laws, cannot simply be viewed as a matter of property laws stating a balance. A major characteristic of IP dispersed in the open market has always been the connection between IP and contract norms, and that interaction is central to whatever balance has been established. It is pointless to focus exclusively on the statutory provisions of copyright, patent, or trademark laws when discussing a current balance in the property rights sector. IP contracts deal with a wide variety of rights that can be assigned, or licensed to any other person or organization. It is necessary to grasp and incorporate the fact that the policy approach has always assumed that property rights are frequently transferred, waived, or released. The clauses adopted in such contracts, on the other hand, must be designed with extreme prudence and care.
Finally, firms can impose IP protection through a variety of contracts, including confidentiality and non-disclosure agreements, non-compete agreements, and property or assignment agreements, among others. Regardless of which contract is best for the situation, any IP-related contract must include the following provisions:
These are important factors in an IP contract that should be considered while drafting these agreements:
To safeguard the owner, a confidentiality clause is required. Because there has been a significant increase in technological knowledge, further security measures must be taken to secure the work, and hence a secrecy provision prohibits and binds the other party from disclosing the creation’s integrity. Patents, copyright, and trademarks are instances of intellectual property that have been published and are thus publicly accessible. They are, however, frequently used in conjunction with other confidential know-how to generate commercial outcomes – and such sensitive know-how must be kept confidential.
Contractually requiring tight confidentiality is perhaps the most important part of any IP arrangement. Companies must be exceedingly proactive, take extraordinary security precautions, and remain watchful to potential intrusions or data misappropriation as technological innovation thrives and competition grows. Undoubtedly, despite a company’s investment in the most advanced security measures, essential IP can be exposed purposefully or inadvertently owing to human frailties.
As a result, a robust contract that explicitly imposes an obligation to maintain secrecy, as well as serious repercussions for failure to comply, will dissuade irresponsible and/or malevolent action. Employees who are aware of the potential consequences of disclosing a company’s information are significantly more likely to take the necessary safeguards and follow any IP-related security policy.
Confidential Information Access
Conditions for access to know-how and confidential information by parties’ employees, consultants, or representatives must be stated in order to safeguard confidentiality in a realistic manner. Standards for guaranteeing the security of secret information might also be stated.
- Ownership of Intellectual Property Used or Created Over the Duration of the Relationship
The contract must state clearly who will be the owner of the intellectual property that is being used or constantly developed throughout the duration of relationship. Even if the connection is later terminated, the ownership status of the IP should be clearly stated. This is a common dispute in which an employee chooses to leave his job after the creation of the IP and wishes to take the creation with him on the assumption that it was developed by him. However, the fact that it was made while he was employed does not give him the right to own it, which must be expressly stated in every contract.
Disputes over IP often emerge when an individual resigns from the employment at the organization severs a relationship with external associates. Employees and consultants who contribute to the creation and development of IP may believe they have the right to take it with them when they depart. Even if this is acceptable to a corporation, it must be determined from the beginning to avoid costly misconceptions. In most circumstances, a business expects to keep ownership of whatever IP it develops. To avoid misunderstanding, this proprietary intent must be made abundantly explicit in any relevant contract.
A contract must unambiguously indicate which individuals are authorized to access the IP, when they may access it, and for how long they will have access, in addition to declaring explicitly which party will retain property rights over the IP. In some situations, a non-compete agreement may prevent an employee from working in a related area for a period of time after leaving a company. However, the extent and length of any such agreement are limited, and a former employee may presume that he or she can still refer to IP information that was created with their participation. Even if a corporation grants such access to current or former employees, the manner in which such access is granted must be specified in a contract. Companies may, for instance, aim to make sure that information is accessed through a secure server or a tightly managed data repository. The requirements for access to IP within a corporation must be clearly specified.
IP indemnification on IP representations and warranties, can be used to hold a seller liable for violations of IP representations and warranties. These aren’t the only types of breaches that might trigger indemnity in a contract, but in contracts where IP may not be the main emphasis, the IP-related indemnification clauses can get neglected during negotiations, which can lead to dispute later if a claim occurs.
In discussions about IP indemnity, the scope and duration of indemnification should be addressed. The seller will aim to reduce the amount of time it can be held liable for indemnification, while the purchaser will seek a longer survival period. The seller will also wish to try to limit its indemnity liability, though this can be challenging. If there are restrictions in place for breaches of general representations, the seller may seek comparable caps for IP breaches, but the acquirer is more likely to push for a larger cap. Acquirers may also try to have specific matters exempted from the cap (i.e., fraud claims, and intentional breach). Control of claim defense is another area where IP indemnification is being negotiated. The seller may want to demand control considering he or she will be more compelled to resolve the claim if the acquirer has control and simply forwards the invoices to the seller.
In the event of an IP license, which may be a stand-alone agreement or a component of a larger agreement, indemnification terms may oblige the licensor to extend its IP protection to the licensee if and when a third-party IP dispute arises. It is critical for the indemnifier to understand what he is committing to indemnify, regardless of the type of IP matters that may be indemnified.
A contract must clearly point out the consequences of any breach of the agreement in order to have the bite it requires. It will not be adequate to utilize vague descriptions like “such fines or litigation”. It must be apparent to the person who will be signing the agreement that the company takes the security of its IP very seriously and will aggressively pursue any and all legal remedies available. In the unfortunate event where valuable IP is misappropriated, there should be no ambiguity regarding the next course of action.
- Intellectual Property Documentation and Records
Sophisticated contracts may include a system for recording and documenting the IP developed throughout the course of the relationship (e.g., by creating specialized lists) so that it can be identified. This allows for improved future valuation of IP and enhances the potential to monetize such property through full or partial assignment, depending on the interests of the parties.
- Termination/ Breach of Contract
Contracts must explicitly specify the consequences of breaching the contract. Because a vague definition of such termination/cancellation/penalty clauses might lead to years-long tedious legal battles, an ironclad contract with respect to penalty clauses is required. There should be no ambiguity or vagueness in a contract.
Author: Vinita Gaud, Pravin Gandhi College of Law
Please contact us at info@origiin.com to know more about our services (Patent, Trademark, Copyright, Contract, IP Licensing, M&A of companies)
Subscribe to YouTube Channel HERE
Join LinkedIn Group: Innovation & IPR
WhatsApp: +91 74838 06607
Oct 24, 2012 | General
In the year 1920, three brothers named Parameshwara Maiya, Ganappayya Maiya, and Yagnanarayana Maiya, from a small village called Parampalli in Udupi District, left home to escape poverty and came to Bangalore. Like many others of their caste, the brahmin brothers knew how to cook. Parameshwara found employment in a wealthy Indian judge’s home as a cook. The judge assisted Parameshwara and his brother Ganappayya in setting up a tiny eatery selling coffee and tiffin items in one of Bangalore’s lavish areas, Lalbagh Fort Road. In 1924, they started with Brahmin’s Coffee Club, which grew in reputation.
Parameshwara died five years after setting up the business, and the youngest brother, Yagnanarayana, took over. He proved to be an excellent restaurateur who was busy building the business and the brand and the eatery grew so popular that wealthy Indians started talking about it too by stopping by for car service, to pick up food in their cars, or sending their chauffeurs over for it.
The client base had expanded and had reached its heights by the time India gained independence. Around the 1950s quarter-century after the coffee club had been set up, Mr Yagnanarayana, who was heading the business, started thinking of making it bigger. Hence, the brothers bought a piece of land near the original eatery and started building a restaurant. Their thoughts have now turned into a brand, and so in 1960, Mavalli Tiffin Room, commonly known as MTR which was named after the locality where it was situated, opened and stands to this day at Lalbagh Road.
MTR has been serving Karnataka Brahmin food. For a long time, customers entered the restaurant through the kitchen, and the restaurant building comprises two floors. It has also been shown on television in the global global travel-related series, Globe Trekker. Cleanliness has become a brand value for MTR, one of the main reasons why the audience’s trust still rests.
As of 2021, MTR restaurant is currently headed by Hemamalini Maiya, Vikram Maiya, and Arvind Maiya, who are grandchildren of Yajnanarayana Maiya.
Origin Of Rava Idli
During World War II, when India was under emergency, there begins the origin of Rava Idli. Due to the rice shortage, making idlis was very difficult. So Mr Yajnanarayana, a professional cook, started experimenting with various ingredients and then made idlis from semolina instead of rice and thus invented the breakfast item of the Rava idli recipe.
Rava idli has become popular not just in Karnataka but also around the world. This idli is created from roasted semolina, mixed in sour curds and seasoned with mustard and curry leaves. After this, the idli is steamed, topped with cashew nuts and served with tangy coconut chutney, sambar or a vegetable kurma. Some versions also have tiny chopped pieces of beans, grated carrots or coconut and chopped coriander. The Rava idli feels lighter on the tummy and great on the palette. It does not have urad daal or rice, making it a healthy, savoury option. At that time, MTR’s invention was welcomed with open arms and the demand for this South Indian Tiffin item went soaring. Rava Idli is known for its simplicity and minimal complexity in cooking, its nutrition, and for its better taste. That was how Rava idli became a very popular dish, and its credit goes to MTR. Silver tumblers are used to serve beverages at MTR
Rava idli translates to semolina idli in the Kannada language. It is usually found in restaurants serving Udupi cuisine, served hot and to be eaten along with saagu and coconut chutney. A dash of ghee poured on top of Rava idli adds to the overall taste.
The original ingredient is still used. Rava idli is now made the same way as the original recipe is followed everywhere. The consistency has also been followed as the recipe was written down and handed over to the cooks over the years.
In 1976, when the Emergency was declared, the government called five of the most well-known restaurants in the city, including MTR, and told them that they had to reduce the prices of the food at their restaurants according to government-approved rates, to bring it within reach of the common man. The prices of the items were to be the same in all the restaurants. Some restaurants paid up; others started compromising on the quality. MTR did neither. MTR kept food quality as high as ever and put up a board stating the losses for the day outside the restaurant. MTR continued in this way for 16 days. On the 16th day, it closed down. During this time, MTR opened a small departmental store next to the hotel and started making and selling mixes for Rava Idli and other items. The restaurant opened again once the Emergency was lifted in the year 1984. The success of Mavalli Tiffin Rooms is not credited to the emergence of Rava idlis alone. The art of leveraging opportunities as the business stepped further helped the restaurant become the top-rated and familiar MTR Foods.
To save the jobs when it was closed, MTR started selling spices and roasted flour mixes. That began its entry into the convenience and instant food business. Currently, the MTR brand represents two separate entities; the MTR restaurant business and MTR Foods, the pre-packaged food business.
In 1994, the MTR management decided to tackle the conundrums of these dividing interests by heading in two separate directions- the restaurant and and the packaged food chains as they have become two separate verticals of the business model.
Many of India’s food businesses have been built around Western and Chinese cuisines. Only pasta and noodles are talked about in the packaged food space. In the breakfast space, it is oats, Kellogg’s, etc. But MTR provides Indian breakfast options with Idli, Rava Idli, upma, and poha, among others. It also comprises of ready-to-eat range, vermicelli, spices & masalas, beverages, dessert mixes, confectionery, and pickles. While Haldirams celebrate North Indian snacks.
In the endeavour to grow, MTR required private equity funding in 2000 and 2003. The business grew, and the investors could exit. In 2007, Norwegian conglomerate Orkla bought MTR for $100 million which was one of the most talked-about acquisitions of the time.
Today, Mavalli Tiffin Rooms is present in 9 locations in Bangalore, 1 in Udupi, 1 in Singapore, 2 in Dubai, and 1 in Kuala Lumpur, while MTR Foods exports to a total of 32 countries, including the United States, United Kingdom, Middle- East, Japan, Canada, Australia, Germany, New Zealand Singapore, Malaysia, Mauritius, and many others.
Author: Samra Zulekha, SDM Law College, Mangalore
Please contact us at info@origiin.com to know more about our services (Patent, Trademark, Copyright, Contract, IP Licensing, M&A of companies)
Subscribe to YouTube Channel HERE
Join LinkedIn Group: Innovation & IPR
WhatsApp: +91 74838 06607
Aug 19, 2012 | IPR & Business, Patent
Purple Book, brought out on September 9, 2014, by the FDA consolidates list of licensed biological products including biosimilar and their interchangeable biological products. This compendium guides pharmacists in implementing pharmacovigilance in biological products and its biosimilars. Biological products and biosimilars are FDA approved that are primarily governed under Public Health Services Act. For the FDA approval, a Biologics License Application (BLA) can be filed under sub-sections of Section 351(a) and 351(k) of PHSA. An application filed under Section 351(a) for biologics and innovator biologics should submit all requisite information supporting its safety and effectiveness. This section 351(a) application is also referred as a standalone application for its non-reliance placed on other biologic products. A BLA filed under Section 351(k) for biologics license should submit information that confirms the manufacturer’s claim that the biosimilarity of the product is based on data to animal studies, clinical studies and analytical studies. Thus, the primary purpose of the Purple Book is to enable cross-checking as to whether a licensed biological product under Section 351(k) is biosimilar to or interchangeable with the reference product and to provide information pertaining the exclusivity of such reference product. Thus, the Purple Book lists all the biological products licensed under Section 351(a) and lists correspondingly, all the licensed biosimilar and interchangeable products of the reference product.
Purple Book originally accommodated two separate lists:
- Biologics approved by FDA’s Centre for Drug Evaluation and Research
- Biologics approved by FDA’s Centre of Biologic Evaluation and Research
The aforementioned lists have been replaced and discontinued after FDA releasing a single, searchable, online database, Purple Book Database, storing all the information about FDA approved / licensed biological products. This planned transitioning to online database is a step forward for ensuring improved transparency and accessibility for patients, industry users and other stakeholders. The information of the biologic product listed in Purple Book include:
- BLA tracking number
- Product Name
- Biologic product’s non-proprietary name
- If a biological product is a biosimilar or interchangeable one
- Application number
- Approval date
- Biosimilar information
- Date of licensure
- Date of first licensure- this indicates whether the biological product qualifies for reference product exclusivity and the expiration date to such exclusivity if applicable.
- Expiration date of Reference product exclusivity (12 yrs)- This exclusivity period disallows FDA from approving a 351(k) application until the exclusivity period of reference product is expired in 12 years from its first licensure.
Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act, 2009
BPCI Act of 2009 amended the PHSA Act to create an abbreviated approval pathway for biosimilars or interchangeable biological products, which is comparable to the one created through Hatch-Waxman Amendments for ANDA applications under FD&C Act for the Orange Book. BPCI Act requires the BLA applicant to submit evidences supporting the claim that the biological drug is biosimilar to reference product. Evidences should show that the drug has same dosage, same route of administration and same strength as the reference biological product, and additionally, exhibits no clinically meaningful differences in terms of its purity, safety and potency from the reference product. Now for the designation of interchangeability, the BLA applicant must provide requisite information to demonstrate bisoimilarity as well as to show that the biological product has same clinical result as its correspondent reference drug when administered to the patient. Moreover, it is essential to demonstrate that a biological product when administered to a patient more than once, the risks associated in terms of its safety and diminished efficacy upon alternating or switching the reference product with the biological product, should not be greater than the risks associated when administering the reference product alone.[1] Section 351(i)(3) of the PHS Act implicates that once a biological product has received the designation of interchangeability, it can be in official capacity be substituted for the reference product with no intervention from the public health care provider. [2]
PURPLE BOOK CONTINUITY ACT, 2020
Patent Listing in Purple Book
Since its time of outset, Purple Book limited itself in providing information on a biological product’s labeling of being a biosimilar or its interchangeability to a reference biological product, and accommodated no listing of patents for such biological products. However, with the recent enactment of Purple Book Continuity Act (PBCA), FDA has for the first time imposed the requirement of patent listing of approved biological products as well as FDA regulatory exclusivity information. This transparency of patent information facilitates the biosimilar developers in getting hold of the patent information before the patent dance itself. Patent dance is a procedural concept formulated under the legislation of Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act, intended to create an opportunistic space for patent dispute resolution between biosimilar applicant and biologic license holder, thus facilitating for a less elaborative approval route for biosimilar applicants. The preliminary step that needed to be furthered for the patent dance is the disclosure of such patent information that could otherwise possibly result in infringement by the biosimilar applicant, as per Section 1(3)(a) of the BPCI Act. As per the new law, a window period of 30 days is provided for the biologic license holders to share the disclosed patent information and its expiry dates to FDA which would later be incorporated in Purple Book.
Section 325 of the Consolidation Appropriations Act has specifically recognized for biological product patent transparency which upon preliminary concordance with the Public Health Service Act, has given FDA a period of 180 days from the date of enactment of the Purple Book Database. Moreover, FDA is required to update the list within 30 days after its first publication to include newly licensed products. In regards to the patent information that has been already subjected to the disclosure during the patent dance, requires the reference product sponsor to submit such list of patents and its corresponding expiry dates before FDA, within 30 days after such disclosure to the biosimilar applicant. [3]When the exclusivity of the biologic product has been duly determined or established by the Secretary of FDA, the product would be accordingly fitted into the Purple Book.
Implications of the Patent Information Requirement in Purple Book
With the new law creating an attic for the incorporation of patent information alongside with other details of the biologic product, it is essential to understand its implications on a biosmilar applicant. As mentioned before, patent information gets incorporated in the Purple Book database only upon following a standardized disclosure of the same by the biologic license holder to the section 351 (k) applicant during patent dance. This implies that only subsequent applicants can have an effective perusal of the patent information mentioned in the Purple Book and little impact on the first applicant. It is imperative to understand that this patent information provided and updated in Purple Book is not holistic at its preliminary view since it is totally dependent on the extent of disclosure engaged in by the license holder during the patent dance. hence, when a subsequent applicant peruse through the provided patent information in Purple Book, the possibility of the applicant getting ambushed by the license holder with its unidentified patent information still lies ahead.
Exclusivity Information
Under the new legislation, FDA is required to codify all the regulatory exclusivities for biological products including any attached pediatric exclusivities.[4] Initially the list did not identify periods of orphan exclusivities of the biological products and their expiration dates, which are usually listed in Orphan Designated and/or Approved Products.[5] However, the revised Purple Book database has listed information on orphan exclusivities as well. [6]
CONCLUSION
Though biosimilar and interchangeable products are not as dominant in market place as the generic drugs in pharmaceutical sector, it is prospectively expected that the marketing of biological products will potentially increase. Even the enactment of Purple Continuity act can be viewed as a step taken towards this potential shift in pharmaceutical market. The confidentiality shield that once protected the patent information of the products are partially lifted with the new listing requirement under the Act. Essentially, this compendium is facilitated for the pharmacists in comprehending the nature of the biological product and its administration in patients, and to implement pharamacovigilance on the biological products.
Author: Vaishnavi Suresh, Symbiosis Law School, Pune
Please contact us at info@origiin.com to know more about our services (Patent, Trademark, Copyright, Contract, IP Licensing, M&A of companies)
Subscribe to YouTube Channel HERE
Join LinkedIn Group: Innovation & IPR
WhatsApp: +91 74838 06607
[1] The “Deemed To Be a License” Provision of the BPCI Act Questions and Answers Guidance for Industry, https://www.fda.gov/media/135838/download
[2] Public Health Services Act, Section 351(i)(3)
[3] Consolidated Appropriations Act, Section 325 (a)(A)(iii).
[4] FDA/CDER SBIA CHRONICLES, November 18th, 2014, https://www.fda.gov/media/90150/download.
[5] Designating an Orphan Product: Drugs and Biological Products, https://www.fda.gov/industry/developing-products-rare-diseases-conditions/designating-orphan-product-drugs-and-biological-products
[6]Purple Book Database of Licensed Biological Products, https://purplebooksearch.fda.gov/downloads
