Parle Products introduced Parle-G way back in 1938. The biscuits themselves have had a long journey attaining global recognition, with the brand undergoing reimaging in 1982. One may wonder why an exceedingly popular and successful brand had to undergo reimaging after so many years of being introduced to the market and becoming a hit among consumers. The answer lies in an understanding of trademarks.
India has developed Intellectual Property Laws and awareness in the recent past and is still making constant developments in these laws, resulting in IP protection being a new yet essential field in the Indian Legal System. However, Parle Products, having been started during the Swadeshi Movement, has been around for a longer time. Like any successful business, Parle Products gauged the changing legal environment surrounding brand protection in India and adapted to these changes by reimaging ‘Parle Gluco’ and renaming it as ‘Parle-G’.
In order to understand the relevance of this particular change, it is important to understand two important limitations to trademark registration which in turn protects brands and other related intellectual property. First, if a trademark consists of a descriptive element, describing the specifics of the kind of product, such a trademark cannot be registered. Second, certain words, by virtue of them being used commonly to refer to a thing, belong to the public at large for use and cannot be owned by a private entity. These trademarks are called “Publici Juris Trademarks”.
In the case of ‘Parle Gluco’, because of the grounds mentioned above, Gluco could not be registered as a trademark. Gluco for Glucose biscuits is descriptive of the specifics of the kind of biscuits those were and cannot be used exclusively by one company. For example, in the case of M/s Hindustan Development Corporation Ltd. v. The Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks, the word ‘RASOI’, which is primarily associated with cooking, could not be registered as a trademark for cooking oil. [1]
Further, the term Gluco describing Glucose, a natural substance, is “publici juris”, that is, it belongs to the public at large, for anyone to use, and cannot be owned exclusively by a private entity. Thus, in Parle Gluco, ‘Gluco’ is considered to be the non-distinctive part of the brand name and therefore cannot be registered as a trademark. Similarly, in SBL Ltd v. Himalayan Drug Company, using “Liv” for “Liver” was considered as the non-distinctive part of the mark as it is common practice to use “Liv” for “Liver”, making it “publici juris.” [2]
With the rising popularity and demand for glucose biscuits, many other biscuit companies started selling ‘gluco’ biscuits. There existed unfair competition for Parle as it had created a consumer base for its Gluco biscuits which was now being divided among the many different alternatives, with no distinguishing brand name unique to the glucose biscuits started by Parle. In order to restore its consumer base and ensure brand loyalty, ‘Parle Gluco’, a brand name which could not be registered, was changed to ‘Parle-G’, a registered trademark and a unique product of Parle Products, in a reimaging done by Everest Brand Solutions.
The reimaging helped create a unique identity for the glucose biscuits started by Parle Products and helped restore its popularity amongst its loyal consumers.
By: Ria Mishra
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 India’s largest Linkedin Group: Innovation & IPR
[1] M/s Hindustan Development Corporation Ltd. v. The Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks, AIR 1955 Cal. 519
[2] SBL Ltd v. Himalayan Drug Company, 1997 (17) PCT 540
