Branding for the international market - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – Branding for the international market PowerPoint presentation | free to download - id: 84a69a-MDU2Z



Loading


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

Branding for the international market

Description:

This presentation has been prepared by Knowledgentia Consultants on "Branding for the international market" at Federation of Indian Export Organizations, New Delhi. Visit: – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:26
Slides: 44
Provided by: Knowledgentia_C
Category: Other

less

Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Branding for the international market


1
BRANDING FOR THE INTERNATIONAL MARKET
  • KNOWLEDGENTIA CONSULTANTS

2
WHAT IS A BRAND?
  • A brand is a distinguishing symbol,
    mark, artistic logo, name, word, sentence or a
    combination of these items that companies use to
    distinguish their product or services from others
    in the market.
  • Legal protection provided to a brand is termed as
    TRADEMARK or COPYRIGHT.

3
  • Trade Marks are distinctive symbols, signs, logos
    that help consumer to distinguish between
    competing goods or services.
  • Copyright is the artistic work/logo or
    combination of artistic work with data on
    websites or compilation of data in the form of
    software.
  • Brands are legally not linked to quality. But,
    linked in consumers mind to quality expectation.

4
BREAKING DOWN BRAND
  • A brand is seen as one of its company's most
    valuable assets.
  • It represents the face of the company, the
    recognizable logo, slogan, or mark that the
    public associates with the company.
  • The company is often referred to by its brand,
    and they become one and the same.

5
EVOLUTION OF BRANDING
  • NOW, branding has grown to include the entire
    development process of creating a brand, brand
    name, brand identity, and in some cases, brand
    advertising.
  • Initially It was synonymous with the visual
    interpretation or representation of a business.
  • Branding included symbols or logos only.

6
THE BRAND IDENTITY
  • Can also be called CORPORATE IDENTITY or VISUAL
    IDENTITY.
  • Meaning how you want your customers to perceive
    your business.
  • It may include your brand name, packaging,
    artistic logo or your website.
  • Important Brand Identity must match your brand
    image.
  • Examples Apple, Nike, Reebok, McDonalds.

7
BRAND PORTFOLIO
  • Meaning Large business operating under multiple
    different brands or services use brand portfolio
    to encompass these entities into one.
  • Each mark or brand can be registered.
  • Objective To lessen consumer confusion via
  • efficient marketing.

8
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS AND BRANDING
  • Business across borders is spread over various
    parameters
  • (a) Territory for Export
  • (b) Demand of Product
  • (c) Partners
  • (d) Pricing
  • (e) Marketing
  • (f) Packaging
  • (g) Transportation.

9
  • All these parameters are interlinked to
    protection of brand through Intellectual property
    registrations
  • For Example Products having high enforcement
    of IP shall prefer to do business with strong IP
    protection countries
  • Demand for Products shall depend upon whether the
    trademark is registered and well known in that
    territory and accordingly the Pricing can be
    negotiated
  • Partners The expansion and partnering for
    business shall be dependent upon how strong is
    the IP and accordingly Franchisee, License,
    Exclusive Distribution Agreements can be entered
    into amongst businesses.

10
  • Thus, Intellectual Property is one of the
    paramount issue while commencing business of
    exports or preparing export plans.
  • Branding covers mainly IPs i.e. Trademark
    Copyright

11
TRADEMARK REGISTRATION IN INDIA
  • Laws Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Trade Mark Rules,
    2002
  • Benefit Gives the owner an exclusive right to
    use the mark or logo on its products or services.
  • Mark or Logo may include distinctive symbols,
    signs or tag lines that help consumers to
    distinguish between other goods or services.
  • Period 10 years renewal.

12
IMPORTANCE OF TRADEMARK/BRAND PROTECTION
  • Promotes fair and efficient Commerce.
  • Regulates Competition.
  • Protects Exclusivity of Owner
  • Promotes product Quality Consistency.
  • Prevents Unfair Competition.
  • Enhances quality products in market.
  • Builds reputation and goodwill of the
    product/brand and the owner company.
  • Excludes others from using similar/identical
    trade mark.

13
COPYRIGHT
  • Laws Copyright Act, 1957 and Copyright Rules
    2013
  • Benefit Gives the creative author/owner an
    exclusive right to use the logo/work
    internationally.
  • Work - Artistic, musical, dramatic, literary,
    cinematographic, creative works of the authors,
    software.
  • Period Protection period - Life of author 60
    years.
  • Berne Convention - India is a signatory so
    copyright registration in India gives protection
    in all member countries.
  • Enforcement Efficient criminal and civil
    remedies.

14
HOW TO PROTECT BRANDS INTERNATIONALLY?
  • Solution The Madrid system for the
    International Registration of Trademarks.
  • Benefits
  • Bundle of national rights capable of being
    administered centrally.
  • One Language/One Fee.
  • Cost Effective.
  • Simpler Renewable and Registration process.
  • Indian Attorney can be one point of contact.

15
INDIA AS THE OFFICE OF ORIGIN
  • India has ratified and implemented Madrid
    Protocol recently.
  • Criteria
  • The applicant should be a national of India, or
  • The applicant should be domiciled in India, or
  • The applicant should have a real and effective
    business or commercial establishment in India
  • Registration of Trademark with Indian Trade Marks
    Registry is necessary.
  • Applicant can designate one or more member
    countries for protecting the mark.

16
COPYRIGHT REGISTRATION
  • Artistic work/logo of the Brand can be accorded
    protection through Copyright Registration.
  • Copyright Registration is legally valid and
    enforceable in all member countries.
  • Indian registration gives international
    protection.
  • Cost effective and efficacious remedy.
  • Registration is within a span of 1 year.

17
ADVANTAGES OF BRANDING THROUGH IP ACROSS BORDERS
  • Exclusivity
  • IP is Territorial
  • IP Laws and Procedures are Different
  • Enforcement of IP Border Measures
  • Avenues for partnering Licensing, Joint
    Ventures, Exclusive Distributorship Agreements
  • IP in brands gives an edge

18
ENFORCEMENT OF IP
  • CAUTION NOTICE
  • CEASE DESIST NOTICES TO MANUFACTURERS, DEALERS
    AND SELLERS
  • LITIGATION
  • CUSTOMS ACT NOTIFICATION, 2007

19
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS (IMPORTED GOODS)
ENFORCEMENT RULES, 2007
  • Customs Act has notified specifically crafted IP
    enforcement rules, 2007 to curb infringing goods
    entering into Indian territory
  • These rules are Intellectual Property Rights
    (Imported Goods) Enforcement Rules, 2007
  • Owner of IP Right Holder Can give notice to
    Commissioner of Customs in the prescribed format
    for reporting that infringing goods are being
    imported in India

20
  • Commissioner of Customs after verifying the
    details will prohibit the clearance of those
    goods Deemed to be Prohibited as per Section 11
    or Suspend the clearance
  • On taking order of suspension of
    clearance/prohibition the Customs department
    shall send notice to the right holder as well as
    importer to join proceedings within stipulated
    time period, failing which the Customs
    authorities shall take appropriate action for
    release or disposal of goods as required.

21
REAL TIME CASES
  • Synopsis
  • Trademarks and brand names go hand in hand.
  • Trademark infringement cases which have left
    brands, both domestic and international, in
    jeopardy.

22
Ellora Industries v. Banarsi Das Goela Ors.,
Delhi High Court AIR 1980 Delhi 254
  • FACTS
  • Plaintiffs were the registered owners of the
    trade mark 'ELORA' in respect of watches,
    time-pieces, clocks and their parts. And have
    been selling clocks with the trade mark 'ELORA'
    since 1955.
  • Later in October 1962 they found an advertisement
    issued by the defendants "ELLORA INDUSTRIES" with
    'ELLORA' as the trademark for their time-pieces. 
  • SUIT Plaintiffs filed a suit 1964 to restrain
    the defendants from carrying out their business
    under the trademark "Ellora". The allegations
    made by the plaintiffs were as follows
  • .

23
JUDGEMENT
  • Defendants were restrained from using the
    trademark ELLORA for clocks and wrist watches by
    the Honble High Court.
  • Plaintiffs registration of the mark, use and its
    reputation were upheld.

24
N.R. Dongre And Ors. vs Whirlpool Corporation And
Another, Supreme Court of India 1996 (2) ARBLR
488 SC
  • Trans-border reputation and good will.
  • FACTS
  • The Indian company filed for the trademark
    Whirlpool which was opposed by the MNC. Whirlpool
    corporation then filed a suit for permanent
    injunction which was allowed and N.R. Dongre was
    restrained.
  • The Apex Court while adjudicating the appeal,
    interpreted the concept of trans border
    reputation of a well known trademark.
  • The importance of a trademark across borders was
    found to be within ambit of a trademark.
    Whirlpool established its right on basis of being
    well known worldwide.

25
JUDGEMENT
  • The court ruled in favour of the corporation and
    held that they were already indulged in selling
    their products to the U.S embassy in India. And
    further that were advertisements in various
    international magazines being circulated in India
    about the products sold by the corporation
    bearing the trademark and name Whirlpool.
  • Granted a temporary injunction in favour of the
    corporation stating that there were no reliable
    and conclusive evidence of defendants having
    carried out marketing of their washing machines
    bearing the trademark 'Whirlpool' for any
    considerable time prior to the date of grant of
    injunction.
  • An appeal before the high court saw the judgement
    being upheld. Special Leave Petition was filed
    before the Supreme Court, the court finally
    upheld the decision of the Learned Single Judge
    as well as that of the Division Bench and
    reaffirmed the decision granted by the Single
    Judge bench of the Delhi High Court.

26
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited v. Manu Kosuri
And Another, Delhi High Court 2001 (58) DRJ 241
  • FACTS
  • DRD is the original registered owner of the
    trademark 'DR. REDDY'S' and has been using the
    trademark along with its subsidiary companies for
    an extensively long time.
  • However, at the time of filing the suit, the
    application for registration of trademark DR.
    REDDY'S was pending and the company had a
    registered domain name "drreddys.com
  • Defendant Mr. Manu Kosuri registered a domain
    name 'drreddyslab.com' for operating business on
    the internet.
  • SUIT DRD filed a suit seeking permanent
    injunction restraining defendant from using the
    domain name drreddyslab.com or any other domain
    name which is similar or identical to DRDs
    trademark

27
JUDGEMENT
  • DRD is the original registered owner of the
    trademark 'DR. REDDY'S.
  • Court restrained the defendant by a permanent
    injunction from registering a domain name or
    operating any business on the internet and
    elsewhere under the domain name 'drreddyslab.com'
    or any other domain name which is identical and
    similar to DRD's trademark 'DR. REDDY'S'.

28
Cadila Healthcare Limited vs. Cadila
Pharmaceuticals Limited, Supreme Court of India
(2001) 5 SCC 73
  • FACTS
  • Cadila Healthcare Limited and Cadila
    Pharmaceuticals Limited were both pharmaceutical
    giants. Both companies got supplemental right to
    use the mark/logo CADILA as part of merger.
  • Cadila Healthcares product was Falcigo and
    Cadila Pharmaceutical launched Falcitab.
  • SUIT
  • So, Cadila Healthcare filed for injunction on the
    ground of similar/identical trademark.

29
JUDGEMENT
  • The Honble Apex Court held since the products in
    question were medicinal products there was a
    greater risk of confusion compared to
    non-medicinal products.
  • And it could have fatal and disastrous effects on
    the buyers. Thus, Cadila Pharmaceutical was
    restrained from using a similar trademark

30
Playboy Enterprises v. Bharat Malik Another,
Delhi High Court 2001 PTC (21) 328
  • Infringement of foreign trademark
  • FACTS
  • Playboy Enterprises Incorporation has been the
    publisher of the widely known magazine PLAYBOY
    filed for restraining an Indian publisher Mr.
    Bharat Malick, who launched PLAYWAY.
  • Plaintiff contended that the adoption of the word
    'PLAY' by the defendant was ill motivated and
    illegal. And that the word was phonetically
    similar to the mark PLAYBOY. Hence, there was a
    clear case of infringement of the registered
    trademark of the plaintiff with the intention of
    selling the defendants magazine using the
    goodwill and reputation of the plaintiff.

31
JUDGEMENT
  • Court held that long and continuous user by
    Plaintiff of the mark PLAYBOY has given it a
    global reputation of being well known in that
    content. Thus, use of mark PLAYWAY for similar
    content amounts to infringement and passing off.
  • Defendants were restrained from printing and
    publishing the magazine under the name PLAYWAY.

32
Horlicks Ltd. Ors. V. Kartick Sadhukan, Delhi
High Court 2002 (25) PTC 126 Del
  • FACTS
  • Plaintiff HORLICKS Ltd. is a foreign company
    engaged in manufacturing of wide range of food
    products.
  • Defendants Kartick Confectionery started
    manufacturing a similar look-alike product,
    namely, toffees under the trademark HORLIKS
    infringing the trademark rights enjoyed by
    'HORLICKS.
  • SUIT HORLICKS filed for a suit seeking to
    permanently restrain KARTICK CONFECTIONERY from
    infringing the trademark HORLICKS and also its
    copyrights which it enjoyed over the product.

33
JUDGEMENT
  • The court ruled that use of the label and
    trademark HORLIKS by defendants in respect of
    toffees is very likely to cause confusion among
    the people. It would thereby lead to deception,
    majorly because Kartick confectionary have
    copied the trademark HORLICKS and also its label
    as and how it appears on the products
    manufactured and marketed by them.
  • Court restrained defendants from manufacturing
    and selling toffees or reproducing, printing or
    publishing any label or other related goods under
    the trademark/copyright HORLIKS or under any
    other name that is similar in expression to Hs
    trademark HORLICKS.

34
ICC Development International v. Arvee
Enterprises Another, Delhi High Court 2003 PTC
(26) 228
  • FACTS
  • ICC Development (International) Ltd. a company
    formed by the members of the International
    Cricket Council to own and control its commercial
    rights which included media, sponsorship and
    other intellectual property rights relating to
    their events.
  • Arvee Enterprises was an authorized dealer of
    Philips India Ltd. Launched a Promotional
    campaign with slogan - "Philips Diwali Manao
    World Cup Jao" and "Buy a Philips Audio System
    win a ticket to the World Cup". They even
    inserted a pictorial representation of a ticket
    with an imaginative seat and gate number saying
    "Cricket World Cup 2003.
  • SUIT
  • ICC approached the Delhi High Court for restrain
    against the Defendant on the averment of ambush
    marketing

35
JUDGEMENT
  • But, the same was dismissed by the Honble Delhi
    High Court as neither it was an Unfair trade
    practice nor misuse of brand of World Cup.
  • Court upheld that World Cup is a sporting event
    and not a trademark upon which exclusive rights
    would vest with Plaintiffs as claimed.

36
Satyam Infoway Ltd. v. Sifynet Solutions Pvt.
Ltd., Supreme Court of India AIR 2004 SC 3540
  • FACTS
  • Satyam Infoway had registered several domain
    names pertaining to its business sifynet.com,
    sifymall.com, sifyrealestate.com, in the year
    1999. It averred that the word "Sify" had become
    a distinctive and well known mark.
  • Meanwhile, Sifynet Solutions started using the
    word "Siffy" as part of the domain names and
    claims to have registered in the year 2001.
  • SUIT
  • Trademark protection was extended to Domain Name
    by Apex Court in 2004.

37
JUDGEMENT
  • Apex court held that Domain name protection falls
    within the ambit of Trademark.
  • Thus, prior user, registration and probability of
    confusion in public were the parameters for
    restraining the defendants from using similar
    domain names.

38
Colgate Palmolive Co. Ltd Another. vs. Mr.
Patel Others., Delhi High Court 2005 PTC (31)
583
  • FACTS
  • Colgate Palmolive Co. Limited filed a suit
    against Mr. Patel on the ground that they were
    imitating the trade dress/packaging of their
    product. The packaging of their AJANTA toothpaste
    was infringing the trademark and copyright as
    vested in COLGATE.
  • JUDGEMENT
  • Court held that there is resemblance and
    imitation and infringement by Defendants. If the
    packaging is changed then their would not be any
    cause of confusion amongst public at large.

39
Wipro Cyprus Private Limited v. Zeetel
Electronics, Madras High Court 2010 (44) PTC 307
(Mad)
  • FACTS
  • Wipro Cyprus Private Ltd acquired the trademark
    Yardley and all its variants thereupon from
    Lornamaed Group Ltd including its Indian
    registrations.
  • Zeetel Electronics attempted to import talcum
    powder and body sprays having the same trademark
    Yardley from Singapore.
  • SUIT
  • Wipro filed for a suit of permanent injunction
    against Zeetel.

40
JUDGEMENT
  • Madras High Court restrained Zeetel from
    importing the goods in India thereby it upheld
    the exclusive right of Wipro on acquisition of
    brands for India.
  • Thus, on the basis of registered Trademarks
    competitor was curbed from doing business of
    goods under that trademark.

41
H M CASE
  • Hennes Mauritz (H M) recently launched its
    stores in India in October, 2015
  • Issued Cease Desist notice to Mumbai based
    retailed HM Mega Brands for trademark
    infringement of logo and colour
  • No case has been filed so far by the MNC

42
BURGER KING
  • Launching its operations in India, almost a year
    ago Burger King is entangled in a few trademark
    litigations. Whilst some companies have
    acknowledged its well known trademark and changed
    their names, the others are fighting against the
    MNC and keeping their stance strong.
  • Burger King Corporation is rampantly enforcing
    its trademarks in India along with expanding its
    outlets and reaching to the public at large.

43
CONCLUSION
  • Exports and IP Compliance/Awareness is essential
  • Saves Cost
  • Ensures healthy competition
  • IP registration would give exclusive rights, if
    protected territorially
  • IP registration would add more value to your
    products which can be encashed by License
    agreements, exclusive distribution agreements,
    franchisees, etc.
  • Awareness shall reduce chances of getting
    entangled in Litigation in legal jurisdictions
    abroad
About PowerShow.com