K J SOMAIYA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES & RESEARCH,

MUMBAI

INFRINGMENT OF
GEOGRAPHIC INDICATIONS
CASE STUDIES
BY

GROUP CANBERRA
LOKESH BIYANI (106)
MAHEK DHAGA (125)
MANPREET KAUR MANN(126)
LOKESH SINGH (146)
 INFRINGMENT OF GEOGRAPHIC INDICATIONS

Case between Mount Everest Water Ltd. & Bisleri International over Himalayan name
What do you think of the products which originate from Himalayas? Shouldn’t they be called as
“Himalayan” or “origins from Himalayas”? Should a particular company be given license to use the
word Himalayan or the indutsry should be allowed to use a common logo of Himalaya? Well, the
following legal tussle between two mineral water companies will help to provide answers for many
of the above.

In 2008, Mount Everest Mineral Water Limited (MEMW), a Tata group company filed a legal suit
against Bisleri International Pvt. Ltd. for the use of word “Himalayan”. MEMW had obtained the
trademark of word “Himalayan” in 1994 and so, on this premise, it asked for a) stopping the use of
domain name by Bisleri www.bislerihimalayan.com because it misleads the customer about the
actual Himalayan brand and b) stopping the use of word Himalaya on Bisleri bottles in large size
fonts. Bisleri, in his reply, argued that his mineral water brand was launched one year before the
launch of the same by MEMW and MEMW is only solving its marketing failures through this case.

MEMW & Bisleri

MEMW was started by a Singapore based NRI in year 1991 with its first plant in Himachal Pradesh.
The company used water directly from Himalayas. Later, Tata Tea, a Tata group company acquired it
and then this Tata group owned company launched its mineral water brand named as “Himalayan”
in 2007. Bisleri, a leader in the packaged drinking water, acquired a facility near the Himalayas
(in Uttranchal) for the use of natural mineral water. It launched this water under the brand name
“Himalayaa” in 2006 making it similar to Himalayan and so due to it, a legal battle started.

How to obtain trademark for Geography related product?

The water obtained from a particular source, having all vital organic minerals, packaged near the
source and meets all quality standards without processing comes under the category of Natural
Mineral Water. Himalayan mark is descriptive in nature (as it indicates the quality and properties of
water) and also has a secondary meaning (i.e. is from a particular source or is identifiable among the
other products) and so, it fulfill the conditions for registration of trademark.

How the battle followed? Himalayan water contains some natural mix of minerals such that the
same composition is not found elsewhere in the world and so critics argue that the benefits of this GI
should not be limited to a particular company, but should be shared among the industry. But, in
March 2010, the court gave its final verdict in the favour of MEMW owing to the Trademark
obtained by the company. Bisleri was stopped to allow the use of domain name and also it was
allowed to use the term “Himalayaa” in small fonts indicating only the origin.

Cancellation of trademark

Although Bisleri lost the legal battle, it filed an application in Intellectual Property Appellate Board
(IPAB) for the cancellation of the trademark “Himalayan” by MEMW. It has given the premise that
any geographical name can’t be registered as a trademark by any private party, under the
Geographical Indiactions Act.

The petition was upheld by IPAB and in an order given in the month of Feb 2011, it has cancelled the
trademark and said that the Tata’s Mount Everest company doesnot enjoy the exclusive rights to the
word “Himalayan”.

Comment on the questions given in the first paragraph. Also, what is likely to be the future course of
action by Tata’s on the cancellation of their trademark?