Skip to content

CS Professional · Intellectual Property Rights - Law and Practice · Trademarks

A foreign firm's international registration designates India. The firm listed its goods in Class 3, but the Registrar considers the mark's scope covers goods more naturally falling in Class 5. The firm argues that its stated class limits protection strictly to Class 3. Under the Act, which view is correct?

The Registrar is not bound by the applicant's class indication. Section 36F(2) says the classes given by the applicant do not bind the Registrar in determining the scope of protection, so the firm's argument fails.

  1. AThe Registrar is bound by the classes indicated by the applicant in determining the scope of protection
  2. BThe classes indicated bind the Registrar only if the International Bureau has verified them
  3. CThe classes indicated bind the Registrar only for the first five years
  4. DThe Registrar is not bound by the classes of goods and services indicated by the applicant when determining the scope of protectionCorrect

Explanation

Section 36F(2) states that the indication of classes of goods and services given by the applicant shall not bind the Registrar regarding the determination of the scope of protection of the trade mark. So the firm's argument fails. The Act does not make any exception for verification or a time period.

Did you get it right without looking?

One question tells you little. A timed set on Trademarks shows your real accuracy, how long you take and where you lose marks.

Practise TrademarksFree diagnostic mock

More Trademarks questions