Skip to main content

Difference between Trademark and Copyright

 Difference Between Trademark and

Copyright


Most business owners are unaware about the most valuable asset of their business. It

is their brand name under which the existence and goodwill of their business

completely depend. The marketplace is overcrowded and capturing the target

customer’s attention is the battle half won. These days the customers have become

highly brand conscious. Thus, trademark and copyright have become the greatest

influences on the consumer’s purchasing decisions.

It is, therefore, important for business or start up or creative people, to have a clear

understanding about trademark and copyright. This will help them grow their business

or secure their original work, for monetizing.

Trademark: A trademark is a symbol, logo, design, word, phrase, colour, sound, or a

combination of these, which is used for the purpose of trading goods or providing

services. It indicates the source of goods or services and distinguishes them from the

goods and services of others. It provides the exclusivity of rights to the use of a

trademark in relation to the product or service.

Copyright: Copyright is also a tool to protect intellectual property which is generally in

the form of literature, sound recording, painting or sculptures, books or poetry or

screenplays, etc.

It grants the exclusive right of a creator of the work to specifically copy or reproduce

or publish the work for monetary gains or otherwise. It doesn’t specifically require

registration of the copyright.

The Difference between the Trademark and Copyright

The difference between the trademark and copyright can be understood clearly on the

basis of the following differentiating points:

1. Target objects: The trademark acts as protection for a trade name or company

brand name or its logo label, taglines, slogan and domain names whereas copyright

protects artistic, dramatic and musical works.

2. Purpose: The purpose of using the trademark is to retain the exclusivity of the mark

for their products or services in the market, whereas the copyrights grants exclusive

right to use and distribute.

3. Benefit: The trademark prevents other competitors from using similar kind of marks

or texts in their branding, the sole purpose here is the brand establishment and trust


inculcation in customers. Whereas, copyright prohibits any person other than the

creator to reproduce or sell the copyrighted work online or offline.

4. Exclusivity: Trademark not only gives exclusivity to the product or services it is also

a means to retain it. Whereas the work creator can use their copyright-protected work

for financial gains.

5. Recognition: Trademark gives a sense of belongingness about the product or

services in the eyes of customers. The customers recognize the brand and can assume

the service or product quality as per the brand value. Whereas, copyright recognizes

the original aspects of the work.

6. Duration of validity: The trademark registration is valid for 10 years which can be

renewed to protect it from infringers. Whereas, copyright is valid for a lifetime. For an

individual owner, the term of copyright is the lifetime of the author plus 60 years. For a

non-individual owner, copyright may last up to 60 years from the date of the

publication.

7. Symbol of Identification: The trademarked product or logo or service is permitted

to use the sign after the registration. Whereas, the symbol © is used for the protection

of copyrighted original works. It doesn’t mandatorily require registration but

registration proves the originality.

8. Registration: For using trademark symbol, registration of the mark is mandatory but

using © symbol as a measure to add copyright protection doesn’t mandatorily require

registration, but registration proves the originality.

A copyright owner earns his recognition from the originality of his work, which is

further protected by the copyright, and business builds its goodwill under a chosen

trademark. As it is said, “half the battle is won in the mind”, therefore these invaluable

assets nurture the trust value of the customers. Thus, it is immensely important for a

business person to seek the protection of these tools to secure the originality of their

work or investment.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more