WITH the increasing influence of globalization, trademarks are appearing to be most pertinent towards the protection of local products and services from being counterfeited and protecting indigenous products in the flash of multinational products. Bangladesh cannot remain an exception in the stream of global concerns on trademarks and intellectual property rights. But we see the government acting disingenuously in this regard with relation to the rights of producers and consumers, as well as the ‘life-saving gear’ of the local products, goods, and services in the era of laissez-faire economy. The government formulated “The Trademarks Act, 2009”, which came into effect on July, 2008, but the authority concerned – the Department of Patents, Designs and Trademarks – is inefficiently handling the act allowing mountebank businessmen to counterfeit goods and services.
A report came in a National daily that said some business organizations have been trying to receive trademarks registration for their products which are almost similar in marks, name, symbol, package, and description of products to the existing trademarks for other products, taking advantage of the ambiguity of the existing act. The act bars registration of identical or deceptively similar trademarks for a product or service, which is already registered for the same kinds of product or service in the name of a different proprietors.
But there are some ambiguities in the language of the act and businesses try to take advantage of such ambiguities, the report added. Under the act several business groups are being engaged in legal battles over the trademarks on popular products of registered companies and counterfeited but assimilated products of others; and 287 cases remain pending in the department and another 188 are on trial in the High Court. Moreover, several products and services of multinational conglomerates are getting engaged in the battle against local products as the local producers tag their products with the name of internationally popular identical products. Now the department is likely to amend the act as it is facing problems in solving the disputes for ambiguous definitions of name, symbol, logo, font, colour, style, illustration, that characterize a product. The draft act proposes that the products will not be registered which is similar to a well-known trademark.
Moreover, the loose implication of the existing trademarks act or obsolete law unlocks an opportunity to the unscrupulous businessmen to produce counterfeited, substandard, and fake products that apparently seem harmful to the consumers. The authority must be responsible to prevent the forging products that hampers the business of the registered companies and widens opportunities for the greedy producers to produce forged products, including food stuff, cosmetics, beverages, essential drugs, medical equipment, and so forth. The callousness of the department in protecting registered products from being adulterated, applying laws, and awarding penalty for offences causes loss to businesses and also the consumers.
As the country opens its market for international companies, the clash between multinational companies and local companies is inevitable in the coming days. The government ought to amend the act for local companies, without hurting the multinational conglomerates, as both are essential for the country to reach its economic goal-a developed nation.
