Tata’s face objection over Vistara trademark

Tatas are facing ‘objection’ in registering ‘Vistara’ trademark for their aviation joint venture with Singapore Airlines which began operations last month.

Vistara is the brand name for Tata SIA Airlines, where Tata Sons hold 51 per cent stake and the remaining 49 per cent is with Singapore Airlines. It started commercial flight operations as a full service carrier on January 9, while the application for ‘Vistara’ trademark was filed on June 2, 2014.

After examining the application, Registrar of Trade Marks, Delhi, said it is “liable to be refused”. The status of the application shows “objected” in the latest publicly available update from the Controller General of Patents Design & Trade Marks. When contacted, a Vistara spokesperson said it would be not be possible to comment on when the ‘Vistara’ trademark would be registered. “All trademarks are processed by the Trademark Office as per its prescribed procedures and guideline and information about all applications is publicly available. “Being a part of standard legal protection this is the responsibility of our trademark agents to follow up with the trade mark office in routine course. As a reason it will not be possible for us to comment on when the trademark is likely to be registered,” the spokesperson said. The new airline venture ‘Vistara’ marked the re-entry of the Indian conglomerate into the aviation space after more than six decades. In its communication to the company on January 12, the Registrar of Trade Marks had said the ‘Vistara’ trade mark application “is open to objection on relative grounds of refusal under... of the Act because the same/similar trade mark(s) is/are already on the record of the register for the same or similar goods/services”.

Besides, a trade mark shall not be registered “if, because of its identity with an earlier trade mark and similarity of goods or services covered by, the trade mark, or its similarity to an earlier trade mark and the identity or similarity of the goods or services covered by the trade mark. “Hence, the above application is liable to be refused,” the communication said.