Written by Luanne C. Schlosser and Mila Falkenstein

June was madness. July was used to breathe deeply, making way for the auspicious allure of August.

Despite June’s jungle, I recall being delighted to see my colleague, Mila, by video conference late that month. While Mila was enthusiastic to dive back into work, I wanted to know more about her trip to Puglia, Italy, where she attended a yoga retreat. However, with the exigencies at hand, Mila and I got right into discussing our next work projects for the coming months. Yet, following the call, something told me: “perhaps I should take a note from Mila’s playbook and get into this whole yoga thing”.

When I think of Yoga, I think of self-care and calm, both of which do not come naturally to me. Based on my interactions with dedicated enthusiasts, yoga is a tried-and-true practice that encourages self-realization, mindfulness and general well-being — all things that I would surely benefit from. Yet, what fascinates me the most is that yoga appears to have transcended borders and cultures and has become a source of serious business. How did this happen?

As I pondered the matter, Bikram Choudhury came to mind. Aside from Mr. Bikram’s controversies which, of course, have been well-documented in a Netflix documentary, I pondered the extent to which Bikram influenced the popularity of the yoga practice.

Controversy aside, Bikram became the leader of the affluent in the practice. At the height of his success and popularity, Bikram successfully trademarked the word “Bikram” in relation to his yoga practice (in addition to other trademarks incorporating the name “Bikram”). Bikram also tried to file and obtain a copyright registration for the flow of his asanas or poses.

Bold move, Bikram.

But what happened after that? Curious, and having just the right resource at my fingertips, I decided to ask Mila to do a deeper dive (Uttanasana, in Sanskrit?) into the matter. Here’s what she found:

Copyright and Yoga

In most jurisdictions, including Canada, original literary, dramatic and artistic works can be protected by copyright. So, would yoga qualify for copyright protection?

No.

Generic yoga poses or asanas that are deeply rooted in the ancient traditions of India would not qualify for copyright protection.

Accordingly, when Bikram tried to sue other studios for copyright infringement relating to his form of hot yoga, consisting of 26 postures practised in a hot environment of 40 degrees Celsius, he was largely unsuccessful. The Ninth Circuit of the United States Court of Appeal held that the sequence was not protected by copyright, as it was considered a concept, process or system intended to enhance health under the idea/expression dichotomy. The court reiterated that copyright only protected the expression of this idea—the words and images used to explain the sequence—but not the sequence itself.

Elaborating on this distinction a bit further, copyright law is designed to protect the unique expression of ideas rather than the ideas themselves. This distinction is fundamental to understanding the scope and limitations of copyright protection.

Expression vs. Idea:

Expression: Copyright safeguards the particular manner in which an idea is articulated or embodied. This includes the specific text of a literary work, the visual elements of a painting, the melodies and lyrics of a song, and so forth. Essentially, it protects the tangible form of the creation—the unique way an idea is presented.
Idea: Copyright does not extend to the underlying idea or concept that is being expressed. For example, the concept of a time-traveling detective is not subject to copyright protection. This means that while you can protect your specific narrative, character development, and dialogue, others are free to explore similar concepts or themes in their own original way.

Illustrative Example:

Consider a novel about a futuristic society where humans and robots coexist. Copyright would protect your specific plot, character dialogues, and descriptive passages. However, it would not prevent another author from writing a different story about a futuristic society with humans and robots, as long as the new work is original and does not copy your specific expression.

This approach balances the rights of creators with the need to foster innovation and the free exchange of ideas. By protecting only the expression and not the idea, copyright law ensures that while creators have exclusive rights to their particular works, the realm of ideas remains open for new and diverse contributions.

Similar to the Bikram decision, in the Institute for Inner Studies and Ors. vs. Charlotte Anderson and Ors [1] case, the Delhi High Court addressed whether “Pranic Healing” could be copyrighted as choreography. The Institute for Inner Studies argued that it qualified as a "dramatic work" under the Copyright Act of 1957. However, the High Court ruled that “Pranic Healing” techniques, despite their literary associations, did not meet the legal definition of choreography. The Court emphasized that organizing physical movements under the name “Pranic Healing” didn't warrant copyright protection. This decision reaffirmed that such traditional practices as yoga and “Pranic Healing” cannot be copyrighted in India, and the same likely follows for many other jurisdictions. [2]

Trademarks and Yoga

While copyright protections may not extend to yoga moves, trademarks may be used for safeguarding the yoga sessions, exercises, apparel and activities associated with specific organizations or companies. For example, in the United States where his yoga practice gained the most popularity, Bikram successfully trademarked “BIKRAM YOGA” and “BIKRAM'S BEGINNING YOGA CLASS” (among other trademarks) in association with yoga classes, seminars, conferences, teacher trainings, etc. [3]

Having trademark rights in connection with the educational and yoga teaching services gave Bikram the right to prevent anyone not licensed by him from using the various Bikram trademarks. In short, he was able to monetize his intellectual property by offering a trademark licence to third parties, who could then use the Bikram branding to describe their yoga offerings.

To obtain the licence, licensees were required to complete a Bikram Yoga Certification, thereby becoming authorized under a limited trademark license to teach Bikram’s Basic Yoga System. Bikram’s bi-annual training of up to 400 teachers, at a cost of 10,000 EUR each, proved to be a significant revenue source. [4] Some say that Bikram was making more than $12 million monthly in revenue from trademark licensing alone.

Bikram eventually went bankrupt following accusations of sexual harassment, assault and discrimination from former Bikram yoga students and his former lawyer. Ultimately, a court awarded $6.8 million to Bikram’s former lawyer, Minakshi Jafa-Bodden, for sexual harassment and wrongful termination. [5] This amount was never recovered as Bikram supposedly fled to India after the bankruptcy. [6]

Despite the collapse of his yoga empire, Bikram's intellectual property assets were valuable enough to be the subject matter of an asset sale by and through the Chapter 7 Trustee in her capacity in administering the bankruptcy estates of the selling debtor companies (Bikram’s Yoga College of India, LP, Bikram, Inc. International Trading Representative, LLC and Bikram Choudhury Yoga, Inc.) [7] The assets for sale included all Bikram Yoga domain names, trademarks, and copyrights, representing a significant portion of the Bikram Yoga brand and intellectual property. These assets were purchased by Dr. Kali P. Chaudhuri for $700,000.00 USD, who later designated KPC LYFE as the assignee for the intellectual property assets in the acquisition, where the KPC Group has facilities in the United States and India. [8] While KPC LYFE is the alleged new owner of the Bikram trademarks, these rights are limited to those rights in the USA. Additionally, as of the date of this post, we note the following:

Numerous trademark registrations exist in other jurisdictions, where other persons or entities are the registered owners of the various Bikram trademarks;

Despite being the stated owner, our review of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (the “USPTO”) records shows no assignment documentation, record or otherwise confirming that the rights to the Bikram trademarks have been assigned to KPC LYFE;

Bikram Choudhury, in his personal capacity, still owns the trademark for BIKRAM YOGA in Canada (registered as TMA624,825). The trademark registrations for BIKRAM’s BEGINNING YOGA CLASS (TMA658,706) and SPINE TWISTING POSTURE DESIGN (DESIGN ONLY) (TMA652,742) were recently expunged as Canadian trademarks for failure to renew;

A review of the USPTO records shows that Bikram Choudhury assigned his trademark rights in several of his trademarks from himself personally to the company, International Trading Representative LLC, on or around November 2, 2016. The date of this assignment coincides with the timing of the sexual assault lawsuits and the date that he fled to India; and

The trademark for “BIKRAM” in the USA, registered as USA Reg. No. 4,236,199 was cancelled on May 19, 2023, for failure to provide the USPTO with Section 8 and 9 Declarations (proof that the trademark was being used, or reasons for excusable non-use and an application for Renewal). Similarly, USA Reg. No. 2,775,407 was cancelled for the same reason. The remaining trademarks are subject to cancellation, as the period to furnish the USPTO with Section 8 and 9 Declarations will expire soon.

The “Bikram Breakdown” continues to evolve. It appears that Bikram teacher training and workshops are still occurring worldwide. Additionally, various entities are using the Bikram marks or variations thereof and it is difficult to tell whether the new owner in the USA, KPC LYFE, is controlling the use of the trademarks through appropriate licenses.

The use and policing of the Bikram trademarks appears to be disjointed and uncertain with several different owners in various jurisdictions claiming rights to the trademark. The profile of the USA trademarks is being slowly eroded by failure to enforce the trademark rights, provide the USPTO with renewal documents, and correctly assign the trademarks.

The foregoing leaves us with the following takeaways:

While Bikram is synonymous with “Hot Yoga”, the current state of the trademark rights in the Bikram brand can only be described as a “Hot Mess”;

Trademarks are indicators of source, but when there are various owners and ownership and use are disjointed, this source identifying function is no longer present. This can create an issue of whether the trademarks in question are valid and enforceable;

While you may not be able to protect a particular sequence of yoga (or, for example, dance moves), there are other means upon which one may protect intellectual property, where trademarks may offer the owner an opportunity to make passive income through licensing;

When filing trademarks, have a proper filing strategy by filing with the correct entities as owners an in those jurisdictions you are seeking protection; and

When acquiring a trademark, it is strongly recommended that you hire a professional to oversee the acquisition to ensure that the correct assignments and renewals are made in the appropriate intellectual property offices, failing which, you may lose or depreciate your newly acquired assets.