INFRINGEMENT
OF TRADEMARK
IN INDIA
SUBMITTED TO DR. S. Z. AMANI
SHARIQUE RAZA
0 | Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
All Praise to ALLAH (swt).
I would like to express my profound sense of gratitude to Dr. S.Z. Amani for providing me
his invaluable support, encouragement, supervision and useful suggestions throughout this
research work. His moral support and continuous guidance enabled me to complete my work
successfully. His intellectual thrust and blessings motivated me to work rigorously on this
study. In fact this study could not have seen the light of the day if his contribution had not
been available. It would be no exaggeration to say that it is his unflinching faith and
unquestioning support that has provided the sustenance necessary to see it through to its
present shape.
I express my deep sincere gratitude towards my parents for their blessing, patience, and moral
support. I express my gratitude to my all teachers and friends who has supported and
encouraged me.
SHARIQUE RAZA
9TH SEMESTER
5TH YEAR
1 | Page
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Procedure Of Registration Of Trademark In India
2. Trademarks Law In India
3. Introduction
4. Importance Of Trademark
5. Conclusion
6. Bibliography
2 | Page
Indias obligations under the TRIPS Agreement for protection of trademarks, inter alia,
include protection to distinguishing marks, recognition of service marks, indefinite periodical
renewal of registration, abolition of compulsory licensing of trademarks, etc.
With the globalization of trade, brand names, trade names, marks, etc. have attained an
immense value that require uniform minimum standards of protection and efficient
procedures for enforcement as were recognised under the TRIPS. In view of the same,
extensive review and consequential amendment of the old Indian Trade and Merchandise
Marks Act, 1958 was carried out and the new Trade Marks Act, 1999 was enacted. The said
Act of 1999, with subsequent amendments, conforms to the TRIPS and is in accordance with
the international systems and practices.
The Trade Marks Act provides, inter alia, for registration of service marks, filing of
multiclass applications, increasing the term of registration of a trademark to ten years as well
as recognition of the concept of well-known marks, etc. The Indian judiciary has been
proactive in the protection of trademarks, and it has extended the protection under the
trademarks law to Domain Names as demonstrated in landmark cases of Tata Sons Ltd. v.
Manu Kosuri & Ors1, and Yahoo Inc. v. Akash Arora2.
India, being a common law country, follows not only the codified law, but also common law
principles, and as such provides for infringement as well as passing off actions against
violation of trademarks. Section 135 of the Trade Marks Act recognises both infringement as
well as passing off actions.
3 | Page
infringement action is a statutory remedy and an action for passing off is a common law
remedy.
4 | Page
INTRODUCTION
A trademark in relation to goods conveys to the general public and specifically to the
consumers about the origin and quality of those goods, thereby acquiring reputation in the
course of business and time. Therefore the concept of a trademark is the foundation of ones
business to distinguish from others. A good trademark is often the best salesman of the goods
and is a visual symbol of goodwill and stamp of quality.
A trademark is one of the elements of Intellectual Property Right (IPR) and is represented by
the symbol or . It is a distinctive sign, symbol or indicator which is used by an
individual, business organization or other legal entity to identify uniquely the source of its
products or services to consumers, and to distinguish its products or services from those of
other entities. It could typically be a name, word, phrase, logo, symbol, design, image, or a
combination of these elements. Trademarks are used to facilitate and enhance the marketing
of a commodity and is a sign that indicates to consumers the source and reputation of the
affixer of the mark and provides an important advertising and sales tool.
Every businessman who has spent considerable amount of money making his mark popular
will try to secure it from usage by unscrupulous competitors. Protection of trademark is
important not only from the business point of view but also for the protection of consumer
from fraud and imposition.
The Trademark Act of 1999, both in letter and spirit, lays down that, while it encourages fair
trade in every way and aims to foster and not to hamper competition, it also provides that no
one, especially a trader, is justified in damaging or jeopardizing anothers business by fraud,
deceit, trickery or unfair methods of any sort. This necessary precludes the trading by one
dealer upon the good name and reputation built up by another.
The first Trademark legislation was enacted in India in 1940, but before that, protection to
trademarks in the country was governed by the principles of common law based on English
cases. The law relating to protection of this form of industrial property is intricate and
complex.
The reputation of a business symbolized by a mark, under common law, can be protected
only by an action for Passing off. Registration of a trademark under the Trade Marks Act of
1999 gives statutory rights and slight infringement of it can invite an action for Infringement.
5 | Page
However, even the unregistered trademarks are also protected as the Act itself provides that
an action of passing off remedy is available for unregistered trademark.
IMPORTANCE OF TRADEMARK
The importance of trademarks lies in their association with quality and consumer
expectations in a product or service. They can be seen as serving four main purposes:
First, identifying the product of its origin,
Secondly, advertising the product/service and lending it a brand name,
Thirdly, protecting the business reputation and goodwill, and
Fourthly, protecting consumers from deception, that is to prevent the buying public
purchasing inferior goods or services in the mistaken belief that they originate from or
are provided by another trader
Dilution is a trade mark law concept forbidding the use of a famous trade mark in a way that
would lessen its uniqueness. In most cases, trade mark dilution involves an unauthorized use
of another's trade mark on products that do not compete with, and have little connection with,
6 | Page
those of the trade mark owner. For example, a famous trade mark used by one company to
refer to hair care products, might be diluted if another company began using a similar mark to
refer to breakfast cereals or spark plugs.
While the above is the general proposition of law as per Section 29 (1), the various
circumstances in which the trademark is infringed are enumerated in sub-sections 29(2) to (9)
of Section 29.
7 | Page
In the case of Wockhardt Ltd. Vs. Aristo Pharmaceuticals Ltd.3, Madras High Court, after
holding the defendants mark SPASMO-FLEXON deceptively and phonetically similar to
SPASMO-PROXYVON, summarised the law as follows:
1. The registered proprietor of a trademark has exclusive right to the use of the
trademark in relation to the goods and services in respect of which the trademark is
registered and to obtain relief in respect of infringement of the trademark in manner
provided by the Act.
2. Whether it is deceptively or has become publici juris is a question of fact to be
established.
3. When a number of marks, all have a common element, may it be prefix, suffix or root,
i.e. essential part or the core of the mark, they come to be associated in the public
mind as an indication of the same source, which misleads or causes deception or
confusion.
4. It is the common element that has to be identified in an impugned mark and the
registered trademark and if such common element is highly distinctive and is not just
a description or a commonly used word, the likelihood of deception or confusion
would be very much there, despite the fact that it might differ in similarity in certain
letters.
5. The nature of the commodity, the class of purchasers, the mode of purchase and other
surrounding circumstances must also be taken into consideration.
6. Marks must be looked at from the first impression of a person of average intelligence
and imperfect recollection.
7. Marks must be compared as a whole, microscopic examination being impermissible.
8. The broad and salient feature must be considered, for which the marks must not be
placed side by side to find out the differences in design.
9. Overall similarity is the touchstone.
10. It is not the colour of the container or the difference of the product, but it is the
statutory right to the word that has to weigh.
11. The plaintiff need not in general show prima facie case that is required to be shown
must be something more than a case that will avoid the action being struck out as
frivolous or vexatious and even if the chance of success at the trial are only twenty per
cent, the statutory protection is absolutely necessary by way of an injunction in order
to prevent confusion or deception arising from similarity of marks.
8 | Page
FOLLOWING ARE THE INSTANCES WHERE
THE ACTS CONSTITUTED INFRINGEMENT OF
TRADEMARK
i. TAKING SUBSTANTIAL FEATURE OF THE MARK
a mark is infringed by another trader, if, even using the whole of it upon or in
connection with his goods, he uses one or more of the essential features.
ii. ADDITIONS
Addition of extraneous matter, inconspicuous additions is infringement. If a person
incorporates whole or part of a registered Trademark of another, the addition of other
or matter would not save him from the charge of infringement.
iii. WHEN A MARK IS COPIED
If the defendant absolutely copied the mark and made a facsimile representation of it,
no further evidence is required. When the similarities are so close as to make it
impossible to suppose that such marks were devised independently of each other, in
absence of evidence of common origin, the conclusion that one party copied the mark
of another.
iv. MARKS LIKELY TO CAUSE CONFUSION
Likelihood of confusion occurs in situations where consumers are likely to be
confused or mislead about marks being used by two parties. The plaintiff must show
that because of the similar marks, many consumers are likely to be confused or
mislead about the source of the products that bear these marks. Where the visual,
aural and conceptual similarities is caused by the defendants trademark which causes
confusion in the minds of the public as to its origin, then the mark is held to be an
infringing mark. Furthermore, if the association between the marks causes the public
to wrongly believe that the respective goods comes from the same or economically
linked undertakings, there is a likelihood of confusion.4
v. USE OF RECONDITIONED OR SECOND ARTICLES
The use of plaintiffs mark on reconditioned goods may constitute infringement even
if it is clarified that goods are not original but reconditioned.5
vi. PRINTING OF LABELS
Unauthorised printing of labels of the plaintiff will constitute infringement. Moreover,
if a copyright subsists in labels, it will constitute infringement of copyright as well.
9 | Page
vii. GOODS MANUFACTURED BY THIRD PARTY WOULD CONSTITUTE
INFRINGEMENT
When the owner of a mark gets the goods manufactured by a third party under a
contract, solely for the mark, sale of the goods bearing the mark by such a
manufacturer to other person would constitute infringement.
viii. MARKS USED ALONG WITH OTHERS MARK
Use of the plaintiffs mark along with the defendants name even if prominently
displayed constitutes infringement.6
ix. SIMILAR MARKS IN MEDICINAL PRODUCTS
When the goods or products involved are medicinal products, confusion of sources or
drugs or medicinal preparation caused by similar marks of the defendant would
constitute infringement, although similarity in the marks would have been very less.
x. MARKS WITH INTERNATIONAL REPUTATION USED
UNAUTHORISEDLY
In case of marks which have acquired international reputation, an action for its
protection against un-authorised use will lie even if the owner of the trademark does
not have any business activity in India.7
7 Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Wellcome Foundation Ltd. (Guj. H.C) 2001 (2)
CTMR 158
10 | P a g e
1. The infringer who directly by his action causes infringement or who uses or
contemplates or threatens to use a trademark infringing plaintiffs right.
2. The master responsible for his servants act of infringement. For example, a worker
who is engaged in the business of making false labels is a servant of the master who
orders the making of such labels. It is the master in such a case who is to be sued.
3. The agents of an infringer.
4. Directors and promoters of a limited company cannot be joined as co-defendants
unless they have personally committed or directed infringing acts.
JURISDICTION
Suit for infringement or for passing off is to be filed in the court not inferior to a District
Court having jurisdiction to try the suit.8 District Court having jurisdiction includes a District
Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction, at the time of the institution of the suit or
other proceedings, the person instituting the suit or other proceedings, or where there are
more than one person, any of them who:-
PERIOD OF LIMITATION
Under the Limitation Act, 1963, the period of limitation for filing a suit for infringement of a
trademark is three years from the date of infringement. Where the infringement is a
continuing one, a new course of action arises every time an infringement occurs. For
example, a continued sale of infringing article would give rise to a fresh cause of action.
11 | P a g e
a. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to file a suit; i.e. whether he is proprietor of a
registered trademark or a registered.
b. Whether the use or proposed use of the mark by the defendant is an infringement of
the registered trademark.
c. Whether the defendant has succeeded in establishing one or more of the defences set
up by him.
d. If the plaintiffs succeeds in the suit, what reliefs he is entitled to?
e. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interlocutory relief?
f. Whether there has been an actual instance of deception and confusion amongst the
public?
12 | P a g e
3. When the use of the mark by the defendant is not an infringement under Section 29;
4. When a person uses a trademark in accordance with honest practices in industrial and
commercial matters that do not take unfair advantage.
5. When a person uses a trade mark in relation to goods or services indicating character,
quality or geographical origin
6. When a person uses a trade mark in relation to services to which the proprietor has
already applied the mark or registered user the object of the use is to indicate that the
proprietor or the registered user has performed the services.
7. When a person uses a trademark, which is subject to any conditions or limitations,
beyond the scope of such conditions or limitations will not constitute infringement.
8. When a person uses a mark in relation to goods to which the mark has been lawfully
applied, or where the registered proprietor has consented to the use of the mark. This
applies to cases where goods are purchased in bulk and sold in retail applying the
mark.
9. When a person uses a mark in relation to parts of a product or accessories to the goods
in respect of which the mark is registered if the use is reasonably necessary to indicate
that the goods so adapted.
10. When a person uses a mark or a similar mark in the exercise of a right conferred by
independent registration.
11. When a person assigns a trademark to another, this will not affect the right of that
person to sell or deal in the goods bearing that mark.
Plaintiff is the registered owner of the trade marks Castrol, Castrol Gtx And Castrol Gtx 2 in
respect of oils for heating, lighting and lubricating. During the month of December 1994,
plaintiffs came to know that the defendant was carrying on business of selling multigrade
engine oil and lubricants under the trade mark 'Castrol Gtx & Castrol Crb' IN IDENTICAL
containers as used by the plaintiffs. Plaintiff filed a suit for perpetual injunction.
Held
13 | P a g e
Honble Delhi High Court while passing an ex parte decree held that the user of the said trade
marks by the defendants, who have no right whatsoever to use the same is clearly dishonest
and is an attempt of infringement. The prayer of the plaintiff is accepted and they are
restrained by a decree of injunction from selling, advertising directly or indirectly in
multigrade engine oil with the aforesaid trade marks in containers which are similar to the
containers being used by the plaintiffs.
The plaintiff company manufactured drugs under the trade name "Calmpose". The defendant
company subsequently floated its similar product under the trademark "Calmprose".
Held
The Honble Delhi High Court held that the two trademarks having appeared phonetically
and visually similar and the dimension of the two strips being practically the same including
the type of packing, the colour scheme and manner of writing, it is a clear case of
infringement of trade mark and the ad interim injunction granted in favour of the plaintiff.
No one can use the trademark which is deceptively similar to the trademark of other
company. As in the case of Glaxo Smith Kline Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Unitech
Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.13, the plaintiff claimed that defendants are selling products under
the trademark FEXIM that is deceptively similar to the plaintiffs mark PHEXIN, which is
used for pharmaceutical preparations. The defendants are selling anti-biotic tablets with the
trademark `FEXIM' with the packing material deceptively similarly to that of the plaintiff,
whereby intending to not only to infringe the trademark but also to pass off the goods as that
of the plaintiff as the two marks are also phonetically similar. The Court restrained the
defendant from using the trademark `FEXIM' or any trademark deceptively similar to the
trademark of the plaintiff `', any label/packaging material deceptively similar and containing
the same patter PHEXIN n as that of the plaintiff.
13 [MANU/DE/2840/2005]
14 | P a g e
If a party using the deceptively similar name only for a single shop and not spreading its
business by use of that particular name then also that party could be stopped from using the
trade name of other company. This is given in the case of M/s Bikanervala v. M/s Aggarwal
Bikanerwala14 where the respondent was running a sweet shop in with the name of
AGGARWAL BIKANERVALA and the plaintiff was using the name BIKANERVALA
from 1981 and also got registered it in the year 1992. hence they applied for permanent
injunction over the use of the name AGGARWAL BIKANERWALA for the sweet shop by
the defendant. Court held in favour of the plaintiff and stopped defendant from
manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising, directly or indirectly dealing in food
articles for human consumption under the impugned trade mark/trade name/infringing artistic
label 'AGGARWAL BIKANER WALA' or from using any trade mark/trade
name/infringing artistic work containing the name/mark 'BIKANER
WALA/BIKANERVALA' or any other name/mark/artistic work which is identical or
deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trademark 'BIKANERVALA'.
If the trademark is not registered by any party but one party started using it before the other
then first one would have the legal authority on that particular mark. As in the case of
Dhariwal Industries Ltd. and Anr. v. M.S.S. Food Products 15, where appellants were using
the brand name MALIKCHAND for their product and the respondents were using the name
MANIKCHAND which is similar to the previous one and both parties have not registered
their trademarks. Court held in this matter that even though plaintiff have not registered their
trademark they are using it from long time back and hence court granted perpetual injunction
against the respondents.
Even if a company is not doing business in country, but it is a well-known company or well-
known goods, then also it would be entitled to get authority over its trademark. As given in
case of N.R. Dongare v. Whirlpool Corp. Ltd.16, where the defendants have failed to renew
their trademark WHIRLPOOL and in the meantime the plaintiffs have got registration of the
same. In this case court said that though there was no sale in India, the reputation of the
15 | P a g e
plaintiff company was travelling trans-border to India as well through commercial publicity
made in magazines which are available in or brought in India.
The WHIRLPOOL has acquired reputation and goodwill in this country and the same has
become associated in the minds of the public. Even advertisement of trade mark without
existence of goods in the mark is also to be considered as use of the trade mark. The
magazines which contain the advertisement do have a circulation in the higher and upper
middle income strata of Indian society. Therefore, the plaintiff acquired transborder
reputation in respect of the trade mark WHIRLPOOL and has a right to protect the
invasion thereof.
1. Accounts of Profit
Account of profits are the actual profits which the defendant has made by infringing
the legal rights of the plaintiff. Sub-section (1) of Section 135 provides for grant of
relief which includes, at the option of the plaintiff, either damages or an account of
16 | P a g e
profit. In taking account of profits, the damage the plaintiff have suffered is totally
immaterial. The object of account of profit is to give to the plaintiff the actual profits
the defendant has made and of which it is established that the profits were improperly
made.17 Section 135 (3) expressly enacts that where the court is satisfied that it is a
case of innocent infringement, it shall grant only nominal damages. Further, in such
situation, the Court shall not grant an account of profits.
2. Damages
Damages are the compensation awarded to the Plaintiff by the defendant for the legal
injury caused by him to the plaintiff. Damages are the notional compensation paid to
the plaintiff irrespective of the actual amount of loss suffered by the plaintiff.
i. Any loss of trade actually suffered by the plaintiff directly from the acts complained
of, or properly attributable to injury to the plaintiffs reputation, business, goodwill
and trade and business connection caused by the acts complained of.
ii. Damages may be awarded even though there is no deception.
iii. Where the defendants goods are similar in quality to the plaintiffs goods, the
defendants wrongful act may cause injury to the plaintiffs business reputation.
In Yahoo Inc. vs. Sanjay V. Shah18, the Delhi High Court held that he defendants passed off
their goods as if the goods were manufactured by the plaintiff using the deceptively similar
Yahoo. The Honble High Court not only granted permanent injunction restraining the
defendants from the use of the trademark Yahoo, but also decreed for damages amounting
Rs. 5, 05,000/- in favour of the plaintiff.
3. Injunction
Injunction is one of the reliefs which an aggrieved person may obtain in any suit for
infringement of a registered trademark or for passing off of the registered trademark
or unregistered trademark. The remedy of injunction is an effective remedy in
preventing the infringement of registered trademark or unregistered trademark.
Section 135 of the Trademarks Act, 1999 grants the relief of injunction. While
granting an injunction, the Court should always rely on the fact that whether the
17 | P a g e
balance of convenience lies with the plaintiff and whether an irreparable damage or
injury would occur to the plaintiff if injunction is not provided for against the
defendant.
Section 135 (2) further provides for ex parte injunction or any interlocutory order for
any of the following matters, namely:-
In the case of Prabhu Shankar Aggarwal vs. Anand Kumar Deepak Kumar,19 the Delhi
High Court held as follows:-
18 | P a g e
It is an order restraining the defendant totally, for all times to come, from doing any
act which infringes the right of the proprietor of the trademark. Perpetual injunction is
generally granted when the suit is finally decided.
CONCLUSION
Thus, from the above discussion it can be said that protection of trademark is important not
only from the business point of view but also for the protection of consumer from fraud and
imposition. However, it is beneficial if combined action for infringement and passing off is
brought in one suit as incorporating a plea of infringement, if the mark gets registered can
always amend the plaint. But in an action for infringement alone the plaintiff may not be
allowed to include a fresh cause of passing off in order to save the action. Since the scope of
passing off action is wider than an infringement action, if an action fails, there is a chance of
other succeeding. As stated in the preamble of the Trademarks Act, 1999, the law provides for
a better protection of trademarks, the fact that the trademark law provides protection to
trademarks has come out to be a reality. The present Act expressly recognises the common
19 | P a g e
law remedy and thus saves both the registered and unregistered trademarks from being
misused.
BIBLOGRAPHY
BOOKS REFERRED
Kailasam and Vedaraman Law of Trademarks and Patent Geographical-indications
Act-Intellectual Property Rights (Pocket Size Edn.)
Intellectual Property Rights in India by VK Ahuja
Venkateswaran on Law of Trademark law and Passing off by Kapil Wadhwa, Dr.
Abhishek Manu Singhvi
Law Relating to Intellectual Property Rights by Dr. M.K Bhandari
20 | P a g e
JOURNALS REFERRED
India Law Journal
Indian Society of International Law
Journal of Law and Economics
WEBSITES VISITED
www.wikipedia.org
www.cll.com
www.tm-india.com
http://www.academia.edu/7795675/TRADEMARK_LAW_IN_INDIA_-
A_Critical_and_Comparative_Study
www.thomsonreuters.com
www.indlii.org
21 | P a g e