A. P. LEGAL SERVICES PVT. LTD.
Legal Empowerment through Professional Excellence

A trademark or trade mark is one of the elements of Intellectual Property Right  and is represented by the symbol ^TM or ® or mark is a distinctive sign or indicator of some kind which is used by an individual, business organization or other legal entity to identify uniquely the source of its products and/or services to consumers, and to distinguish its products or services from those of other entities. A trademark is a type of intellectual property, and typically a name, word, phrase, logo, symbol, design, image, or a combination of these elements. There is also a range of non-conventional trademarks comprising marks which do not fall into these standard categories.

The term trademark is also used informally to refer to any distinguishing attribute by which an individual is readily identified, such as the well known characteristics of celebrities. When a trademark is used in relation to services rather than products, it may sometimes be called a service mark, particularly in the United States.

Rights & Remedies of a Trade Mark Owner-

The owner of a registered trademark may commence legal proceedings for trademark infringement to prevent unauthorized use of that trademark. However, registration is not required. The owner of a common law trademark may also file suit, but an unregistered mark may be protectable only within the geographical area within which it has been used or in geographical areas into which it may be reasonably expected to expand.

Two types of remedies are available to the owner of a trademark for unauthorized use of his or her mark or its imitation by a third party. These remedies are:

 

• an action for infringement’ in case of a registered trademark; and
• an action for passing off’ in the case of an unregistered trademark

 

While former is a statutory remedy, the latter is a common law remedy. In an action involving infringement or passing off, a court may grant relief of injunction and/or monetary compensation for damages for loss of business and/or confiscation/destruction of infringing labels and tags etc. 
Although registration of trademark is prima facie an evidence of validity of a trademark, yet the registration can not upstage a prior consistent user of trademark, for the rule is ‘priority in adoption prevails over priority in registration’.

Infringement of Trade Mark-

Trademark infringement is a violation of the exclusive rights attaching to a trademark without the authorization of the trademark owner or any licensees (provided that such authorization was within the scope of the license). Infringement may occur when one party, the “infringer”, uses a trademark which is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark owned by another party, in relation to products or services which are identical or similar to the products or services which the registration covers. An owner of a trademark may commence legal proceedings against a party which infringes its registration.

Trade mark Law in India-

The Indian law of trademarks is enshrined the new Trade Marks Act, 1999 came into force with effect from September 15, 2003. The old Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 was repealed at the same time. The new Trademarks Act of 1999 is in line with the WTO recommendations and is in conformity with the TRIPS Agreement to which India is a signatory.

India has declared certain countries as convention countries, which afford to citizens of India similar privileges as granted to its own citizens. A person or company from a convention country, may within six months of making an application in the home country, apply for registration of the trademark in India. If such a trademark is accepted for registration, such foreign national will be deemed to have registered his or her trademark in India, from the same date on which he or she made application in the home country.

Scope of Foreign Investors With Regard to the Registration of Trade Mark in India-

Registration of trademarks is one of the important protections that businesses should avail in India. Many foreign and domestic Applicants have been able to successfully register their marks in India. Indian courts have upheld many of those registrations and granted favorable decisions to rights holders.

In addition to the registering of their trademarks in India, businesses need to adopt other strategies for protecting their trademarks. Some of them are mentioned below:

 

• Get trademark searches conducted in the Indian Trade Marks Registry in the classes that are of interest to you including the ancillary classes.
• Get common law searches (this includes the internet, market surveys, yellow pages and directories) conducted to ascertain whether third parties are using your trademarks and if so, the extent of such use.
• Based on this information and after seeking the local counsel’s opinion decide if the trademark is available for use or not.
• Should the trademark be available for use, immediately apply for the registration.
• The rights holder should also consider hiring a watching service to monitor the trademark journals in order to alert them to any published, deceptively similar trademarks or descriptive trademarks that might be of concern.
• Should the rights holder own a trademark that has been used and has acquired goodwill and reputation, it is advisable that along with filing of the trademark application in India, they should also make press releases, publish cautionary notices and advertise the mark to ensure that the relevant section of the public is aware that they are entering the Indian market and are protecting their trademark from any kind of third party violation.
• The rights holder should also take immediate steps to register their domain names including country coded top level domain names in India, as there have been many instances of third parties registering domains for certain well known marks with the intention of extracting money by selling these domain names to the rights holders.
• Should the rights holder discover that their trademark is being infringed, they should take immediate steps to protect their trademark, either by the means of filing oppositions, cancellations, conducting investigations, sending cease and notices or initiating appropriate civil and criminal actions.

 

Cases of Trade Mark Violation in India-

Trade mark infringement especially among the corporate classes in India is rising on an alarming rate. Few of the notable cases have been described in brief.

 1.  Pantaloon dragged to court by Shoppers’ Stop and Lifestyle; Westside also contemplates similar action, (July 14th, 2008).

 Shoppers’ Stop and Lifestyle have dragged their rival Pantaloon to court as they were miffed with an advertisement issued by the flagship company of Kishore Biyani owned Future Group that offered 10% extra discount to their loyal customers vide an advertisement issued in The Times of India, New Delhi, dated 28th June, 2008. The complainant retailers have accused Pantaloon of trademark violations and unfair business practices, says a Live Mint report. All the three parties operate department store format store chains in lifestyle segment.

Even Westside has taken objection to the ad saying, “We have sent a notice to them to which they have not responded,” said Smeeta Neogi, Head (Marketing) Westside.

Pantaloon’s ‘Central’ mall at Gurgaon had offered 30% discounts to its customers over the weekend. Loyalty card holders of competing retailers like Shopper’s Stop, Lifestyle and Westside, were lured by Pantaloon by offering an additional 10% discount on select brands of apparel. The advertisement asked such customers to: ”Present your membership card to avail this offer.”

Loyalty cardholders are mainstay of business for most retailers. Shoppers’ Stop has a highly popular loyalty card programme branded “First Citizen.” According to analysts, more than two-thirds of Shoppers’ Stop’s apparel business is accounted for by its loyal customers.

“They (Pantaloon) are luring my customers by using my name in an unfair manner,” said Sandeep Mittal, the lawyer representing for both the petitioners.

The Honourable Delhi high court has issued an injunction restraining Pantaloon from using names of its rivals in the ads until the next hearing in the matter fixed for 31st July.

Taking potshots at these competitors is not new for Pantaloon. Last year, its Big Bazaar chain had put up hoardings, asking customers to “Keep West-aSide,” “Shoppers! Stop” and “Change Your Lifestyle. Make a Smart Choice.”

2.   Amul wins trade mark case in Gujarat High Court, (Sep 24, 2007)

Amul has won the trade mark case in Gujarat High Court and no one else can use it.

The Kaira District Co-operative Milk Producers? Union Ltd. and GCMMF had filed trade mark infringement cases, against two local shop owners ? Amul Chasmaghar and its partners and Amul Cut Piece Stores in the District Court, Anand.

The District Court, Anand passed an order dated 25 April 2007, ruling that it was a clear case of infringement and restrained the two from using the Amul trademark.

 Amul Chasmaghar had challenged this interim injunction in the Gujarat High Court. The Gujarat High Court ruled the decision in favor of Amul, terming the order passed by the trial court as true, correct, legal and in consonance with the facts of the case, as well as in accordance with the provisions of the Trade Marks Act 1999.

3. Trade Marks Disputes Involving Pharmaceuticals Industry in India-

A.  Beecham Group Plc. vs. S.R.K. Pharmaceuticals 2004 (28) PTC391 (IPAB)

The appellant was using the mark ‘AMOXIL’ in India since 1990. This mark was registered in India in 1972 in Class 5 in respect of Pharmaceutical goods. The respondent started using the mark ‘LYMOXYL’ in India from 1985. The respondent filed the application for registration of the mark in 1987 in India in the same class with respect to similar goods.

The appellant brought an action against the respondent stating that the mark is deceptively similar. The only difference between the two marks is in the prefix ‘LY’ and ‘M’. The rival marks are phonetically and deceptively similar and the goods are pharmaceutical goods under Sec. 12(1) of the Act.

The Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) held that the respondent dishonestly adopted the mark by copying it from the appellant who had got the mark registered long ago. Hence the respondent cannot claim honest concurrent use, by virtue of earlier use. The Appellate Board delivered a judgment prohibiting registration of the Trade Mark ‘LYMOXYL’.

B.  Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited vs. Anand Prasad & 4 Others 2004 (28) PTC 438 (IPAB)

The appellant was the registered proprietor of the mark ‘FORTWIN’ and had been using the mark since 1975. The respondent applied for registration of the mark ‘OSTWIN’. Both the marks related to pharmaceutical compositions in respect of treatment of bones.

The appellant brought an action against the respondent stating that the mark is deceptively similar. The IPAB held that the prefixes are ‘FORT’ and ‘OST’ while both the marks end with the suffix ‘WIN’. It was further held that since the rival goods are also pharmaceutical goods it might lead to serious consequences due to deception or confusion in the minds of the public. Hence on the possibility of harm being caused to common person the appeal was allowed.

C.  Wyeth Holdings Corp. & Anr. vs. Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. 2004 (28) PTC 423 (Bom)

In this case the plaintiff whose former name was American Cynamid Company and who was the proprietor of the trademark ‘PACITANE’ registered the mark in Class 5 of Pharma goods. The respondent was using the mark ‘PARKITANE’ with respect to similar goods. The plaintiffs filed a suit for infringement and passing off and sought various reliefs including interim injunction against the defendant for using the mark ‘PARKITANE’.

The Court held that in both the cases the goods are similar, being pharmaceutical preparations for treatment of Parkinson’s disease, the customers buying these goods are the same and the trade channels are the same. Since the defendants did not show any search of the Register before adopting the impugned mark, prima facie adoption of the mark was not honest. Further, the Court held that despite protests, if the defendants have chosen to continue to sell the products, it cannot be said to be acquiescence by the plaintiff. Therefore the Court held that injunction is to be granted in favour of the plaintiff.

 

The Court further held that in case of pharmaceutical products, the test is of possibility of confusion and not probability of confusion. The plaintiffs have been in the field since 1950 and as such the balance of convenience is in their favour. The Court granted injunction in favour of the plaintiffs.

D.  Hoechst Aktiengesellschaft vs. Artee Minerals & Anr. 2004 (28) PTC 470 (IPAB)

The appellant was the registered proprietor of trademark ‘ARELON’. This mark was registered in class 5 with respect to pharmaceutical goods relating to preparation for killing weeds and destroying vermin. The respondent filed an application for registration of the mark ‘ARTEELON’ in the same class with respect to pharmaceutical goods.

The appellant opposed the application for registration of trade mark filed by the respondents on the ground that the registration of the impugned mark would be contrary to provisions of Sections 9, 11, 12(1) and 18 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958.

The IPAB held that the rival goods were same and the only difference was the letters ‘TE’. The Appellate Board further held that the possibility of confusion and deception is not ruled out and hence affirmed the order rejecting the application for registration filed by the respondent.

The IPAB further held that the benefit of use under Section 54 is given only in case of rectification proceedings when use of an associated trademark is deemed to be use of the registered trademark against which rectification proceedings are initiated for non-use of the mark.

Conclusion-

In conclusion it can be drawn that Indian Trade Mark Law must me updated on frequently keeping in pace with the dynamic and new methods of Trade Mark infringement. Both Courts and Enforcement authorities must be well equipped and be trained for efficient disposal of cases relating to Intellectual Property.