Introduction

A trademark enables consumers to distinguish the goods or services of one business from those of another. Unauthorised use of an identical or deceptively similar mark may divert customers, weaken brand identity and cause lasting damage to the goodwill associated with the business.

Indian law protects registered trademarks through statutory infringement proceedings under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. It also preserves the common-law remedy of passing off, which may protect commercial goodwill even where the claimant’s mark is unregistered.

Although infringement and passing off frequently arise from the same conduct, they are distinct causes of action. A successful enforcement strategy requires the rights holder to identify the correct claim, establish the relevant statutory or common-law requirements and seek relief proportionate to the threatened harm.

Key Considerations

Before initiating proceedings, the rights holder should identify the precise mark being protected, the goods or services for which it is used and the nature of the defendant’s allegedly unlawful conduct.

The preliminary assessment should ordinarily consider:

• whether the claimant’s mark is registered;
• the classes, goods or services covered by the registration;
• whether the registration remains valid and renewed;
• the date on which the claimant first adopted and used the mark;
• the extent of the claimant’s sales, advertising and market recognition;
• the date and manner of the defendant’s adoption;
• the visual, phonetic and conceptual similarity between the marks;
• the similarity between the parties’ goods, services and customers;
• the channels through which the products or services are marketed;
• evidence of actual confusion, where available; and
• whether delay, acquiescence or concurrent use may affect the relief sought.

The rights holder should preserve specimens showing use of the mark, including packaging, invoices, advertisements, websites, social-media pages, catalogues and correspondence. Trademark registration certificates, renewal records and the complete prosecution history should also be reviewed.

Where online infringement is alleged, dated screenshots should be preserved together with URLs, purchase records, marketplace listings, domain information and communications with the platform or seller. Where physical products are involved, genuine samples and suspected infringing products should be retained in a manner that allows their appearance, packaging and source to be proved.

The claimant should also investigate whether the defendant has applied for or obtained registration of the disputed mark. Registration by the defendant does not necessarily defeat a passing-off claim based on superior prior use, but it may affect the form of proceedings and the relief sought.

Registered Trademark Infringement

Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act identifies circumstances in which a registered trademark may be infringed. The provision addresses unauthorised use in the course of trade of marks that are identical with or deceptively similar to a registered mark in relation to the goods or services specified by the statute.

The precise statutory test depends upon the relationship between:

• the registered mark and the defendant’s mark;
• the registered goods or services and the defendant’s goods or services; and
• the likelihood of confusion or association created by the defendant’s use.

Where both the marks and the relevant goods or services are identical, the Act provides for a statutory presumption concerning the likelihood of confusion. In other circumstances, the claimant must establish the elements applicable under Section 29.

Infringing use is not confined to placing the mark directly on physical goods. Depending upon the facts and the applicable statutory provision, use may include:

• affixing the mark to goods or packaging;
• offering or exposing goods for sale;
• supplying goods or services under the mark;
• importing or exporting goods under the mark;
• using the mark on business papers or advertisements; and
• using the mark as part of a trade name or business name.

Where the distinctive elements of a registered mark include words, Section 29 also recognises that spoken use may constitute infringement and is not limited to visual reproduction.

A registered mark having a reputation in India may, in appropriate circumstances, receive protection against use concerning dissimilar goods or services. The claimant must satisfy the statutory requirements, including reputation in India and use without due cause that takes unfair advantage of, or is detrimental to, the distinctive character or reputation of the registered mark.

Registration does not, however, create an unrestricted monopoly over every use of a word, symbol or design. The scope of protection depends upon the registration, the distinctiveness of the mark, the statutory limitations and the manner in which the defendant is using the sign.

Passing Off

Section 27 provides that no infringement action lies for an unregistered trademark. It expressly preserves, however, the right to bring an action against a person for passing off goods or services as those of another person.

Passing off protects the claimant’s goodwill rather than registration alone. The traditional elements require the claimant to establish:

• goodwill or reputation attached to the relevant goods, services or business;
• a misrepresentation by the defendant that is likely to lead the public to believe that the defendant’s goods, services or business are connected with the claimant; and
• actual or probable damage resulting from that misrepresentation.

A passing-off claim may therefore succeed even where the claimant does not possess a registered trademark, provided it can establish protectable goodwill and the other necessary elements.

The claimant must identify the goodwill existing in the relevant market when the defendant commenced the disputed use. Evidence may include historical invoices, sales figures, advertising expenditure, customer records, media coverage, distribution networks and the geographical extent of the business.

The alleged misrepresentation need not be an express statement that the defendant is connected with the claimant. It may arise from the defendant’s use of a similar name, logo, packaging, colour arrangement, product appearance or overall presentation.

The assessment is directed toward the likely effect on the relevant purchasing public. The court considers the marks and commercial presentation as they would be encountered in the market rather than through a minute side-by-side comparison conducted in isolation.

Prior Use and Registration

A recurring issue arises where one party is the earlier user of a mark but another party has obtained registration.

Indian trademark law recognises the importance of prior use. In S. Syed Mohideen v. P. Sulochana Bai, the Supreme Court explained that passing-off rights founded upon prior use and goodwill are not displaced merely because another person possesses a registration. The rights of a prior user may therefore prevail over those of a later registered proprietor in an appropriate case.

A party asserting prior-user rights should produce consistent evidence establishing:

• the date of adoption;
• the date of first commercial use;
• continuity of use;
• the goods or services for which the mark was used;
• the territory in which goodwill was established; and
• the scale and public recognition of the business.

A bare assertion of historical adoption is unlikely to be sufficient. Documents created before the dispute generally carry greater evidentiary value than later statements prepared for litigation.

The claimant should also distinguish between adoption and actual commercial use. Internal discussions, proposed branding or an unimplemented application may not establish the same rights as genuine market-facing use.

Where both parties possess registrations, the rights holder should consider whether rectification or cancellation proceedings are required in addition to civil relief. The existence of rival registrations does not automatically eliminate all remedies, particularly where passing off and prior use are independently established.

Deceptive Similarity

Trademark disputes do not depend solely upon whether two marks are identical. A deceptively similar mark is one that so nearly resembles another mark that it is likely to deceive or cause confusion.

The assessment is made from the perspective of an average consumer with imperfect recollection. The court ordinarily considers the overall commercial impression rather than dissecting the marks into isolated components.

Relevant factors may include:

• visual similarity;
• phonetic similarity;
• conceptual or structural resemblance;
• the nature and distinctiveness of the marks;
• the goods or services concerned;
• the class and level of attention of purchasers;
• the method by which purchases are made;
• price and frequency of purchase;
• trade channels and market conditions; and
• surrounding packaging or presentation.

In Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., the Supreme Court identified factors relevant to deceptive similarity and emphasised the need for particular caution in relation to medicinal products because confusion can have serious public consequences.

The applicable standard is not identical in every industry. A consumer purchasing an inexpensive everyday product may exercise a different degree of attention from a specialist procuring industrial machinery after technical evaluation.

However, the mere fact that customers are sophisticated does not automatically eliminate confusion. Even professional purchasers may rely upon memory, oral communication, abbreviations or hurried commercial processes.

Where marks are commonly communicated verbally, phonetic similarity may assume particular significance. Where products are selected from shelves or digital marketplaces, visual presentation and packaging may carry greater weight.

Reputation and Transborder Claims

A foreign or international business may rely upon reputation extending into India, but reputation must be established through evidence relevant to the Indian market.

In Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha v. Prius Auto Industries Ltd., the Supreme Court considered whether the claimant had established that the reputation of the mark had permeated the Indian market at the relevant time. The decision demonstrates that global reputation alone should not be assumed to establish actionable goodwill in India without evidence of its presence or recognition within the relevant domestic market.

Evidence relevant to reputation may include:

• sales or services supplied in India;
• advertising directed toward Indian consumers;
• circulation of international publications in India;
• Indian media recognition;
• website traffic or online engagement from India;
• participation in Indian exhibitions or trade events;
• consumer surveys or market research; and
• records showing knowledge of the mark among the relevant purchasing public.

The date at which the reputation must be established is important. Later fame may not cure the absence of protectable goodwill when the defendant originally adopted and commenced use of the mark.

Digital accessibility should also be distinguished from market reputation. The theoretical ability of an Indian user to access a foreign website does not, without more, establish that a significant section of the relevant Indian public knew and associated the mark with the claimant.

Permitted and Descriptive Use

Not every reference to a registered trademark amounts to infringement. The Trade Marks Act recognises limitations and circumstances in which use may be permissible.

Depending upon the facts, a defendant may contend that the impugned use:

• describes the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, value or geographical origin of goods or services;
• identifies compatibility or intended purpose;
• refers truthfully to the claimant’s goods or services;
• constitutes use of the defendant’s own name;
• concerns genuine goods lawfully placed in the market; or
• otherwise falls within a statutory limitation.

The court will examine whether the defendant is using the term descriptively or as a trademark indicating commercial origin.

A descriptive expression does not become infringing merely because it also forms part of another person’s registered mark. However, a defendant cannot ordinarily avoid liability by characterising trademark use as descriptive where the presentation, prominence and surrounding circumstances indicate an attempt to denote trade origin or exploit another business’s reputation.

Comparative advertising and references to a competitor’s mark require particular care. A trader may identify a competitor’s goods for legitimate comparative purposes, but use that is misleading, unfairly detrimental or designed to take unfair advantage of the mark may attract legal challenge.

The rights holder should therefore examine the complete context rather than relying solely upon the appearance of the registered word or symbol.

Cease-and-Desist Strategy

A cease-and-desist notice may provide an opportunity to stop infringement without immediate litigation, obtain information about the defendant’s activities and preserve the claimant’s position.

Before issuing the notice, the claimant should confirm:

• ownership or entitlement to enforce the mark;
• the status and scope of any registration;
• the strength of its evidence of use;
• the defendant’s identity and business;
• the nature and extent of the disputed conduct;
• possible defences available to the defendant; and
• the relief that the claimant is prepared to accept.

The notice should identify the claimant’s rights, the infringing conduct and the corrective action required. Depending upon the circumstances, the demands may include:

• cessation of use;
• removal of listings or advertisements;
• surrender or destruction of infringing materials;
• transfer or cancellation of a domain name;
• disclosure of sales and distribution information;
• preservation of relevant records;
• undertakings against future use; and
• compensation or costs.

An unnecessarily aggressive notice may provoke declaratory proceedings or undermine the possibility of a practical settlement. Conversely, an imprecise notice may fail to preserve the seriousness of the claim.

The claimant should also consider whether giving advance notice may allow the defendant to conceal evidence, move stock or change online identities. Where there is a credible risk of evidence destruction or continued large-scale infringement, urgent court relief may be more appropriate than prior correspondence.

Interim Injunctions

An interim injunction is often the most commercially significant relief in trademark litigation because continuing use during the suit may deepen confusion and weaken the distinctiveness of the claimant’s mark.

The claimant ordinarily needs to establish:

• a prima facie case;
• balance of convenience in its favour; and
• a risk of irreparable or inadequately compensable injury.

The application should explain the claimant’s rights, the similarity between the marks, the defendant’s use and the commercial harm likely to arise if the conduct continues.

Delay is relevant but does not operate mechanically. The court may examine when the claimant obtained reliable knowledge of the infringement, whether the defendant acted honestly and whether continued use would perpetuate deception or confusion.

Where ex parte relief is sought, the claimant must make full and fair disclosure of material facts. This includes potentially adverse facts such as delay, prior correspondence, weaknesses in the registration, rival applications and the defendant’s known explanation for adoption.

In appropriate cases, the court may appoint a local commissioner to inspect premises, prepare inventories or secure suspected infringing material. Such relief should be supported by specific information and should not be used as a speculative means of gathering evidence unrelated to an established prima facie claim.

Any injunction should clearly identify the marks, goods, services and conduct restrained. Vague orders restraining the defendant from violating the claimant’s intellectual property generally may create uncertainty and enforcement difficulties.

Jurisdiction and Commercial Courts

Section 134 provides that suits for infringement of registered trademarks, rights in registered trademarks and passing off of identical or deceptively similar marks cannot be instituted in a court inferior to a District Court having jurisdiction.

For infringement and rights concerning registered trademarks, Section 134 provides an additional jurisdictional basis connected with the place where the person instituting the suit actually and voluntarily resides, carries on business or personally works for gain. That additional provision must be applied in accordance with the statutory language and judicial interpretation; it should not be treated as permitting a claimant to select any location where it has only a nominal or artificial presence.

Passing-off jurisdiction requires separate analysis, particularly where the claimant relies only upon an unregistered mark. The cause of action, the defendant’s business and the places where the alleged misrepresentation and resulting injury occurred should be examined.

Many trademark suits qualify as commercial disputes under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The claimant must therefore consider the specified-value requirement, commercial-court jurisdiction, statements of truth, disclosure obligations and other procedural rules applicable to commercial suits.

Where the suit does not genuinely contemplate urgent interim relief, the pre-institution mediation requirement under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act may also apply. A routine request for an injunction should not be relied upon merely to bypass that statutory process.

Online infringement creates additional jurisdictional questions. The mere accessibility of a website in a particular location may not, by itself, be sufficient in every case. The claimant should identify purposeful commercial activity, transactions, customer targeting or injury occurring within the proposed forum.

Remedies

Section 135 provides that relief in a suit for infringement or passing off may include an injunction and, at the claimant’s option, either damages or an account of profits. The court may also order delivery-up of infringing labels and marks for destruction or erasure.

Interim relief may include:

• temporary or ad interim injunctions;
• preservation of infringing goods and evidence;
• appointment of a local commissioner;
• disclosure of stock, sales or distribution records;
• restraint against transfer of disputed domain names;
• maintenance of accounts; and
• other measures necessary to preserve the effectiveness of the proceedings.

At final adjudication, the claimant may seek a permanent injunction and elect between damages and an account of profits, subject to the facts and statutory limitations.

Damages are compensatory and focus upon loss suffered by the claimant. An account of profits focuses upon profits attributable to the defendant’s unlawful use and requires the defendant to disgorge those profits rather than compensate the claimant for the same measure of loss.

The claimant cannot ordinarily recover both damages and an account of profits for the same infringement. The appropriate election may depend upon the available evidence, the defendant’s records and whether the claimant can reliably establish lost sales, price erosion or reputational injury.

The Act places restrictions on substantial monetary relief in certain circumstances, including specified cases in which the defendant was unaware of the claimant’s rights and ceased use promptly after acquiring knowledge.

Where infringing goods are held by third parties, marketplaces, logistics providers or customs authorities, separate statutory or procedural mechanisms may need to be considered. A civil decree against the primary defendant may not automatically resolve every platform, importation or domain-related issue.

Evidence and Enforcement Strategy

Trademark litigation is often determined by the quality of contemporaneous commercial evidence.

The claimant should prepare a chronological record containing:

• the development and adoption of the mark;
• trademark applications and registrations;
• specimens of continuous use;
• invoices and sales records;
• promotional expenditure;
• market and geographic expansion;
• enforcement history;
• discovery of the defendant’s use;
• test purchases and investigation reports;
• consumer complaints or confusion;
• online evidence; and
• correspondence with the defendant or intermediary platforms.

Sales and advertising figures should be supported by verifiable financial or business records. Broad claims of substantial reputation without supporting documents may weaken both interim and final relief.

Evidence of actual confusion can be valuable but is not always essential. The statutory and common-law tests generally focus upon the likelihood of confusion, assessed from the marks, goods, consumers and market circumstances.

The claimant should avoid commissioning investigations that encourage or manufacture infringement. Test purchases should record the ordinary commercial experience and preserve the product, invoice, packaging and communications without creating misleading interactions.

A settlement should address more than cessation of visible use. Depending upon the dispute, it may include withdrawal of applications, surrender of domains, disposal of stock, removal of online content, disclosure of suppliers and undertakings covering confusing variants of the disputed mark.

Conclusion

Trademark enforcement protects more than a name or logo. It protects the commercial connection between a business, its reputation and the consumers who rely upon its brand identity.

A registered proprietor may pursue statutory infringement where the requirements of Section 29 are satisfied. A prior user or proprietor of an unregistered mark may rely upon passing off where goodwill, misrepresentation and probable damage can be established.

The distinction between the two remedies should be addressed from the outset. Registration records, historical use, market reputation, deceptive similarity and the defendant’s explanation for adoption must all be examined before commencing proceedings.

The effectiveness of trademark enforcement depends on clear ownership, credible evidence of use, prompt action and relief carefully directed toward preventing consumer confusion and protecting commercial goodwill.

This article provides a general overview and does not constitute legal advice. The relevant registrations, commercial evidence, statutory provisions and judicial decisions should be examined in light of the facts of each dispute.

Discuss a related matter

ASR LAW advises clients on commercial disputes, financial enforcement, arbitration, insolvency and intellectual-property matters.

Contact the Firm