IP Case Law › Acts & Sections › Trade Marks Act, 1999
Trade Marks Act, 1999
Select a provision to see the judgments in the database that turn on it.
Section 11(1) (2)Section 11(1)(a) (1)Section 11(2) (2)Section 11(4) (1)Section 11(5) (2)Section 11(6) (2)Section 11(7) (2)Section 12 (1)Section 124 (1)Section 124(4) (1)Section 134 (1)Section 135 (1)Section 18 (1)Section 18(1) (1)Section 2(1)(zg) (3)Section 25(3) (2)Section 27 (1)Section 27(2) (3)Section 28 (2)Section 28(1) (1)Section 28(3) (4)Section 29 (5)Section 29(2)(b) (1)Section 29(8) (1)Section 30(2) (1)Section 30(2)(e) (1)Section 31(1) (1)Section 34 (4)Section 47(1)(A) (1)Section 48(2) (1)Section 57 (1)Section 9(1)(a) (1)Section 91 (1)
Judgments citing this Act
ADS Spirits Pvt. Ltd. v. The Registrar of Trade Marks
Section 9(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 proscribes registration only where a mark is devoid of distinctive character, that is, incapable of distinguishing the goods or services of one person from those of another; it does not…
Absolute Grounds for RefusalArbitrary MarkDistinctivenessNon-speaking OrderTrade MarksAmrit Singh Mehta trading as Mehta Cosmetics v. Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks
Where a trade mark is registered after its normal renewal date, the proprietor is entitled to a six-month period from the actual date of registration to seek renewal. Further, a trade mark cannot be removed for non-renewal without…
Form O-2Form O-3Registration CertificateRemoval of TrademarkTrade MarksArun Kumar Gupta v. Registrar of Trade Marks
Issuance of notice in Form O-3 under Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 is a mandatory pre-condition for removal of a trade mark from the Register on account of non-renewal. Mere expiry of registration or failure to file a…
Form O-3Mandatory NoticeRegistered ProprietorRemoval of TrademarkTrade MarksAshiana Ispat Limited v. Kamdhenu Limited & Ors.
A mere contractual promise to let someone adopt and use a mark is not the same as transferring ownership, where the contract makes ownership conditional on registration. Non-use of a mark for decades defeats a claim to common-law …
AssignmentDiscretionary OrderInterlocutory InjunctionLicenceTrade MarksColumbia Pictures Industries, Inc v. Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr.
Section 11(2) does not require a mark to have been formally declared well-known before its proprietor can invoke that status to oppose a similar or identical mark on dissimilar goods; it is enough that the mark is, in substance, e…
Bad Faith AdoptionCross-class ProtectionOppositionRemandCopyrightDr. Ashok M. Bhat v. Harichand Nagpal & Ors.
An injunction against use of a registered artistic work follows the artistic work onto any label, not merely the one impugned in the plaint. In Order XXXIX Rule 2A proceedings justification is no defence: so long as an order stand…
Contempt of InjunctionCounterfeitingExemplary CostsOrder XXXIX Rule 2ATrade MarksHavells India Limited & Anr. v. Havai Home Products Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Even a registered proprietor may be restrained from using a trade mark where the ingredients of passing off are established. Section 27(2) preserves the common-law remedy of passing off notwithstanding the statutory rights arising…
Anti-Dissection RuleDeceptive SimilarityDishonest AdoptionPassing OffTrade MarksIndustria De Diseno Textil, S.A. v. Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr.
Section 11(2) does not require an earlier mark to have a formal declaration of well-known status before its owner can oppose a later mark; the provision only requires that the mark is well known. The term 'entitled' in Explanation…
Anti-Dissection RuleBad FaithDeceptive SimilarityPhonetic SimilarityTrade MarksNew Balance Athletics Inc. v. Astormueller AG and Ors.
Registration of a mark is no defence to a passing off action, since rights under Section 27(2) are independent of and override the bar in Section 28(3) on one registered proprietor suing another for infringement. Registration mere…
Anti-Dissection RuleDeceptive SimilarityInitial Interest ConfusionPassing OffTrade MarksOpella Healthcare Group v. Pureca Laboratories Pvt Ltd (Trade Marks)
Where a coordinate bench, following an unchallenged rectification order, has found the mark in question deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered mark, the defendant has no real prospect of successfully defending the infri…
Deceptive SimilarityPassing OffPharmaceutical MarksPrior UseTrade MarksParle Products Pvt. Ltd. v. The Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr.
Where two parties file competing applications for registration of an identical or deceptively similar trade mark on a proposed-to-be-used basis, priority for registration under Section 18 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 is determined…
Approbation and ReprobationPrior RegistrationPriorityProposed to be UsedTrade MarksSun Pharma Laboratories Ltd. v. Finecure Pharmaceuticals Ltd. & Ors.
Mere delay in approaching the Court is not, by itself, sufficient to refuse an injunction, particularly in the pharmaceutical field where confusion between similar marks may also affect public interest.
Deceptive SimilarityDelayInterim InjunctionPANTOCIDTrade MarksTV Today Network v. Saurashtra Aaj Tak & Anr.
In a passing-off action the focus is on protecting the goodwill of the earlier user from a later use that is likely to create confusion or an impression of association. Actual confusion or loss need not always be proved; likelihoo…
AajTakDeceptive SimilarityDisclaimerGoodwill