Offences Relating To Trademarks
1. Introduction
A trademark is a mark used to distinguish the goods or services of one person from those of others. Offences related to trademarks usually involve unauthorized use, counterfeiting, or infringement that causes deception or damage to the trademark owner or the public.
2. Common Offences under Trademark Law
Some key offences include:
Trademark Infringement (Unauthorized use of a registered trademark).
Passing off (Using a mark similar enough to deceive customers, even if the mark is not registered).
Counterfeiting (Making fake copies of goods bearing the trademark).
Using deceptive marks (Marks that mislead consumers).
Importing goods with counterfeit trademarks.
Falsely representing goods or services as those of another.
3. Legal Provisions (Example: India’s Trade Marks Act, 1999)
Section 29: Infringement of registered trademarks.
Section 30: Exceptions to infringement.
Section 102: Offence of falsification of trademark and selling goods with a falsified trademark.
Section 104: Penalty for applying false trademark.
Section 107: Offences by companies.
4. Nature of Offences
Trademark offences are both civil wrongs (leading to civil suits for damages and injunctions) and criminal offences (punishable with fines and imprisonment).
Landmark Case Laws on Trademark Offences
Case 1: Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (2001)
Facts: The plaintiff, Cadila Health Care, claimed the defendant was infringing its registered trademark by using the similar name "Cadila Pharmaceuticals."
Issue: Whether the defendant's mark was deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s trademark.
Judgment: The Supreme Court held that the key test was “likelihood of deception or confusion” among the public. Despite some similarities, the differences in the goods and presentation avoided confusion.
Significance: This case clarified that similarity alone is not sufficient; the overall impression and likelihood of deception matter.
Case 2: Tata Sons Ltd. v. Greenpeace International & Anr. (2011)
Facts: Greenpeace used the Tata name in a campaign against the company.
Issue: Whether Greenpeace's use of Tata's trademark was infringement or fair use.
Judgment: The court balanced trademark rights with freedom of expression and held Greenpeace’s usage was not infringement as it was for a public interest campaign.
Significance: Established limits on trademark rights vis-à-vis fair use and public interest.
Case 3: Amar Nath Sehgal v. Union of India (2005)
Facts: The artist Amar Nath Sehgal’s copyrighted and trademarked work was used without authorization.
Issue: Misuse of trademark and intellectual property rights.
Judgment: The court emphasized the importance of protecting trademark rights and awarded damages for infringement.
Significance: Highlighted that trademarks attached to artistic works are protected and their misuse constitutes an offence.
Case 4: McDonald’s Corporation v. Future Enterprises (P) Ltd. (2006)
Facts: Future Enterprises used the “McCurry” trademark.
Issue: Whether “McCurry” infringed McDonald's “Mc” prefix.
Judgment: The court held that the “Mc” prefix was distinctive of McDonald’s and allowed suit for infringement.
Significance: Established that well-known prefixes or trademarks get extended protection to prevent exploitation.
Case 5: Procter & Gamble Co. v. Anchor Health & Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd. (2004)
Facts: The defendant used a mark deceptively similar to “P&G.”
Issue: Trademark infringement and passing off.
Judgment: Court found that the defendants deliberately tried to pass off their products as those of P&G and issued injunctions.
Significance: Reinforced principles of passing off and deceptive similarity as offences.
Case 6: Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. v. Kapil Wadhwa & Ors. (2011)
Facts: Unauthorized use of the "Samsung" trademark in advertisements.
Issue: Trademark infringement and damage to brand reputation.
Judgment: Court granted injunction and damages, highlighting the need to prevent dilution of famous marks.
Significance: Emphasized the protection of famous trademarks from unauthorized use.
Case 7: ITC Ltd. v. Nestle India Ltd. (1996)
Facts: Dispute over the use of “MILO” mark by Nestle.
Issue: Trademark infringement and passing off.
Judgment: The court favored ITC, stating that the defendant’s use was likely to cause confusion.
Significance: Demonstrated the importance of protecting brand identity and the damage caused by passing off.
Summary of Key Principles from These Cases:
Likelihood of confusion or deception is the core of trademark infringement.
Passing off protects unregistered but established marks.
Famous marks get enhanced protection to prevent dilution.
Fair use and public interest can be valid defenses.
Criminal penalties apply where there is willful deception or counterfeiting.
Trademark rights extend beyond just the exact name to similar prefixes, logos, and designs if they cause confusion.
RELATED Blog
0 comments