Trademark Infringement: Meaning, Types and Remedies

trademark infringement and remedies - Intellect Vidhya Solutions

A trademark represents the goodwill and reputation of a business in the marketplace, and trademark infringement occurs when an unauthorized person uses a similar or deceptively similar trademark in order to obtain unfair benefits or take a free ride on the goodwill of the existing trademark.

What is Trademark Infringement?

Section 28 of Indian Trademark Act, 1999 discusses the rights that are vested in the registered proprietor of a trademark. It also grants the registered proprietor an exclusive right to use the trademark in relation to the goods and services in respect of which the trademark is registered, and section 29 of the act states that trademark infringement occurs when any of these rights are violated. To put it simply, trademark infringement takes place when a person other than the registered proprietor uses the exact similar or deceptively similar trademark to the registered trademark for similar goods or services without the permission of the registered proprietor in order to gain unfair advantages.

Essentials Element of Infringement

  1. Making minute alterations – Taking any key characteristic of a trademark or taking the entire mark and then making a few variations or additions would be considered trademark infringement.
  2. Use in relation with similar goods or services– The infringing mark must be utilized in relation with the similar products or services as that of the registered mark.
  3. Use in Printed form– The infringing mark has to be a printed version of the mark or a typical depiction of the mark, and it has to be on the advertisement, the invoice, or the bill. Any oral use of a registered trademark does not constitute trademark infringement.

Let’s use a landmark trademark infringement case, Starbucks Corporation v. Sardarbuksh Coffee & Co., to illustrate each of the aforementioned instances of trademark infringement. The plaintiff in this case was ‘Starbucks Coffee,’ a well-known coffee brand with outlets in practically every country, and the defendant was ‘Sardarbuksh Coffee,’ another coffee place with various outlets in Delhi. 

Satisfying the first condition, the defendants in this case clearly attempted to confuse the public by using a phonetically similar name and a similar logo with just reversing the Starbucks logo’s color scheme. (Image given below)

Secondly, the defendants were utilising the trademark in connection with identical goods and services, in this case selling coffee and associated products. Finally, the infringing mark has been used in printed form and in advertisements, satisfying all three requirements of trademark infringement.

Types of Trademark Infringement

The act of trademark infringement is divided into two categories: direct infringement and indirect infringement.

Direct Infringement

The direct infringement has been discussed under section 29 of the Act. The provision lays down a few constituent elements have to be met for direct infringement to occur, which are mentioned below:

  1. Use by an Unauthorized Person – This indicates that trademark infringement occurs when a registered trademark is used by an unauthorized person who is neither the owner nor the licensee of the mark. If the registered trademark is used with the owner’s permission, this does not constitute trademark infringement.

For instance, if you open a cosmetics and makeup store with the name “Nykaa” without obtaining a license or authorization from the owners of the mark “Nykaa,” this constitutes trademark infringement since it is an unauthorized use of the mark.

  1. Identical or Deceptively Similar Mark– A mark is regarded identical or deceptively similar to an already existing mark only if there is a possibility or likelihood of confusion among the public. 

In the recent case of In Mondelez Indian Foods Pvt. Ltd v. and Neeraj Food Products (also known as Gems v. James Bond), the Delhi High Court granted a permanent and mandatory injunction against the Defendant for retailing “James Bond,” a chocolate product that showed a deceptive similarity to Cadbury’s trademark “Gems.”

  1. Registration- It is a well- known fact that the registration of a trademark is India is not mandatory but the protection against the trademark infringement is only extended to the registered trademarks and for the unregistered trademarks the common law principle of passing off is applied.
  2. Similar class of goods/services- Before submitting a trademark application, the class of products or services offered under the trademark is selected from a total of 45 classes under the NICE classification system, and registration is done exclusively under that class or classes. Therefore, in order to demonstrate trademark infringement, the infringing mark’s class of goods or services must be identical to that of the infringed mark.

In the Indian market, for instance, the trademark ‘Red Label’ exists for both tea and alcoholic beverages, and the trademark ‘BlackBerrys’ exists for both men’s formal clothing and mobile phones, as the marks belong to separate categories of goods and services.

Indirect Infringement

There is no specific law defining or discussing the elements of an indirect infringement, but the absence of such a provision does not suggest that all parties other than the principal infringer cannot be held accountable for the infringement. Indirect infringement occurs when a third party aids or encourages the principal infringer to infringe the registered trademark. In this instance, the individual who facilitates infringing activity becomes the indirect infringer and is liable for the indirect infringement. The indirect infringement is further classified into two types-

  1. Vicarious Liability- Vicarious Liability is when an individual is held accountable for the wrongful act of others. It is commonly employed in the context of employer-employee relationships and is also specified in section 114 of the Indian Trademarks Act, 1999. It states that if a firm or company commits an offence, the entire firm will be held liable, with the exception to the individuals who committed the offence in good faith and without knowledge.

A person is vicariously liable for an offence in the following circumstances:

  • He has the direct control over the activities of the direct infringer.
  • He is aware of the infringement and nonetheless contributes to it.
  • Such infringement has benefitted him monetarily.
  1. Contributory Infringement- A person is responsible for contributory violation under the following conditions: 
  • He is aware of the trademark infringement in question.
  • He significantly contributes to direct infringement.
  • He induces the major infringer to violate the trademark.

Remedies for trademark infringement 

Civil and criminal remedies are the available remedies for trademark infringement, and the plaintiff has the option of initiating either or both of these actions against the defendants. For the purpose of infringement of an unregistered trademark the common law remedy of passing- off can be invoked.

Civil Remedies

The civil remedies available in case of trademark infringement are as mentioned:

  1. Damages

The damages in the form of compensation are provided to the plaintiff or the owner of the registered trademark by the infringer.

  1. Accounts of profit

Any profit gained by the infringer while using the trademark of another registered owner, all the profit or certain amount of monetarily compensation  is delivered to the owner of Trademark.

  1. Destruction of goods 

The court may issue and order of destruction or eradication of all the goods or products manufactured using the infringed mark.

  1. Injunction

Injunction is an action that prohibits unofficial or unauthorized use of TM. The court grants protection to the trademark owner by preventing the infringer from further using the infringed mark.

The injunction order can be of four types:

  • Anton Piller Order- the Anton Piller Injunction order is an ex-parte order which is issued to inspect the premises of the defendant without giving any prior notice.
  • Mareva Injunction- when the court prohibits defendants from using their assets within the court’s jurisdiction until the conclusion of the trial.
  • Interlocutory Injunction or temporary injunction- entails the prohibition of an action by a party to a lawsuit until the case is resolved.
  • Permanent or perpetual injunction- It is a court order requiring an individual or company to permanently refrain from engaging in specific activities.
  1. Cost of proceedings- 

The court can order the defendant to bear the costs of proceedings of the plaintiff.

Criminal Remedies

The criminal remedies available in case of trademark infringement are as follows:

  • With a prison term that should not be less than six months and can be extended to three years; 
  • With a fine that should not be less than 50,000 rupees and can be extended to two lakh rupees.

Conclusion

A trademark carries huge weight and is valued because it has a company’s reputation associated with it. Unfortunately, such success & popularity amongst the consumer base can have negative consequences too, trademark infringement being one of them. Deceptively similar marks can be used by either businesses to divert consumer traffic to their outlets or by counterfeiters to sell fake products as the real deal. This can become a problem since the average customer may get fooled and the original company may get blamed. In order to curb this menace, it is important to understand the trademark infringement, the way it happens, its nature to transcend borders and how one can take steps to curb trademark infringement.

Share:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
WhatsApp

Related Posts

Design or Patent? Securing Your Auto Innovations the Right Way

In the automobile industry, intellectual property (IP) is of utmost important in order to protect new ideas and technologies. Two key types of IP that are often discussed in the context of the automotive sector are design protection and patents. While these two serve different purposes, they often overlap, especially in the automobile sector. In this article, we will cover what design and patent protections are, how they work, where they overlap, and what challenges businesses face. What is Design Protection? Design refers to the look or aesthetics of a product. In the field of automobile industry, design protection can cover the external shape of a car, the design of its parts, or its internal features. Design protection aims to stop others copying the distinctive look of a product. The Design Act and Eligibility In India, design protection is governed by the Design Act, 2000. To qualify for design protection, the design must meet these requirements: What Can Be Protected as a Design in the Automobile Industry? In the automobile sector, you can protect many things as a design, including: For example, the shark fin antenna on luxury cars or the unique grille of sports cars are examples of designs that can be protected. What is a Patent? A patent protects inventions—novel, useful products or processes. In the automobile industry, patents typically protect technological innovations and mechanical systems that make a vehicle work better. The Patent Act and Eligibility In India, patents are governed by the Patents Act, 1970. To get a patent, the invention must meet these criteria: Protection Time for Patents Patents last for 20 years from the filing date, as long as you pay maintenance fees. After that, anyone can use the invention freely. What Can Be Patented in the Automobile Industry? In the automobile sector, patents can cover things like: For example, Tesla’s electric powertrain or BMW’s advanced braking systems are patented technologies. Overlap Between Design and Patent Protection Design and patent protections have different purposes, but they often overlap in the automobile industry. A single product, like a car, can be protected by both design and patent. Here’s how: Challenges of Overlapping Design and Patent While having both design and patent protection can be helpful, it also comes with challenges: How to File for Design and Patent Protection? Filing for both design and patent protection requires careful planning and understanding of the legal process. It’s important to work with a lawyer who knows how to handle both types of protection. Conclusion The interplay between design and patent protection in the automobile industry provides opportunities and challenges for companies that want to protect their innovations. However, it also comes with challenges like complexity and costs. By understanding the differences between design and patent protection, and with the help of expert legal guidance, businesses can better protect their innovations and stay ahead in the competitive automobile market. Contact Intellect Vidhya Solutions—your partner in protecting intellectual property for any questions or needed support in navigating the complexities of design and patent law.

Read More »

AI Voice Cloning and Its Copyright Legalities: The Arijit Singh Case

The fast developments in AI voice synthesis led to in a revolutionary era in technology: immediate voice cloning. Modern algorithms can now produce a nearly identical replica of an individual’s voice using just a few minutes of their voice recording. Most of us probably have heard a number of songs that include the voice of our Prime Minister; these recreated tracks are a clear example of AI voice cloning. Such technology has allowed creators and businesses to create things like songs, speeches, etc., in the unique yet identifiable voices. It could enhance creative and personalized media but, in doing so, also creates complex ethical and legal difficulties, particularly with respect to copyright, privacy, and personality rights. AI Voice Cloning: Understanding the Technology Voice cloning is dependent on the cutting-edge of deep learning and machine learning algorithms to analyze an individual’s voice frequencies, tone, and accents. Once those specific characteristics are recorded, they can be reproduced digitally in order to create audio that as closely as possible resembles the original speaker. This feature, when paired up with Speech Synthesis Markup Language (SSML), enables users to personalize aspects like pronunciation, pitch, and speed, making it as realistic and lively a voice as possible, closely identifying with a natural human voice. These are great possibilities, but there is a flip side where this technology can be abused if used without the knowledge of the person whose voice it matches. The Arijit Singh Case: A Significant Decision on Personality Rights The recent ruling by the Bombay High Court in favour of Bollywood singer Arijit Singh brought attention to the legal issues surrounding AI voice cloning. The court, in the present case, provided interim relief to Arijit Singh, recognising that his voice, name, and likeness are essential components of his identity, referred to as “personality rights.” Arijit Singh initiated legal action against Codible Ventures LLP, a firm that allowed users to generate content using his voice without obtaining consent. The court’s decision to define the unauthorised use of Singh’s voice as a violation of his rights sets an important precedent. It emphasises that an individual’s voice, much like their name or image, is an integral aspect of their identity and is protected under personality rights.  The court acknowledged Singh’s status as a well-known and influential artist, pointing out his reputation and goodwill in India. The court highlighted that previous cases concerning personality rights indicate that using a celebrity’s voice or personal traits for commercial gain without permission constitutes a clear violation of those rights. This ruling clearly suggests that tools that allow for the generation of content in a celebrity’s voice without their permission infringe upon their rights and pose risks to their economic and public standing. Legal Considerations: Copyright, Personal Rights, and More The decision involving Arijit Singh carries major consequences for several legal concepts, such as copyright, intellectual property, and personality rights. 1. Personality Rights: This case highlights that a celebrity’s name, voice, and likeness are integral parts of their personal brand and identity. Protecting these rights stops illicit third parties from profiting off someone else’s identity and plays a crucial role in protecting their career and livelihood. 2. Copyright and Ownership: The complexities of ownership arise when dealing with AI-generated content that utilises cloned voices. Is the voice model subject to copyright protection, and who holds the legal rights to the content generated with that voice? When a voice model originates from a public figure, the boundaries of copyright law can become vague. It raises questions about who actually holds the rights: the creator, the individual whose voice is replicated, or the developer of the AI. 3. Economic and Reputational Concerns: The unauthorised use of a prominent voice can have adverse impacts on the person’s professional life. In Singh’s situation, his reputation and popularity render his voice a crucial element of his personal brand. The court’s decision recognises the potential harm that unauthorised use of his voice may pose to his professional standing and revenue. 4. Right to Publicity: This case expands the idea of an individual’s control over the commercial use of their identity. With the growing ease of AI voice cloning, it is becoming more vital to safeguard individuals against the unauthorised use of their identity. This acknowledgement offers a foundation for protecting people’s identities and personal characteristics in the era of AI. Setting Standards for AI Voice Cloning The Arijit Singh case highlights the pressing need for well-defined and thorough regulations concerning the commercial application of AI voice cloning technology. Considering the possibility of misuse, here are some suggestions to tackle these challenges:  Explicit Consent Requirements: The use of an individual’s voice or likeness must obtain clear, documented consent, especially when it pertains to commercial purposes. Transparency: Informing consumers about the use of an AI-generated voice is crucial to prevent any potential misunderstanding, particularly when the cloned voice closely resembles a well-known individual. Defining Usage Boundaries: Setting clear boundaries between personal and commercial applications can help prevent misuse while allowing individuals to utilise the technology for their own non-commercial purposes. Conclusion This ruling by the Bombay High Court, giving practical effect to Arijit Singh’s right over his voice, is a positive balancing act between harnessing the modern technology of AI voice cloning and protecting individual rights. Considering the new technology of voice synthesis, society must develop legal protections against the appropriation of one’s voice, name, and likeness. This ruling is a landmark case in that it shows how the law can adapt to emerging technology and preserve innovation while ensuring the protection of individual rights against invasive practices. Such frameworks will be critical to ensure the responsible use of this powerful tool, prevent misuse, and safeguard individual identities as we explore its potential further.

Read More »

What is Trademark Squatting? Insights into the Legal Battle Over Brand Rights

Trademark squatting refers to the practice where individuals or entities register popular brand names, trademarks, or domain names with the aim of making a profit from them. This practice can pose legal difficulties for legitimate brand owners, as opportunists frequently try to sell these assets back to companies at inflated prices, anticipating that the demand for these names will result in a substantial profit. This issue may not be new, but the evolving digital landscape and the growing significance of online branding have amplified its effects. Understanding Trademark Squatting Trademark squatting involves the unauthorised registration or use of a trademark that closely resembles a well-known brand or business name, with the aim of capitalising on the brand’s reputation. This practice typically takes place in two areas: Trademark Squatting Under Indian Law The Trademarks Act, 1999 regulates trademark matters in India. While it doesn’t directly mention “trademark squatting,” it sets up the legal structure for safeguarding registered trademarks. Indian law provides two primary legal remedies to address the issue of squatting: 1. Trademark Infringement: When a squatter utilises a registered trademark, the legitimate owner has the option to initiate a lawsuit alleging trademark infringement. Courts evaluate aspects such as similarity, the purpose of registration, and any damage inflicted on the original brand. 2. Passing Off: When a brand owner has not registered their trademark, they may pursue a claim of passing off, which is a remedy recognised by common law. The brand owner must show their goodwill and establish that the squatter’s use of the brand leads to confusion for consumers.  Furthermore, in situations concerning domain names, India’s .IN Dispute Resolution Policy (INDRP) directly deals with disputes related to .IN domain names, whereas international cases involving generic domains typically come under the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP). Trademark Squatting and Cybersquatting Trademark squatting and cybersquatting are interconnected concepts, yet they vary in their extent. Trademark squatting involves the misuse of trademarks across various market segments, whereas cybersquatting is focused specifically on internet domain names. Both, however, seek to gain from unauthorised registration, often expecting that the rightful brand owner will repurchase the asset to prevent possible confusion among consumers. Recent Judgment on Trademark Squatting In a recent case involving the domain name JioHotstar.com, the registrant claimed they purchased the domain thinking that Jio (the telecom brand owned by Reliance Industries) and Disney+ Hotstar were likely to come together, based on speculation in various industry circles. They even registered this domain name, assuming that if Jio and Disney merged, Jio could brand it as JioHotstar. The registrant confessed that the aim was to sell the domain to Reliance, stating, “It was a money-making venture to pay for education at Cambridge.” The above explanation notwithstanding, the nature of this cybersquatting case was so textbook (cybersquatting being a specific type of trademark squatting, where instead of a traditional trademark, the focus is on the domain name) that the legal outcome was predictable. In recent years, the judgment of courts globally, including in India, has increasingly emphasized intent in matters related to trademark and cybersquatting disputes. In this case, the registrant’s objective was clearly to profit from a potential merger by flipping the domain back to the brand itself—a motive devoid of any legitimate business interest. This leans towards bad-faith registration, a significant factor that courts examine in cybersquatting cases. In this instance, because JioHotstar.com was not intended to host a legitimate business or service but to be resold for profit, it was categorized as bad faith under section 4(b)(ii) of the policy. Courts generally view such intentions negatively, and if the legitimate brand owner challenges the domain, the domain owner is likely to face difficulty defending their position. The example of *JioHotstar.com* highlights the need for courts to take a firm stand: domains registered with the intent of exploiting brand equity should be invalidated, even if the challenge by the trademark owner is based on their interests. Strategies to Prevent and Address Trademark Squatting Brands can implement proactive measures to steer clear of the difficulties associated with squatting: Conclusion Trademark squatting remains a significant legal challenge for global brands, impacting brand integrity in both online and offline environments. With courts increasingly focused on protecting the rights of trademark owners, cases like JioHotstar.com illustrate how the legal framework discourages attempts to exploit recognised brands for personal gain. Companies can protect their brand and prevent squatters from taking advantage of their intellectual property by actively registering trademarks and monitoring domain names.

Read More »

Food Plating and Copyright Protection in India

Food plating — the positioning and presentation of food on a plate has matured into its own craft; showcasing chefs around the globe serving up more than just taste alone. In addition to aesthetics, it sets up your dining experience and reflect the brand identity of a restaurant. Chefs and restaurateurs have resorted to intellectual property (IP) law in different countries around the world, for protecting their unique forms of plating. But in India, copyright law does not allow for food plating to be protected easily: the same is because of two key reasons; firstly, food being highly perishable items and secondly primary purpose of using dishes as they serve a functional role. This article takes a closer look at the intersection of Indian copyright law and food plating, covering eligibility requirements and mechanisms for protection as well as some significant challenges. Copyright Eligibility for Food Plating in India Under the Copyright Act of 1957, copyright protection in India applies to original works of art, literature, music, and more. For a work to be eligible, it generally must meet two main requirements: However, Indian Copyright Law does not automatically deem the plating of food copyrightable. Chefs have no immediate legal protection for their plating, but by photographing it they can at least preserve the creative arrangement in a fixed medium. This approach means the copyright is granted to the photograph or video itself—not the plated arrangement—which still presents some limitations but can deter unauthorized reproduction of the image. Protecting Food Plating in India: Alternative Approaches Despite the challenges, several IP options could provide indirect protection for food plating in India: Key Challenges in Achieving Copyright Protection for Food Plating Even with these alternatives, protecting food plating remains challenging in India for several reasons: Practical Recommendations for  Chefs and Restaurateurs For chefs and restaurant owners in India interested in protecting their food plating styles, here are some practical steps that can help: Conclusion Food presentation does not enjoy copyright protection in India, as food is transient (disappearing after a meal), functional, and perishable. Although food plating does not fall under the traditional copyright regime, chefs or restaurateurs can explore other methods—such as photographic copyright, branding protections, contractual protections, and trade dress—to safeguard their culinary creations’ presentation. While these solutions provide some level of protection, they ultimately highlight the issue that, in the Indian legal context, food plating lacks force under copyright law. If chefs hope to protect their plating artistry in India, the key is to focus on brand-building and be inventive with alternative IP protections.

Read More »