Tag: Delhi High Court

  • NUTELLA EARNS ‘WELL-KNOWN’ TRADEMARK STATUS: WHAT IT MEANS FOR THE BRAND

    INTRODUCTION

    The concept of a well-known trademark plays a crucial role in modern trademark law, offering protection that extends beyond specific goods or services. The Delhi High Court has formally recognized the well-known Nutella trademark, giving it protection under Trademark law, a major event in Ferrero trademark news. This judgment marks a milestone in Nutella brand protection, ensuring its legal safeguard across all trademark classes.

    The case highlights the growing importance of trademark recognition in India, especially for global brands seeking to prevent misuse and dilution. As part of India’s expanding famous trademarks, Nutella joins 117 well-known trademarks recognized to date. This article further explores the legal framework and the numerous trademark status benefits available to brand owners under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

    TMWala, with its expertise in IP law and brand protection services, assists businesses in navigating the complex process of trademark recognition, filing, and securing well-known status.

    WELL-KNOWN TRADEMARK

    As per Section 2(1)(zg) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, a well-known trademark is defined as “well known trade mark, in relation to any goods or services, means a mark which has become so to the substantial segment of the public which uses such goods or receives such services that the use of such mark in relation to other goods or services would be likely to be taken as indicating a connection in the course of trade or rendering of services between those goods or services and a person using the mark in relation to the first-mentioned goods or services.”

    Such marks carry a reputation and goodwill that transcends product categories. Their unauthorized use, even for unrelated goods can create a misleading association, thereby diluting the brand’s distinctiveness. In India, the concept of a well-known trademark has received increasing attention, especially with the globalisation of markets and the influx of international brands seeking legal protection for their intellectual property.

    NUTELLA WELL-KNOWN TRADEMARK

    In Ferrero Spa & Ors vs M. B. Enterprises case, the Delhi High Court ruled that Ferrero’s well-known hazelnut cocoa spread, Nutella, is a “well-known trademark” under the Trademarks Act of 1999. This decision gives Nutella protection against dilution and misuse under all trademark classifications, extending its protection beyond its particular classes of goods and services. The ruling demonstrates the growing importance of Indian courts’ focus on preventing unauthorized use of well-known global names, even in unrelated businesses.

    The case arose when Ferrero S.p.A., the Italian manufacturer of Nutella, initiated legal proceedings against an Indian entity that was engaged in the manufacturing, supplying, distributing, and selling large quantities of counterfeit ‘NUTELLA’ hazelnut cocoa spread under the trademark “NUTELLA FERRERO’. The trademarks, labelling, and trade dress of Ferrero’s original product were all the same. Ferrero sought an injunction, and the Delhi High Court made a formal declaration that “Nutella” is a well-known brand under Section 11(6) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, as a result of this improper use.

    Evidence Submitted by Ferrero to support their claim: Ferrero submitted substantial evidence, including:

    • Global and Indian sales figures
    • Marketing expenditures
    • Trademark registrations in over 160 countries
    • Consumer surveys
    • Extensive social media presence
    • Judicial precedents from foreign jurisdictions

    The Court’s Findings

    Justice Prathiba M. Singh, the Delhi High Court, provided a thorough analysis and agreed with Ferrero’s arguments. According to the Court, Nutella satisfies the criteria outlined in Section 11(6) of the Trademarks Act, 1999, which offers a thorough list of criteria for determining a well-known mark.

    Key findings by the Court included:

    • Widespread Recognition: Since it began marketing in India in 2009, the Nutella brand has gained a lot of customer familiarity.
    • Global Reputation: Thanks to international branding and advertising initiatives, its reputation transcends national borders.
    • Indian Market Presence: For more than ten years, the brand has maintained an active presence in India through promotional efforts and internet accessibility.
    • Bad Faith Usage: Unauthorized third-party use of “Nutella” was perceived as an effort to capitalize on the brand’s well-established reputation.

    Accordingly, the Court not only granted injunctive relief but also officially declared Nutella as a “well-known trademark” under the Trademarks Act, 1999.

    NUTELLA BRAND PROTECTION

    This judgment reaffirms the robust legal framework available in India for brand protection and the proactive role played by Indian courts in curbing brand dilution. By officially recognising Nutella as a well-known trademark, the Delhi High Court has ensured that its protection now extends beyond the specific food category, thereby disallowing any unrelated business from misappropriating the name to benefit from its reputation.

    The recognition also sets a benchmark for other international and domestic brands seeking similar status. It highlights the growing importance of enforcing intellectual property rights across borders, especially for globally renowned trademarks that carry significant consumer goodwill.

    TRADEMARK RECOGNITION IN INDIA

    The Trade Marks Act, 1999, protects well-known trademarks through several important sections. Section 2(1)(zg) defines well-known trademarks, while Section 11(2) provides protection across all goods and services, Section 11(6) sets criteria for identifying well-known marks based on public recognition and use, Section 11(8) ensures protection once a mark is recognized as well-known, and Section 11(9) states that registration or use in India is not mandatory. Sections 11(10), 29(4), and 29(9) prevent misuse and infringement, safeguarding the trademark’s reputation and preventing unauthorized use.

    FAMOUS TRADEMARKS LIST

    India has officially recognized 117 well-known trademarks, as of February 2025, which include several domestic and international names. Some prominent, well-known trademarks in India are:

    • Bisleri: Originally an Italian soda brand, Bisleri became a household name in India for bottled mineral water. Its success story includes the launch of popular beverages like Thumbs Up, Mazaa, and Gold Spot, later sold to the Coca-Cola group, reflecting the brand’s widespread recognition and appeal.
    • Infosys: The second-largest Indian IT company by revenue, Infosys is a trusted global brand in business consulting, IT, and outsourcing. Founded by Narayan Murthy, it overcame early challenges to become a benchmark in the IT services industry and a well-known trademark in India.
    • Nirma: Launched in the 1960s by Dr. Karsanbhai Patel, Nirma revolutionized the household detergent market with its affordable pricing. By the 1980s, it dominated the sector, boosted by its iconic advertising slogan, “Doodh si Safedi, Nirma Se Aaay.

    For a detailed list, refer to the official government document: List_of_Well-Known_Trade_Marks_as_of_10.02.2025.pdf

    TRADEMARK STATUS BENEFITS

    In India, to date, there are 117 trademarks registered as well-known trademarks, including Cartier, Whirlpool, and Kit Kat. This leads to the question: Is it essential for businesses targeting the Indian market to register their trademark as a well-known trademark?

    To answer the question, it is imperative to get a holistic understanding of the benefits enjoyed by well-known trademarks under the Act.

    Firstly, under Section 11(2), a relative ground for refusal of a trademark vis-à-vis well-known trademarks is incorporated – it provides that a trademark that is:

    • (a) Identical or similar to an earlier trademark, and;
    • (b) Is to be registered for goods or services that are dissimilar to those for which the earlier trademark was registered,

    shall not be registered if the earlier trademark enjoys a well-known trademark status in India, and if the usage of the later trademark without a justifiable reason would harm the distinctive character or repute acquired by the earlier well-known trademark.

    Secondly, under Section 11(10), the Registrar, while evaluating an application for registration of a trademark and any opposition thereto, is obligated to protect well-known trademarks from trademarks that are either identical or similar, and must take into consideration the mala fide intent of the applicant or the opponent affecting the rights related to the trademark.

    Therefore, owing to the high level of protection provided to well-known trademarks under Section 11(2) and Section 11(10), it is advised for businesses targeting the Indian market to register their trademark as a well-known trademark.

    TMWala can help streamline this process by assisting in compiling the required documentation, submitting formal applications, and representing clients before the Trademark Registry or courts.

    CONCLUSION

    The recognition of Nutella’s well-known trademark by the Delhi High Court sets a strong precedent for the enforcement of intellectual property rights in India. It not only strengthens Nutella brand protection but also highlights the evolving judicial approach towards safeguarding global brands against infringement and dilution.

    This important development in Ferrero trademark news reaffirms the significance of obtaining trademark recognition in India, particularly for businesses operating across borders. With Nutella now part of India’s famous trademarks list, it joins an exclusive group of brands that enjoy enhanced legal safeguards.

    Given the wide-ranging trademark status benefits provided under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, including cross-category protection and strong grounds for enforcement, businesses are strongly encouraged to pursue well-known trademark status to secure their brand equity in the Indian market.

    TMWala, with its professional IP services, is here to support businesses in securing and protecting their trademarks effectively in India.

  • Delhi High Court Protects Amul’s Trademark: Pharma Firm Barred from Using “AMUL” Brand

    Case 10: Kaira District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd. & Anr. v. Bio Logic and Psychotropics India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1035
    Court: Delhi High Court
    Date Decided: 10 September 2024
    Judge: Justice Mini Pushkarna

    Background

    Kaira District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd., widely known as Amul, is a prominent dairy cooperative in India, recognized for its extensive range of dairy products. Amul holds registered trademarks for the brand name “AMUL,” which has become synonymous with quality dairy products across the country.

    Bio Logic and Psychotropics India Pvt. Ltd., a pharmaceutical company, began marketing an antipsychotic medication under the brand name “AMUL.” These products were sold through various e-commerce platforms. Upon discovering this usage, Amul issued a cease and desist notice to the defendants. In response, the defendants claimed to have invented the trademark in 2013 and filed a trademark application for “AMUL” eight days after receiving the legal notice.

    Amul filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from using the “AMUL” mark or any other mark deceptively similar to it, alleging trademark infringement and passing off.

    Legal Issues

    1. Whether the defendants’ use of the “AMUL” mark for pharmaceutical products constitutes infringement of Amul’s registered trademark under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
    2. Whether such use amounts to passing off, leading to confusion among consumers and dilution of Amul’s brand identity.
    3. Whether Amul is entitled to a permanent injunction and damages for the unauthorized use of its well-known trademark.

    Parties’ Contentions

    Plaintiff (Amul):

    • Asserted that “AMUL” is a well-known trademark with significant goodwill and reputation in the market.
    • Claimed that the defendants’ use of the identical mark for pharmaceutical products is likely to cause confusion among consumers and tarnish the brand’s image.
    • Argued that the defendants acted in bad faith by adopting the “AMUL” mark without any plausible justification.

    Defendants (Bio Logic and Psychotropics India Pvt. Ltd.):

    • Contended that they had invented the “AMUL” trademark in 2013 and had been using it for their pharmaceutical products since then.
    • Filed a trademark application for “AMUL” shortly after receiving the legal notice from Amul.
    • Did not file a written statement or provide substantial evidence to support their claims.

    Decision

    The Delhi High Court granted a permanent injunction in favor of Amul, restraining the defendants from using the “AMUL” mark or any other mark deceptively similar to it for their pharmaceutical products. The court observed that the defendants had no plausible justification for adopting the “AMUL” mark and acted with mala fide intent to ride upon Amul’s immense reputation and goodwill. The court also imposed costs and damages totaling ₹5 lakhs against the defendants for infringing Amul’s well-known trademark. Additionally, the court directed the defendants to destroy the infringing goods that had been confiscated by the Local Commissioner and returned to them, in the presence of Amul’s representatives.

    Ratio Decidendi

    • The unauthorized use of a well-known trademark, even in a different class of goods, constitutes infringement under Section 29(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, if it takes unfair advantage of or is detrimental to the distinctive character or repute of the registered trademark.
    • Adoption of an identical or deceptively similar mark without a plausible justification indicates mala fide intent and is actionable under trademark law.
    • In cases of infringement of well-known trademarks, courts may grant permanent injunctions and award damages to protect the brand’s reputation and prevent consumer confusion.

    LEGAL ANALYSIS

    • Trade Marks Act, 1999: Sections 29(1), 29(2), 29(4), 29(6), 29(8), 29(9), 134
    • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2

    Bibliography

    Kaira District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd. & Anr. v. Bio Logic and Psychotropics India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1035

    • ‘Delhi High Court restrains Bio Logic and Psychotropics India Pvt Ltd from using mark similar to “AMUL”‘ (SCC Online, 21 September 2024) https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2024/09/21/dhc-restrains-bio-logic-and-psychotropics-india-pvt-ltd-from-using-mark-similar-to-amul/
    • ‘Delhi High Court Restrains Businesses From Using Amul’s Trademark On Their Pharmaceutical Products, Directs Payment Of ₹5 Lakhs In Damages & Costs’ (LiveLaw, 19 September 2024) https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/amul-trademark-infringement-pharmaceutical-tablets-costs-damages-270042
    • ‘Court Stops Trademark Infringement of “AMUL”‘ (BananaIP, 21 September 2024) https://bananaip.com/pharma-companys-buttery-slip-court-stops-trademark-infringement-of-amul/

    Author: Suhani Sharma

  • Delhi High Court Grants Ex-Parte Injunction to Moti Mahal

    Case 8: Moti Mahal Delux Management Services Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. SRMJ Business Promoters Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

    Citation: CS(COMM) 1115/2024
    Court: Delhi High Court
    Date Decided: 12 December 2024
    Judge: Justice Mini Pushkarna

    Background

    Moti Mahal Delux Management Services Pvt. Ltd. (“Moti Mahal”), a renowned restaurant chain with a legacy dating back to 1920, owns several registered trademarks, including “MOTI MAHAL,”“MOTI MAHAL GROUP,”“MOTI MAHAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES,” and “TANDOORI TRAIL.” These marks are associated with high-quality North Indian cuisine and have garnered significant goodwill both in India and internationally.

    SRMJ Business Promoters Pvt. Ltd. (“SRMJ”) was previously a franchisee of Moti Mahal under a Franchise Agreement dated 5 October 2013, which expired on 5 October 2022. Despite the termination of the agreement, SRMJ continued to operate its restaurant business using the marks “MOTI MAHAL DELUX TANDOORI TRAIL” and “MOTI MAHAL DELUX,” prompting Moti Mahal to file a suit seeking a permanent injunction against SRMJ for trademark infringement, passing off, and unfair trade practices.

    Legal Issues

    1. Whether SRMJ’s continued use of the marks “MOTI MAHAL DELUX TANDOORI TRAIL” and “MOTI MAHAL DELUX” after the termination of the franchise agreement constitutes trademark infringement under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
    2. Whether such use amounts to passing off and unfair trade practices, causing confusion among consumers and diluting Moti Mahal’s brand identity.
    3. Whether Moti Mahal is entitled to an ex-parte ad-interim injunction to prevent irreparable harm pending the final adjudication of the suit.

    Parties’ Contentions

    Plaintiffs (Moti Mahal Delux Management Services Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.):

    • Asserted that they are the rightful and exclusive owners of the registered trademarks in question, which have acquired immense goodwill over the years.
    • Claimed that SRMJ’s continued use of the marks post-termination is unauthorized and constitutes deliberate infringement and passing off.
    • Argued that SRMJ’s actions are likely to cause confusion among consumers and damage the reputation and distinctiveness of Moti Mahal’s trademarks.

    Defendants (SRMJ Business Promoters Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.):

    • At the time of the ex-parte hearing, the defendants had not filed a response.

    Decision

    The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Moti Mahal, restraining SRMJ and its affiliates from:

    • Using the marks “MOTI MAHAL,”“MOTI MAHAL DELUX,”“MOTI MAHAL DELUX TANDOORI TRAIL,” or any other mark deceptively similar to Moti Mahal’s registered trademarks.
    • Operating any restaurant or catering business under the impugned marks.
    • Using any logos, signage, promotional materials, or digital content bearing the infringing marks.

    The court held that Moti Mahal had established a prima facie case for the grant of an injunction, with the balance of convenience in its favor, and that it would suffer irreparable harm if the injunction were not granted.

    Ratio Decidendi

    • The unauthorized use of a registered trademark by an ex-franchisee post-termination of the franchise agreement constitutes infringement under Sections 29(1) and 29(2)(c) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
    • Such use also amounts to passing off and unfair trade practices, leading to consumer confusion and dilution of the trademark’s distinctiveness.
    • In cases where the plaintiff demonstrates a strong prima facie case and the likelihood of irreparable harm, courts may grant ex-parte ad-interim injunctions to preserve the status quo pending final adjudication.

    LEGAL ANALYSIS

    • Trade Marks Act, 1999: Sections 29(1), 29(2)(c), 29(4)
    • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2
    • Copyright Act, 1957: Sections 2(c), 17

    Bibliography

    Author: Suhani Sharma

  • Mankind Pharma Stops Sepkind from Using Similar Trademark

    Case 6: Mankind Pharma Ltd. v. Sepkind Pharma Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

    Citation: 2024 SCC OnLine Del 3143
    Court: Delhi High Court
    Date Decided: 23 December 2024
    Judge: Justice Mini Pushkarna

    Background

    Mankind Pharma Ltd. (“Mankind”), a leading pharmaceutical company in India, has been using the trademark “MANKIND” since 1986 and holds multiple registrations under the Trademarks Act, 1999. The mark “MANKIND” has been recognized as a well-known trademark by the Registrar of Trade Marks under Rule 124 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017. Mankind has developed a family of trademarks incorporating the “KIND” suffix, such as “HEPAKIND,”“GLYKIND,” and “METROKIND,” establishing a strong brand identity in the pharmaceutical sector.

    In December 2024, Mankind discovered that Sepkind Pharma Pvt. Ltd. (“Sepkind”) was using the mark “SEPKIND,” which incorporated the “KIND” suffix, and a logo and tagline (“Save your Life”) that were deceptively similar to Mankind’s own logo and tagline (“Serving Life”). Mankind filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction against Sepkind to restrain them from infringing its trademark, passing off, and engaging in unfair trade practices.

    Plaintiff’s MARK

    Defendant’s MARK

    Legal Issues

    1. Whether Sepkind’s use of the mark “SEPKIND” infringes upon Mankind’s registered trademark “MANKIND” under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
    2. Whether Sepkind’s use of a similar logo and tagline constitutes passing off and unfair trade practices.
    3. Whether Mankind is entitled to an ex-parte ad-interim injunction to prevent irreparable harm pending the final adjudication of the suit.

    Parties’ Contentions

    Plaintiff (Mankind Pharma Ltd.):

    • Asserted that “MANKIND” is a well-known trademark with significant goodwill and reputation in the pharmaceutical industry.
    • Claimed that Sepkind’s use of “SEPKIND,” along with a similar logo and tagline, is likely to cause confusion among consumers and amounts to trademark infringement and passing off.
    • Argued that the adoption of the “KIND” suffix by Sepkind was a deliberate attempt to capitalize on Mankind’s established brand identity.

    Defendants (Sepkind Pharma Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.):

    • At the time of the ex-parte hearing, the defendants had not filed a response.

    Decision

    The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Mankind Pharma Ltd., restraining Sepkind Pharma Pvt. Ltd. and others from:

    • Using the mark “SEPKIND” or any other mark deceptively similar to “MANKIND” in any manner, including on products, packaging, promotional materials, or online platforms.
    • Using a logo or tagline that is deceptively similar to Mankind’s registered trademarks and associated branding elements.

    The court held that Mankind had established a prima facie case for the grant of an injunction and that the balance of convenience favored Mankind. It also noted that Mankind would suffer irreparable harm if the injunction were not granted.

    Ratio Decidendi

    • The use of a mark that is deceptively similar to a well-known registered trademark constitutes infringement under Sections 29(1) and 29(2)(b) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
    • The adoption of similar branding elements, such as logos and taglines, can lead to consumer confusion and amounts to passing off and unfair trade practices.
    • In cases where the plaintiff demonstrates a strong prima facie case and the likelihood of irreparable harm, courts may grant ex-parte ad-interim injunctions to preserve the status quo pending final adjudication.

    LEGAL ANALYSIS

    • Trade Marks Act, 1999: Sections 29(1), 29(2)(b), 29(4)
    • Trade Marks Rules, 2017: Rule 124
    • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2
    • Indian Copyright Act, 1957

    Bibliography

    Author: Suhani Sharma

  • Delhi HC Restrains ‘Baap Ki Adalat’ for Trademark Infringement

    Case 4: Independent News Service Pvt. Ltd. & Rajat Sharma v. Ravindra Kumar Choudhary & Ors.

    Citation: 2024 SCC OnLine Del 3142
    Court: Delhi High Court
    Date Decided: 30 May 2024
    Judge: Justice Anish Dayal

    Background

    Independent News Service Pvt. Ltd. (INS), the proprietor of the 24-hour Hindi news channel “India TV,” and its Chairman and Editor-in-Chief, Rajat Sharma, filed a suit against Ravindra Kumar Choudhary and others. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants were using the mark/logo “Baap Ki Adalat,” which was deceptively similar to their registered trademark/logo “Aap Ki Adalat,” a well-known television program featuring interviews with prominent personalities. The defendants, particularly Choudhary, a self-proclaimed political satirist, were creating and publishing various video and audio content on social media platforms under the impugned mark.

    Plaintiff’s MARK

    Defendant’s MARK

    Legal Issues

    1. Whether the defendants’ use of the mark/logo “Baap Ki Adalat” infringed upon the plaintiffs’ registered trademark/logo “Aap Ki Adalat” under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
    2. Whether the defendants’ actions constituted passing off, leading to confusion among the public.
    3. Whether the unauthorized use of Rajat Sharma’s name, photograph, and video violated his personality rights.

    Parties’ Contentions

    Plaintiffs (Independent News Service Pvt. Ltd. & Rajat Sharma):

    • Asserted that “Aap Ki Adalat” is a registered trademark and a widely recognized television program, thereby possessing significant goodwill and reputation.
    • Claimed that the defendants’ use of “Baap Ki Adalat” was deceptively similar, both phonetically and visually, leading to confusion among the public.
    • Alleged that the defendants’ use of Rajat Sharma’s name, photograph, and video without consent infringed upon his personality rights.

    Defendants (Ravindra Kumar Choudhary & Ors.):

    • At the time of the interim injunction, the defendants had not filed a response.

    Decision

    The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of the plaintiffs, restraining the defendants from:

    • Using the mark/logo “Baap Ki Adalat” or any other mark/logo deceptively similar to “Aap Ki Adalat” in any manner, including as a trademark, logo, trading style, domain name, social media posts, audio-video content, or in relation to any services.
    • Using the photograph, video, or name of Rajat Sharma in any manner that would violate his personality rights.

    The court directed the defendants to remove the infringing content from their social media platforms and scheduled the next hearing for 18 October 2024.

    Ratio Decidendi

    • The court found a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off, noting the deceptive similarity between “Aap Ki Adalat” and “Baap Ki Adalat.”
    • Recognized the significant reputation and goodwill associated with the plaintiffs’ trademarks, and the potential for confusion and deception among the public due to the defendants’ use of a deceptively similar mark.
    • Acknowledged the violation of Rajat Sharma’s personality rights through the unauthorized use of his name, photograph, and video.

    LEGAL ANALYSIS

    Trade Marks Act, 1999: Sections 29(1), 29(2)(b), 29(4)

    • (1) A registered trade mark is infringed by a person who, not being a registered proprietor or a person using by way of permitted use, uses in the course of trade, a mark which is identical with, or deceptively similar to, the trade mark in relation to goods or services in respect of which the trade mark is registered and in such manner as to render the use of the mark likely to be taken as being used as a trade mark.
    • (b) its similarity to the registered trademark and the identity or similarity of the goods or services covered by such registered trademark; or
    • (4) A registered trade mark is infringed by a person who, not being a registered proprietor or a person using by way of permitted use, uses in the course of trade, a mark which— (a) is identical with or similar to the registered trade mark; and (b) is used in relation to goods or services which are not similar to those for which the trade mark is registered; and (c) the registered trade mark has a reputation in India and the use of the mark without due cause takes unfair advantage of or is detrimental to, the distinctive character or repute of the registered trade mark.
    • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2
    • Common law principles relating to passing off and personality rights

    Bibliography

    Author: Suhani Sharma