legalguruindia.com

Tag: well-known trademarks india

  • Shaping The Future of IP Law in India: A Review of Significant Judgement of 2025

    1. Phonetic Similarity

    Pepsico, Inc. v. Jagdamba Foods Pvt.Ltd.IPDATM/210/2023 (popularly known as Lay’s vs Jay’s case)

    PepsiCo Inc., formed in 1965 through the merger of Frito-Lay Inc. and the Pepsi-Cola Company, traces the Lay’s brand to Herman W. Lay’s potato chip business, begun in 1938. In the context of Indian IP Law, Lay’s has been used continuously for over 75 years and has been registered in India since 31 July 1992, acquiring substantial goodwill and recognition as a well-known trademark.

    PepsiCo challenged the respondent’s mark “Jay’s”, alleging bad-faith adoption and deceptive phonetic similarity to “Lay’s”, used for identical goods and likely to cause consumer confusion while unfairly exploiting Lay’s reputation.

    The petition was filed under Sections 47, 57, 9(2)(a), and 11 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and relied on precedents such as Dabur India Ltd. v. Usha (2024) and K.R. Chinna Krishna Chettiar v. Shri Ambal& Co. (1969), emphasizing prior user rights and phonetic similarity.

    The Calcutta High Court, led by Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur, allowed the petition and ordered cancellation of the “Jay’s” trademark, holding it to be deceptively and phonetically similar to the well-known Lay’s mark and adopted with mala fide intent to capitalize on PepsiCo’s goodwill.

    2. Visual Similarity

    Lifestyle Equities CV &Anr. v. Amazon Technologies, RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 & APPL. 26455/2025

    The Delhi High Court imposed a fine of ₹339.25 crore on Amazon and its affiliates for trademark and copyright infringement involving the Beverly Hills Polo Club (BHPC) logo. The Court found that Amazon, through its private label “Symbol”, sold clothing featuring a horse logo that closely resembled the BHPC emblem, creating the impression that consumers were purchasing authentic BHPC products at lower prices.

    The plaintiffs, Lifestyle Equities C.V. (LECV) and Lifestyle Licensing B.V. (LLBV), owners and licensees of the BHPC trademark, alleged that Amazon Technologies Inc., Cloudtail India Pvt. Ltd., and Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd. had used their registered mark without authorization, causing consumer confusion, dilution of the brand’s goodwill, and financial loss.

    The Court observed that Amazon exercised significant control over Cloudtail’s branding and sales, making it accountable for the infringement. The company’s failure to contest the proceedings was interpreted as an acknowledgment of liability. Highlighting the difficulties of enforcing IP rights against e-commerce intermediaries, the Court held the defendants liable under Section 135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

    The Court awarded the plaintiffs a total of ₹339,25,97,966.60, covering damages for lost sales, royalties, and legal expenses, and disposed of all pending applications. This ruling sends a clear message that e-commerce platforms must adhere strictly to intellectual property laws.

    For businesses navigating complex IP issues, service providers like TMWala can be invaluable. TMWala assists companies in securing trademark registrations, monitoring potential infringements, and enforcing IP rights effectively, ensuring that brands are protected from unauthorized use on e-commerce platforms and beyond.

    3. Registration of Smell Trademark

    Sumitomo Rubber Industries Ltd. NO. TMR/DEL/SCH/2025/16

    In a landmark decision for non-traditional trademarks in India, the Trade Marks Registry accepted Sumitomo Rubber Industries Ltd. (a Japanese company)’s application to register an olfactory (smell) mark for tyres. The mark, described as “floral fragrance/smell reminiscent of roses as applied to tyres” (Application No. 5860303, Class 12), has been accepted and advertised in Trade Marks Journal No. 2236 (Nov 2024–2025).

    Filed on 23 March 2023, the application initially faced objections under Section 9(1)(a) (lack of distinctiveness) and Section 2(1)(zb) (absence of graphical representation). To address these, the applicant relied on prior UK registration, decades of commercial use since 1995, international precedents, and a novel scientific graphical representation, a seven-dimensional vector of the scent prepared by a researcher at IIIT Allahabad.

    On 21 November 2025, the Controller General accepted the mark as an olfactory trademark, finding that the scientific representation met the statutory criteria of being clear, precise, self-contained, intelligible, durable, and objective, and directed its advertisement under Section 20 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Registry also noted that a rose scent is arbitrary to tyres and capable of distinguishing the applicant’s products in the market.

    This ruling represents a major advancement in Indian trademark law, recognizing scientifically validated graphical representations as a valid method for protecting non-conventional sensory marks.

    4. Well-Known Mark

    Hermès International &Anr. v. Macky Lifestyle Private Limited &Anr. CS(COMM) 716/2021

    On 24 November 2025, the Delhi High Court delivered a landmark ruling enhancing protection for luxury brands and non-traditional trademarks in India. The Court recognized the three-dimensional shape of the Birkin bag, the “Hermès” word mark, and its stylized logos as well-known trademarks under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, bringing Indian jurisprudence closer to global intellectual property standards.

    Hermès, the French luxury house established in 1837, alleged that the defendants had unauthorizedly manufactured, advertised, and sold products deceptively similar to the iconic Birkin bag, constituting trademark infringement, passing off, dilution, and misappropriation of goodwill. During proceedings, the defendants admitted that they had not manufactured or sold any infringing products, earned no revenue, and that the images shown were only downloaded from the internet. The plaintiffs accepted these statements, resulting in the grant of injunctions.

    Hermès also sought recognition of its marks as well-known trademarks. After reviewing decades of consistent global use, promotion, enforcement history, and cross-border reputation, the Court concluded that the Hermès marks enjoy widespread recognition extending beyond territorial boundaries. Accordingly, it declared the Birkin bag’s shape, the Hermès word mark, and associated logos as well-known trademarks under Section 2(1)(zg).

    This judgment has far-reaching implications, reinforcing protection for product shape marks, acknowledging global brand reputation even with limited local sales, and deterring misuse of luxury branding at any stage. It also strengthens India’s commitment to enforcing international IP rights.

    For businesses, service providers like TMWala play a crucial role in safeguarding brand assets. They assist in obtaining well-known trademark status, monitoring unauthorized use, enforcing IP rights, and ensuring that both traditional and non-traditional trademarks, including three-dimensional shapes and stylized logos, are fully protected in India and globally.

    | Read the whole article regarding Hermès, marked as the well-known trademark

    5. AI vs Copyright

    ANI Media Pvt Ltd Vs Open Ai Inc & Anr CS(COMM) 1028/2024

    In November 2024, Asian News International (ANI) filed a copyright infringement suit against OpenAI in the Delhi High Court, alleging that ChatGPT reproduced or closely mirrored ANI’s news articles without permission. ANI claimed its content was used to train the AI model for commercial purposes and that ChatGPT’s outputs lacked the creativity required to be considered original under Indian copyright law. OpenAI denied infringement, arguing that the training process is statistical, non-expressive, and that any similarity is coincidental. OpenAI also challenged the jurisdiction of Indian courts, citing no physical presence in India.

    The case raises important questions about AI and copyright, including whether copyrighted material can be used to train large language models, whether AI-generated content can be considered original, and whether Indian courts can assert jurisdiction over foreign AI companies. ANI relied on Sections 13, 14, 51, and 52 of the Copyright Act, 1957, as well as the Modak doctrine, emphasizing that the AI outputs are derivative and infringing.

    This dispute is a landmark in India, as it could shape future regulations on AI, copyright protection, and digital content.

    For businesses and content creators, TMWala can help navigate such challenges by securing copyright registrations, monitoring unauthorized use of content, and providing guidance on licensing agreements. TMWala also assists companies in understanding emerging legal risks from AI and digital technologies, ensuring compliance with Indian copyright and intellectual property laws.

    | To know more about this, explore this article: AI and Copyright: The Ani vs. OpenAI Case

    FAQs

    1. What was the outcome of the Lay’s vs Jay’s trademark case?
      The Calcutta High Court cancelled the “Jay’s” trademark, ruling it phonetically and deceptively similar to Lay’s and adopted in bad faith.
    2. Why was Amazon fined ₹339.25 crore in the BHPC case?
      Amazon and its affiliates sold clothing with a logo deceptively similar to the Beverly Hills Polo Club (BHPC) emblem, misleading consumers and infringing on trademark and copyright.
    3. How can businesses prevent e-commerce trademark infringement?
      Service providers like TMWala help secure registrations, monitor potential infringements, and enforce IP rights on online platforms.
    4. What is the significance of the Sumitomo smell trademark?
      The Trade Marks Registry accepted an olfactory mark for tyres, recognizing a scientific seven-dimensional graphical representation as a valid non-traditional trademark.
    5. What are non-traditional trademarks?           
      These include sensory marks, product shapes, colors, sounds, or other distinctive elements beyond words or logos.
    6. How did the Hermès case strengthen luxury brand protection?
      The Delhi High Court declared the Birkin bag shape, Hermès word mark, and logos as well-known trademarks, protecting them against misuse even with minimal local sales.
    7. Can foreign companies like OpenAI be sued in India for copyright infringement?
      Yes, under Section 20 of the Civil Procedure Code, if the company causes harm in India, Indian courts may assert jurisdiction.
    8. What is the legal concern in the ANI vs OpenAI case?
      It questions whether AI training on copyrighted content constitutes infringement, whether AI outputs are “original,” and whether Indian copyright law applies to AI-generated content.
    9. How does TMWala assist with AI-related copyright issues?
      TMWala helps secure copyright registrations, monitor unauthorized use, draft licensing agreements, and ensure compliance with emerging AI and IP laws.
    10. What is the overall trend in the 2025 Indian IP law?
      The year highlights stronger protection for phonetic, visual, non-traditional, well-known, and AI-related intellectual property, aligning India with global IP standards.

  • TYPES OF TRADEMARKS

    Intellectual Property (IP) refers to the original creations of the human mind, such as inventions, artworks, literature, designs, and unique symbols, names, or images used in trade or business. Laws such as patents, copyrights, and trademarks protect these creations, allowing individuals and companies to gain recognition or financial rewards for their innovation and effort. The goal of the IP system is to maintain a fair balance between encouraging innovation and serving the public interest, so that creativity can thrive. A trademark is one such type of intellectual property right. In the upcoming paragraphs, we will learn about different Types of Trademarks.

    The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) defines a trademark as:

    A trademark is a sign capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one enterprise from those of other enterprises. Trademarks are protected by intellectual property rights. ~ WIPO

    Trademarks in India are governed by the Trademarks Act, 1999, which defines ‘mark’ and ‘trademark’ as follows:-

    Section 2(1) (m): Trademark must be a mark which includes a device, a brand heading, label, ticket, name, signature, word, letter, numeral, shape of goods, packaging, or combination of colors or any combination thereof;

     Section 2 (zb)“Trademark” means a mark capable of being represented graphically and which is capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one person from those of others and may include the shape of goods, their packaging, and combination of colors; ~ Trademarks Act, 1999

    History in brief

    Before codified trademark legislation existed in India, trademark rights were protected under common law through the equitable remedy of passing off. Inspired by the English Trademark Act of 1875, the first attempt to introduce similar legislation in India came in 1879, but it failed to gain traction. India got its first official trademark law with the enactment of the Trade Marks Act, 1940, which was inspired by the UK Trade Marks Act of 1938. Before that, trademark-related disputes were handled under Section 54 of the Specific Relief Act,1877.

    To address the growing commercial needs of a newly independent nation, the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, replaced the 1940 Act, consolidating trademark laws with provisions from the IPC and CrPC. Eventually, with globalization and the need for TRIPS compliance, the Trademarks Act, 1999, was introduced and remains the governing law today, supported by the Trademark Rules, 2002.

    Types of Trademarks

    1. Product Mark

    Definition: A product mark is used on goods or products to identify the source and distinguish it from similar products.

    Covered under the definition of “trademark” in Section 2(1) (zb).

    Example: puma (for shoes and sportswear),

    AMUL (for dairy products)

    2. Service Mark

    Definition: A service mark refers to a mark that helps identify and set apart services instead of physical goods. As per Section 2(1)(zb), the definition of a trademark explicitly includes such marks that can distinguish one service from another.

    Example: Netflix (streaming platform providing streaming entertainment Services

    Airtel networks (Telecommunication services).

    3. Collective Mark

    Definition: A collective mark is a symbol or sign used by members of an organization or group to show their connection to it and to indicate where the goods or services come from.
    Section 2(1)(g) defines a “collective mark”

    Example: CA (used by members of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India).

    4. Certification Mark

    Definition: A certification mark is used to verify certain qualities of goods or services, such as their origin, materials used, quality, or the way they are made.

    Defined under Section 2(1)(e)and governed by Sections 69–78 of the Act. Example: ISI mark (certifies safety and quality), FSSAI mark for food products

    5. Well-Known Trademark

    Definition: A well-known trademark is a mark that has become widely recognized among a substantial segment of the public in India.

    Defined under Section 2(1)(zg)

    The Registrar may determine a mark to be well-known under Section 11(6) (9).

    Example: Google, Coca-Cola, Apple.

    6. Word Mark

    Definition: A word mark consists of letters or numerals, used without any special stylization.

    It is protected regardless of font or color. Falls under the general definition of trademark in Section 2(1) (zb).

    Example: TATA, Infosys.

    7. Device Mark

    Definition: A device mark refers to a visual element like a logo, label, or graphic that represents a brand. It falls under the meaning of “mark” in Section 2(1)(m) and is also included in the definition of “trademark” under Section 2(1)(zb).

    Example: (a)Apple’s bitten apple logo,

    8. Shape Mark

    Definition: A shape mark protects the shape of goods or their packaging if it is capable of distinguishing goods.

    Included in Section 2(1)(m) and Section 2(1)(zb),” marks may include the shape of goods or their packaging”.

    Example: (a) Coca-Cola bottle shape

    (B) Toblerone chocolate bar

    9. Sound Mark

    Definition: A sound mark is a unique sound linked to a brand that helps people recognize where a product or service comes from. Although not explicitly defined in the Act, sound marks are registrable under Rule 26(5) of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017, and are considered part of non-traditional trademarks under Section 2(1)(zb).

    Example: (a)Netflix’s TUDUM, (b)IPL trumpet tune.

    10. Color Mark

    Definition: A specific color or combination of colors that uniquely identifies a brand, provided it has acquired distinctiveness.Included within Section 2(1)(m) and 2(1)(zb), which do not exclude color marks. Example: The unique blue color of Tiffany and Co.

    11. Pattern Mark

    Definition: Patterns that are distinctive and associated with a particular brand.
    Recognized under Section 2(1)(m) and Section 2(1)(zb).

    Example: Louis Vuitton’s checkerboard pattern.

    Conclusion

    Trademarks are not just legal terms; they are the face of a brand. Whether it’s a logo, a specific color, a catchy tune, or even the unique shape of packaging, trademarks help consumers instantly recognize and trust a product or service. In a marketplace overflowing with choices, trademarks act as powerful tools for businesses to stand out and build lasting relationships with their customers.

    The Trade Marks Act, 1999, has played a crucial role in formalizing and safeguarding this identity. By covering a wide range of traditional and non-traditional marks, the Act ensures that businesses can creatively express their uniqueness while enjoying robust legal protection. It also brings India’s trademark law in line with international standards, helping Indian brands compete and grow globally.

    The wide classification of trademarks, such as product marks, service marks, certification marks, collective marks, well-known marks, and more, demonstrates the law’s adaptability to diverse sectors and industries. It recognizes that brands are not limited to names or logos but can be embedded in every aspect of a product’s identity, including its look, feel, sound, or even its scent (in some jurisdictions).

    In conclusion, trademarks are much more than legal instruments, they are strategic assets. A well-protected trademark can become a symbol of trust, a competitive advantage, and a tool for global outreach. For any business or entrepreneur, understanding the types of trademarks and the legal protections available under Indian law is not just advisable, but essential for long-term brand development and commercial success.

    REFFERENCES

    • WorldIntellectual Property Organization(WIPO),https://www.wipo.int/en/web/trademarks
    • Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT), Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks (CGPDTM), Government of India
      https://ipindia.gov.in/ accessed 27 May 2025.
    • Indian Kanoon, The Trade Marks Act, 1999, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/117176/
    • Legislative Department, Ministry of Law and Justice, The Trade Marks Act, 1999 – Bare Act, https://legislative.gov.in/sites/default/files/A1999-47.pdf
    • World Trade Organization (WTO), TRIPS: Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/trips_e.htm

    Author : Arti Pathak