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.


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 on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on whatsapp
Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on whatsapp

Related Posts

Micro Copyright in India: Protecting Small-Scale Creative Works

In the digital age, the creation and sharing of content have reached unprecedented heights. With the proliferation of user-generated content, short-form media, and the increasing significance of individual contributions to larger works, the concept of “micro copyright” has emerged. Micro copyright refers to the protection of smaller, often more granular, creative expressions. In the context of Indian copyright law, this concept presents unique challenges and opportunities. This article explores the intricacies of micro copyright and the conundrums surrounding its protection in India. Understanding Micro Copyright Micro copyright encompasses the rights associated with smaller creative works such as social media posts, memes, short videos, gifs, and even individual elements within larger works, like specific phrases or designs. These forms of content, while often brief and seemingly inconsequential, can hold significant value and can be the subject of copyright protection. The Legal Framework of Copyright in India The Indian Copyright Act, 1957, primarily governs copyright protection in India. The Act provides protection to original literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works, cinematograph films, and sound recordings. For a work to be protected, it must be original and expressed in a tangible form. Challenges in Protecting Micro Copyright 1. Originality and Fixation One of the fundamental requirements for copyright protection is that the work must be original and fixed in a tangible medium. This can be challenging for micro content, where the line between original creation and common expression is often blurred. Determining the originality of a tweet, meme, or short video clip can be subjective and contentious. 2. De Minimis Doctrine The de minimis doctrine, which means “about minimal things,” can pose a significant challenge for micro copyright. This doctrine suggests that the law does not concern itself with trivial matters. Small snippets of content might be considered too insignificant to warrant protection, leaving creators without legal recourse for unauthorized use. 3. Fair Use The concept of fair use allows for limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders. In the context of micro copyright, determining what constitutes fair use can be particularly tricky. For instance, sharing a meme or a short clip might be considered fair use, but if it goes viral and gains commercial value, the original creator might seek protection and compensation. 4. Enforcement and Attribution Even if micro content is eligible for copyright protection, enforcing these rights can be challenging. Monitoring the vast expanse of the internet for unauthorized use of small-scale content is a daunting task. Additionally, the ease with which digital content can be shared and altered complicates the process of ensuring proper attribution and compensation. The Way Forward 1. Clearer Guidelines and Definitions To address the challenges of micro copyright, clearer guidelines and definitions are needed within the Indian Copyright Act. Defining what constitutes a protectable micro work and setting standards for originality can provide better clarity for creators and users alike. 2. Digital Rights Management (DRM) and Technology Leveraging technology, such as digital rights management (DRM) systems and content recognition algorithms, can help creators monitor and enforce their copyright more effectively. These technologies can automate the process of identifying unauthorized uses and facilitate easier enforcement. 3. Education and Awareness Increasing awareness among creators about their rights and the mechanisms available for protecting their content is crucial. Educational campaigns and resources can empower creators to navigate the complexities of copyright law and safeguard their micro creations. 4. Legal Reform and International Cooperation Given the global nature of digital content, international cooperation and harmonization of copyright laws can play a significant role in addressing the challenges of micro copyright. Legal reforms that consider the unique nature of digital content and micro works can provide a more robust framework for protection. Conclusion The rise of micro copyright in the digital era presents a unique conundrum under Indian copyright law. While the current legal framework provides a foundation for protecting creative works, the nuances of micro content require more specific attention and adaptation. By addressing the challenges of originality, fair use, enforcement, and attribution, and by leveraging technology and education, India can better protect the rights of creators in the evolving landscape of digital content.

Read More »
Importance of Trademarking your Restaurant Name - Intellect Vidhya

Importance of Trademarking your Restaurant Name

Have you ever walked into a restaurant, drawn by its catchy name or eye-catching logo, only to discover that it’s not the establishment you thought it was? In the bustling food and hospitality industry of India, this scenario is becoming increasingly common. As more and more eateries pop up, it’s crucial for restaurant owners to protect their brand’s identity through trademark registration. A trademark is like a unique fingerprint that sets your goods or services apart from the competition. It’s a legal stamp that says, “This is ours, and no one else can use it.” And in the world of restaurants, where first impressions can make or break your business, a strong trademark can be a game-changer. Why Trademarks Matter for Restaurateurs? Success Stories of Trademarked Restaurant Brands The Consequences of Neglecting Trademark Protection In the vibrant culinary landscape of India, trademarking your restaurant brand is more than just a formality – it’s a strategic move that can safeguard your business identity, maintain brand recognition, and provide legal recourse against infringement. By understanding the importance of trademarks and understanding the appropriate registration process under Indian trademark law, you can protect your valuable intellectual property and pave the way for a future as bright as a perfectly cooked dish, fresh out of the kitchen.

Read More »
The Significance Of Prior Use In The Trademark Law Vans V Ivans - Intellect Vidhya

The Significance of Prior Use in the Trademark Law: Vans v. Ivans

In the complex realm of intellectual property rights, few principles hold as much significance as the concept of “prior use” in Indian trademark law. The recent ruling by the Delhi High Court in the Vans v. Ivans case has brought attention to the fundamental concept of giving precedence to the first user of a trademark in the market. The Vans v. Ivans Case: The case centred on a disagreement between Vans Inc., a well-known American footwear and apparel company, and FCB Garment Tex, an Indian company that used the “IVANS” trademark. Vans Inc. filed a request to invalidate FCB Garment Tex’s trademark registration in India, claiming that their “VANS” mark had recently gained recognition as a well-known trademark in the country. Nevertheless, the Delhi High Court ruled in favour of FCB Garment Tex, citing the prior use principle. Important Factors in the Court’s Decision The court’s ruling was influenced by several crucial elements. Firstly, it emphasised that FCB Garment Tex had been using the “IVANS” mark in India for years before Vans Inc. entered the market, applying the “first in the market” principle. Furthermore, the court made it clear that simply declaring a trademark as well-known does not automatically give the owner the authority to cancel other marks that were used earlier in India. Finally, the court determined that FCB Garment’s utilisation of the marks was both sincere and simultaneous, granting them protection under Section 12 of the Trade Marks Act. Supporting the Principle of Prior Use This landmark ruling is a strong affirmation of the prior use principle in Indian trademark law. This principle emphasises that the initial user of a trademark in the market holds greater rights compared to later users, regardless of their registration status. This concept is deeply embedded in the Indian Trade Marks Act, 1999, and aims to safeguard businesses that have dedicated significant time and resources to establish their brand identity in the market. The Reasoning Behind Prior Use There are several reasons behind the prior use principle. It strives to recognise and safeguard businesses that have proactively built their brands in the marketplace. By prioritising the initial user, the law recognises the dedication and resources required to establish a strong brand presence and cultivate customer loyalty. This principle also helps to prevent unfair competition by ensuring that well-known brands are not replaced by new ones with similar marks, thus maintaining consumer trust and market stability. Territorial Nature of Trademark Rights In addition, the principle of prior use acknowledges the territorial nature of trademark rights. The Vans v. Ivans case clearly illustrates that having a worldwide reputation is not enough to establish legal rights in a particular jurisdiction. The principle highlights the significance of establishing a tangible market presence and utilising a trademark within India, rather than solely relying on international recognition or registration in other nations. Engaging with well-known Trademarks The prior use principle also has implications for other aspects of trademark law, including the recognition of well-known trademarks. The ruling by the Delhi High Court provides clarity on the advantages of having a well-known trademark status, while also acknowledging the rights of prior users in the market. This delicate equilibrium ensures the safeguarding of well-known local brands while acknowledging the prestige and recognition of globally renowned trademarks. Practical Considerations for Trademark Owners In practice, trademark owners are faced with a significant burden of maintaining proper documentation of their trademark use due to the prior use principle. This encompasses sales records, advertisements, and proof of customer recognition. Consistent and authentic use of the mark is essential, as any substantial gaps in usage can undermine a prior use claim. Conclusion Ultimately, the verdict of the Delhi High Court in the Vans v. Ivans case serves as a strong affirmation of the prior use principle within Indian trademark law. It emphasises the significance of having a strong market presence and building a reputable brand in order to establish and safeguard trademark rights in India. As the country continues to attract global brands while nurturing its own business ecosystem, this principle will undoubtedly have a significant impact on the development of trademark strategies and dispute resolutions.

Read More »
The Ethical and Legal Dilemma of AI Voice Cloning in the Music Industry - Intellect Vidhya

The Ethical and Legal Dilemma of AI Voice Cloning in the Music Industry

In recent years, artificial intelligence (AI) has made remarkable progress in various fields, including music production. Voice cloning in music has been a subject of intense debate, raising questions about copyright infringement, moral rights, and the preservation of artistic integrity. The recent criticism voiced by legendary Indian playback singer Kumar Sanu against AI voice duplication brings attention to the mounting concerns within the music industry. Power and Potential of AI Voice Cloning AI voice cloning technology has made significant progress in recreating the voices of singers with outstanding precision. This ability has resulted in the development of new songs that utilise the voices of artists who have passed away, as demonstrated in the recent example of “Pehle Hi Main.” This song was created using an AI-generated voice that mimics the late Mohammed Rafi, who sadly passed away in 1980. Although this technology presents fascinating opportunities for music production and preservation, it also brings up important ethical and legal concerns. Dealing with Copyright Infringement Copyright infringement is a significant legal concern when it comes to AI voice cloning. A singer’s voice is regarded as their valuable asset, safeguarded by copyright laws in numerous jurisdictions. When AI is employed to imitate a singer’s voice without authorization, it may potentially infringe upon copyright protections. This encompasses violations of reproduction rights, distribution rights, and the unauthorised creation of derivative works. Moral Rights and Personality Rights In addition to copyright concerns, AI voice cloning also brings up ethical and legal questions surrounding moral rights and personality rights. It is important for singers to safeguard their work from any alterations or manipulations that may negatively impact their reputation. Additionally, there is a potential for confusion and misrepresentation when AI-generated voices are not explicitly identified. Furthermore, in numerous legal systems, people possess the authority to regulate the commercial exploitation of their identity, appearance, or voice. Voice cloning might be perceived as a violation of these rights. Cloning the Voices of Deceased Artists Using AI to replicate the voices of deceased artists, such as Mohammed Rafi, brings about a whole new set of challenges. Although copyright protection usually lasts for many years after an artist’s passing, the ethical considerations surrounding the use of a deceased artist’s voice without their permission are quite substantial. There are concerns regarding the preservation of the legacy and artistic intentions of deceased musicians. Industry Response Kumar Sanu’s decision to pursue legal protection against AI voice cloning demonstrates a rising recognition of these concerns within the music industry. Other artists and industry professionals are also advocating for the establishment of regulatory frameworks to oversee the utilisation of AI in music production. There are several potential solutions being discussed to address the challenges posed by AI in music. These include establishing licencing protocols for the use of AI-cloned voices, requiring clear disclosure when AI voice cloning is used in a production, and developing specific laws to tackle these unique challenges. The Path Forward As AI technology advances, it is essential for the legal system to stay up to date. Collaboration between the music industry, legislators, and AI developers is crucial in establishing a framework that balances the protection of artists’ rights with the promotion of innovation. This could potentially include the need to revise copyright laws to specifically tackle AI-generated content, setting industry norms for the ethical application of AI in music production, and devising methods for artists to maintain control over and profit from the utilisation of their AI-replicated voices. Conclusion The emergence of AI voice cloning technology brings forth a range of possibilities and complexities for the music industry. Although it presents exciting opportunities for creativity, it also raises serious concerns regarding artists’ rights and the authenticity of their work. As evidenced by Kumar Sanu’s case, it is clear that there is a pressing requirement for the establishment of legal and ethical frameworks to regulate the utilisation of this technology. As we move forward with the more enhanced versions of AI, it’s crucial to find a harmony between technological advancement and safeguarding artists’ rights. It is crucial to establish thoughtful regulation and foster industry cooperation to ensure that AI positively impacts the creative ecosystem of the music industry.

Read More »