Source: https://iclg.com/practice-areas/trade-marks-laws-and-regulations/india
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 16:37:02+00:00

Document:
The Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks is the relevant trade mark authority, overseeing the functions of the offices of the Trade Marks Registry located in Ahmedabad, Chennai, Delhi, Kolkata and Mumbai.
The trade mark legislation currently in force in India is the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and the Trade Mark Rules, 2002.
Any mark capable of being represented graphically, and which is capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one person from those of others or is used in relation to goods or services for the purpose of indicating a connection in the course of trade, may be registered as a trade mark. A trade mark may include the shape of goods, their packaging and a combination of colours. As of now, the Indian Trade Marks Registry has seen a few successful applications for the registration of sounds, and none for that of smells.
5. any national flag, emblem or logo, including that of any United Nations body or other international organisation.
8. an authorisation of an Agent (Power of Authority).
1. Once an application is filed, it is examined by the Examiner of Trade Marks and an Examination Report containing objections (comprising absolute and/or relative grounds of refusal) is issued. The applicant is required to file a response within one month from the date of the Office Action. In case the Registry issues a pre-examination, formality defect notice, a response to such notice is required to be filed within one month from the date of such notice.
2. After the response, if there are still any outstanding issues, a ‘show cause’ hearing will be appointed.
3. In case of an adverse action, the Registrar will issue a Speaking Order, which is appealable before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board.
4. In case the mark is accepted for advertisement, it is published in the Trade Marks Journal and is open to third party oppositions within four months from the date of publication.
5. If no opposition is filed, or any opposition is decided in favour of the applicant, the mark will proceed to registration.
A trade mark may be represented as a print, which may be a computer or photographic print. Where a colour or a combination of colours is claimed, it is necessary to specify the colour or colours. However, it is not necessary to use internationally recognised colour codes.
Goods and services are described in accordance with the Nice Classification of goods and services. Broad class headings may be used, but the Indian Trade Marks Registry often does not permit the addition of goods or services in the specification during prosecution. It is advisable therefore to qualify the generic class headings with specific goods and services of interest.
Statutory rights in a registered trade mark in India extend only within the territory of India. However, on the basis of an Indian registration, it is possible to obtain expedited registration in Nepal.
Any person (a natural or juristic person, such as a company, society or trust) claiming to be the proprietor of a trade mark may own and use a trade mark and seek registration of a trade mark. In case of a partnership firm or an unregistered charity, only the partners of the firm or members of the charity can own and register a trade mark.
Yes, distinctiveness can be acquired by way of use. Use will help in establishing that a mark which is not distinctive per se has acquired a secondary meaning through use.
On average, registration takes three to four years.
The cost of registration depends on several factors, including the law firm handling the matter. The total cost for registration for a straightforward application in one class should not ordinarily exceed about USD 1,200.
A trade mark may be registered in India by filing an application at the offices of the Trade Marks Registry in India. In addition, with effect from July 8, 2013, India became a contracting party to the Madrid Protocol for the International Registration of Marks at WIPO. An international application under this protocol may therefore now designate India as one of the countries in which protection is sought. However, the Madrid system of international registration cannot be used by a person or legal entity which does not have the necessary connection, through establishment, domicile or nationality, with a member of the Madrid Union. Further, a mark may be the subject of an international application only if it has already been registered (or, where the international application is governed exclusively by the Protocol, if registration has been applied for) in the Trademark Office of the Contracting Party with which the applicant has the necessary connection, to be able to file an international application.
No notarisation or legalisation is required.
Indian law provides a prescribed form for claiming priority. An application with a claim to priority must be filed in India within six months from the date of filing of the basic priority application. Such an application should include a statement indicating the complete filing details of the basic priority application. A certified copy of the priority document should be filed along with the application within two months from the date of filing the Indian application. If the priority document is not in English, it should be accompanied by a verified English translation.
Yes, Collective and Certification marks are recognised in India.
4. the trade mark is identical to any national symbol, flag, etc.
In the absolute grounds of refusal mentioned in question 3.1, points (1) to (3) may be overcome by establishing with clear evidence that the trade mark in question has acquired a secondary meaning. The evidence is usually in the form of an affidavit accompanied by supporting documents that clearly establish that the mark has been used continuously and uninterruptedly in India.
An appeal after any adverse decision of the Registrar may be filed before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board.
3. from the High Court to the Division Bench of the High Court and from the Division Bench to the Supreme Court if there are questions involving substantive issues of law.
A trade mark may be refused registration on the grounds that it is deceptively similar to a trade mark covered by a prior Indian application or registration in the same class, or that it is similar to a well-known trade mark.
Yes, by establishing that the rival marks, read as a whole, are different and distinct from each other; or by establishing prior use of the mark in question; or by establishing that the mark in question is not likely to cause confusion or deception in the course of trade or amongst the members of the trade and public, and that there is no likelihood of confusion vis-à-vis the conflicting mark. In case the rival marks and the goods to which they are applied are similar or identical, honest concurrent use may be a good defence.
A decision of refusal of registration from the Intellectual Property Office (Trade Marks Registry) should be appealed to the Intellectual Property Appellate Board. The decision may be appealed in its entirety, or in part.
Please see question 3.4 above.
A trade mark application can be opposed on relative as well as absolute grounds, as stated above.
Any person who is likely to be affected by the grant of registration of the impugned trade mark may oppose the registration of the trade mark.
1. The opponents are required to file a Notice of Opposition, detailing the grounds on which the impugned mark is being opposed, within a period of four months from the date on which the mark in question is advertised in the Trade Marks Journal.
2. The Notice of Opposition is then served on the applicants by the Registrar.
3. Within a deadline of two months from the date of receiving the Notice of Opposition, the applicants are required to file a Counter Statement. The two-month deadline is not extendable. Failure to file a Counter Statement will result in abandonment of the application.
4. The Counter Statement is then served on the opponents by the Registrar.
5. Within a deadline of two months from the date of receiving the Counter Statement, the opponents are required to file their evidence in support of the opposition at the Registry and also forward a copy thereof to the applicants. In case the opponents do not file their evidence within time, or do not inform the applicant and the Registrar that they do not wish to file their evidence, the opposition is deemed to have been abandoned.
6. Within a deadline of two months from the date of receiving the evidence in support of the opposition, the applicants are required to file their evidence in support of the application and also forward a copy thereof to the opponents.
7. Within a deadline of one month from the date of receiving the evidence in support of the application, the opponents are required to file the evidence in reply and also forward a copy thereof to the applicants. In case the opponents do not file their evidence within time, or do not inform the applicant and the Registrar that they do not wish to file their evidence, the opposition is deemed to have been abandoned.
8. Thereafter, the Registrar will appoint a hearing on merits and pass appropriate orders.
9. All the timelines mentioned above are strict and cannot be extended.
Statutory rights are conferred on the proprietor of the trade mark. The certificate is automatically sent to the proprietor at the address for service indicated on the application form.
As soon as the mark is registered, the date of filing is considered the “date of registration”. The right to sue for infringement only commences on the date of registration. However, if a mark is already in use in commerce in India, the proprietor will have a common law remedy of “passing off”.
A trade mark is valid for a period of 10 years. Registration may be renewed before the expiry of 10 years. The period of 10 years is calculated from the date of filing or the date of priority, as the case may be.
A trade mark is renewed by filing an application for the renewal of the trade mark accompanied by a fee of INR 5,000 (approximately USD 85).
Yes, an individual can register a trade mark or any assignment in respect thereof. The assignment is recorded by filing an application on a prescribed form along with the prescribed fee. The application has to be accompanied by an original deed of assignment or a certified or notarised copy thereof.
An assignment may be with or without goodwill. Partial assignments or assignments covering specific territories of the country are also possible.
Yes, an individual may record a licence. This is achieved by filing a prescribed form with the prescribed fee along with the licence deed. Licensees may record themselves as registered users, although such recordals are no longer mandatory.
Yes. A licence may be sole, exclusive or non-exclusive.
Yes. Subject to any agreement subsisting between the parties, licensees may institute proceedings for infringement on their own name as though they are the registered proprietors.
Yes. Quality control is necessary in cases where a registered trade mark is licensed without registration of the licensee as a registered user.
Yes. A trade mark is included in the definition of a property under the Securitisation Act.
Yes. A “security interest” can include the right, title and interest of any kind whatsoever upon property (which includes a trade mark) created in favour of any secured creditor, and includes any mortgage, charge, hypothecation or assignment.
3. where the mark is wrongly remaining on the Register of Trade Marks, i.e., it is in contravention to any provision of the Trade Marks Act.
1. Proceedings for rectification may be initiated by filing a petition on the appropriate form, accompanied by the prescribed fee, before the Registrar or the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB).
2. A copy of the Rectification Petition is then served upon the Registered Proprietors by the Registrar or IPAB, as the case may be.
3. Within a deadline of three months from the date of receiving the Rectification Petition, the Registered Proprietors are required to file their Counter Statement.
4. The Counter Statement is then served upon the Petitioners by the Registrar or IPAB, as the case may be.
5. Within a deadline of three months from the date of receiving the Counter Statement, the Petitioners are required to file evidence in support of the Rectification Petition and also forward a copy thereof to the Registered Proprietor.
6. Within a deadline of three months from the date of receiving the evidence in support of the Rectification Petition, the Registered Proprietors are required to file their evidence in support of the registered trade mark and also forward a copy thereof to the Petitioner.
7. Within a deadline of two months from the date of receiving the evidence in support of the registered trade mark, the Petitioners are required to file their evidence in reply and also forward a copy thereof to the Registered Proprietors.
8. Thereafter, a hearing will be appointed and the matter will be heard on merits.
Any person claiming to be an aggrieved person as a result of registration of the trade mark in question may initiate revocation proceedings.
A revocation action may be traversed by establishing continuous and uninterrupted use of the mark, and prior rights in the registered trade mark, as opposed to the mark based on which the Rectification Petition is filed. Honest concurrent use may also be a defence.
3. from the Division Bench of the High Court to the Supreme Court where substantive issues of law are involved.
The same as in revocation (or rectification) proceedings; see section 8 above.
A suit for infringement can be filed in a District Court or a High Court having the jurisdiction to try the infringement suit. Jurisdiction is determined by the place where the cause of action arises, or the place where the Defendant resides or has an office or, in case of an overseas Plaintiff, the place if any, where the Plaintiff has an office in India.
The pre-trial procedural stages in a Civil Court will normally comprise filing a plaint at the appropriate court along with an application for interim relief, often ex parte relief. In such a case, a notice is not served upon the Defendants. In case the court is pleased to grant ex parte relief, which is usually an interim order for injunction, copies of the plaint along with the order of court are served upon the Defendants with a short leave – normally not more than a few weeks – to file their defence and show cause why the interim order of injunction passed ex parte should not continue. The Defendants will file their reply along with an application for vacation of the interim order. The Plaintiffs will have an opportunity to file their rejoinder, after which the matter will be heard in order to determine whether the interim order passed should continue or be vacated.
(vii) argument of the case on merits before the court.
Normally, it takes anywhere from three to seven years for a matter to be completed on merits. As of now, intellectual property cases are won or lost during the interim stage, although efforts are being made by the courts to ‘fast track’ Intellectual Property cases.
(ii) Final/permanent injunctions are granted after hearing both the parties on the merits of the suit. Injunctions may be granted not only where actual infringement or passing off is proved, but also where a threat has been established.
Yes. By an order of the court, a party may be called upon to produce relevant documents under the cover of affidavits.
Yes. Submissions and evidence are presented in writing and are also argued or presented orally. Documentary evidence will have greater evidentiary value. Cross-examination of witnesses will take place during the trial. Examination and cross-examination may be recorded in the form of questions and and answers or through videography.
Yes. However, whether infringement proceedings are to be stayed pending resolution of validity of the trade mark would be a matter of discretion of the court and the facts and circumstances of a case. The factors which would affect such discretion would be the forum before which invalidation proceedings are pending, whether the suit for invalidation was filed prior to or subsequent to the suit for infringement, and whether or not there is an injunction operative against the Defendant. Where the validity of a trade mark has already been called into question prior to the institution of the suit for infringement, the court may be disinclined to grant ex parte relief or may order that both suits be heard together. The court may also order an interim injunction with a cross-undertaking by the Plaintiffs for damages in the event that the trade mark is found to be invalid, although this is rare. Alternatively, the court may order the Defendants to file periodical statements of accounts before the court.
The period of limitation for instituting a suit for infringement is three years from the last committed act of infringement. Where the act of infringement is a continuing one, the limitation will not apply.
Under the Trade Marks Act, where the proprietor of an earlier trade mark has acquiesced for a continuous period of five years to the use of a registered trade mark, being aware of the use, he shall not be entitled to oppose use of the latter trade mark.
Yes, there are criminal liabilities.
A proprietor of a trade mark who has been aggrieved by an act of falsifying or falsely applying his/her trade mark, disposing of any instrument for the purpose of falsifying a trade mark, or applying a false description to goods and services, can pursue a criminal prosecution.
The law provides for action against groundless threats of infringement. A declaratory action may be instituted by a person interested in following up groundless threats of infringement. A person affected by such threats may also seek damages.
A suit for infringement may be defended on the grounds that the Defendants adopted and used their trade mark prior to the date of use or registration of the Plaintiff’s trade mark. The Defendants may show that their trade mark is not the same or similar to the Plaintiff’s trade mark and that no confusion is likely to occur in the minds of the customers in the course of trade.
The Defendant may also plead that the Plaintiff has no title to sue, the registration of the Plaintiff’s mark is not valid, and that the Defendant has a statutory right to use the mark by virtue of concurrent or prior registration and/or use.
6. an order restraining the Defendants from disposing of their assets.
Yes. Damages suffered by the Plaintiffs as a result of the infringement are recoverable. Although reasonable attorneys’ fees may be recovered, actual recovery of costs depends upon several factors and the Indian courts are not normally liberal in this respect. Defendants may also claim compensation due to loss suffered by them on account of an injunction, if it transpires subsequently that the Plaintiff’s right was invalid.
There is a right of appeal from a first instance judgment. For instance, where the suit is instituted before a District Court, a party aggrieved by the Order of the District Court may file an appeal before the High Court. Similarly, an Order of the High Court may be appealed to the Division Bench of the High Court. A further appeal may lie before the Supreme Court on special leave where substantial issues of law are involved.
(c) if the appellate court requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce the judgment.
The Indian Customs Act, 1962 prohibits the import of goods that infringe intellectual property. The Indian government has also notified “Intellectual Property Rights (Imported Goods) Enforcement Rules, 2007” to strengthen the statutory and executive guidelines for the protection of intellectual property rights. Under the rules, an intellectual property rights holder may give notice to the Customs Commissioner requesting the suspension of clearance of goods suspected to be infringing the product. Such notice is registered or rejected within 30 working days of the date of receipt of the notice. In case the notice is registered, the minimum validity period shall be one year unless the rights holder requests a shorter period of customs assistance or action. The Customs department may, ex officio, suspend the clearance of the alleged counterfeit goods or give a notice if the department has prima facie evidence or reasonable grounds to believe the goods are counterfeit. The rights holder may also be required to issue a bank guarantee and furnish a bond. The Customs department is under a duty to inform the rights holder immediately about the suspension of clearance of goods, with the reasons for such suspension. Goods suspended of clearance are to be released on notice within 10 days (extendable for a further 10 days), when the rights holder fails to join proceedings, or on the department’s own initiative within five days, when the rights holder fails to give notice or fails to fulfil the obligation to execute a bond. The period of suspension of release of perishable goods is three days.
The Customs department is authorised to seize and confiscate goods where it has reason to believe that the goods are infringing intellectual property rights and are thus liable to be confiscated under the Customs Act. In case the Customs department determines that the goods detained or seized have infringed intellectual property rights and have been rightly confiscated under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act 1962, the department shall destroy such goods under official supervision or dispose of them through the normal channels of commerce after obtaining no objection from the rights holder.
A common law remedy of passing off is available by way of a suit, if it can be established that the Plaintiff’s mark has acquired a reputation and goodwill by virtue of actual use in India or cross-border reputation.
A company/trade name is protected and is enforceable against passing off by third parties who use the name in relation to same/similar goods or services.
Apart from statutory rights remedies under the common law, additional IP protection may be obtained only through copyright, broadcasting rights, other neighbouring rights, traditional knowledge, etc.
Any person (including an Indian national, a foreign national, an Indian company or a foreign company) may own a domain name.
Domain names ending with “.in” are registered at the National Internet Exchange of India (also known as the .IN Registry). The “.in” domain names are available to anyone on a “first come, first served” basis.
Other domain names are registered with the ICANN (Internet Corporation of Assigned Names and Numbers).
A domain name serves the same function as a trade mark and is entitled to protection equal to that which a trade mark would receive.
A National IPR Policy was approved by our Union Cabinet in May, 2016. The Policy lays out seven objectives with respect to the intellectual property rights regime in India, including the aim of the government to strengthen enforcement and implementation of India’s IP law, a drive to generate more intellectual property, and also more awareness on the protection of intellectual property and to stimulate commercialisation of intellectual property.
In February 2016, the Controller General introduced a scheme aimed at providing cost-effective IP advice and assistance and encouraging innovation for start-up entities. Via this Scheme for facilitating Start-Up Intellectual Property Protection (SIPP), the Office of the Controller General invited applications from attorneys and agents willing to provide relevant legal advice to start-up companies at reasonable, fixed fees.
The government also proposed introducing new rules for trade mark registration which, when they come into force, will replace the existing Trade Marks Rules, 2002. The draft rules, which have already been published for comments from stakeholders and the general public, will herald several procedural and administrative changes in Indian trade marks law. These include a 100% hike in official filing fees, the provision of expedited processing of trade mark applications on payment of an additional fee (as opposed to merely ‘expedited examination’ provided by the existing Rules), lowering of fees for electronic filing, and the introduction of modalities for the service of documents from applicants to the Registry, and vice versa, through electronic means. The complete draft rules are available on the official websites of both the Controller of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks, and the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion.
A number of administrative reforms have taken place recently at the Trade Marks Registry.
■ The Registry now issues registration certificates electronically. Certificates of registration are automatically emailed to agents on record on the day the said Certificates are generated.
■ All official communication, including examination reports and intimations of third party oppositions, is also now sent to the agents on record via email as well as post.
■ In collaboration with the Delhi State Legal Services Authority, the Controller General has initiated mediation processes in opposition and rectification proceedings still pending before the Registry, where final hearings have not been concluded. This is with a view to decreasing backlog.
■ In February 2016, the official website of the Trade Marks Registry launched a ‘dynamic utility tool’, which enables all stakeholders to view on a real-time basis updates on trade mark applications with respect to, inter alia, examination, publication, and issuance of notices.
■ New trade mark applications are taken up for examination within a few months for filing.
■ Where proceedings for rectification of the register are instituted after the filing of a suit for infringement, the rectification proceedings may only be presided over by the Appellate Board under Section 125 of the Trade Marks Act (the Act). However, since in the present case, the rectification proceedings were filed by a licensor of the party impleaded in the suit and not said party itself, Section 125 did not apply.
■ Section 125 applies only to applications for rectification of the register, and not to the exercise of suo moto powers by the Registrar under Section 57(4). Assistant Registrars in any part of the country act under the superintendence and directions of the Registrar, and therefore no question of lack of jurisdiction can arise with regard to notices issued by any Assistant Registrar anywhere in the country.
2. In a rare full bench judgment in February 2016, the Delhi High Court concluded in Data Infosys v. Infosys Technologies, during the course of an infringement suit, that the Plaintiff did not require the permission of the court to institute rectification proceedings against a registered mark of the Defendant before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). In the opinion of the court, such rectification and suit proceedings may advance simultaneously.
3. In January 2016, the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Ultra Home Construction Private Limited v. Purushottam Kumar & Ors. interpreted the judgment of the Supreme Court in IPRS v. Sanjay Dahlia on the question of territorial jurisdiction in trade mark and copyright infringement suits. In its judgment dated January 20, 2016, the court construed relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and the Copyright Act, 1957 to conclude that if the cause of action in an infringement suit for a trade mark or copyright arises in a place where the Plaintiff also has a subordinate office, then jurisdiction arises in this place. In the present case, the Plaintiff had a principal office in Delhi and brought the suit in the High Court of New Delhi. However, because it has a subordinate office in the same location as that where the cause of action arose, the High Court of New Delhi ruled that it had no jurisdiction to preside over the suit.
Other cases of note include Manugraph India Limited v. Simarq Technologies, Cartier International AG & Ors. v. Gaurav Bhatia, Apple Inc. v. Rohit Singh & Anr., ITC Limited v. Britannia Industries Limited and Lal Babu Priyadarshi v. Amritpal Singh.
The entire procedure for filing, examination and disposal of trade mark applications and opposition proceedings has been streamlined. The Trademark Registry is making a genuine attempt to clear its backlog of cases and prevent future accumulation of backlog. The Registry is almost paperless and very soon the rights holders and public will be able to access real status of any trade mark application.
The courts have been particularly stringent with regard to jurisdictional issues, as is evident from IPRS, Ultra Home and Manugraph India Ltd. The Cartier judgment also displays the increasing willingness of our courts to grant heavy damages in suits for infringement.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.