Infringement and Passing Off

Trademark infringement

Section 29 of the Trademark Act, 1999 provides remedy in cases of trademark infringement. The statutory provision also enlists the circumstances under which a mark is infringed:

1. Infringement of a mark occurs when a person not being registered proprietor uses a mark which is identical or deceptively similar to a registered mark in relation to goods or services in respect of which the trademark is registered.
2. When a person not being a registered proprietor uses a registered trademark which because of its identity with registered trademark and similarity with goods or services is likely to cause confusion in public.
3. When a person not being registered proprietor of a mark uses mark which is identical or similar to the registered trademark in relation to similar goods or services and the registered mark has a reputation in India.
4. A registered trademark is infringed by a person if he uses such registered trademark as part of his trade name of his business concern dealing in goods or services in respect of which the trade mark is registered.
5. A registered trademark is infringed by any advertising of that trademark if such advertising takes unfair advantage and is detrimental to its distinctive character.

Cases on Trademark Infringement

When mark adopted by Defendant is identical to Plaintiff’s registered trademark

If on comparison of the trademarks of the two parties in case the trademark adopted by the Defendant is identical to that of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff may not be required to prove anything further. Section 29 of the Trademark Act, 1999 statutorily mandates so as well. However, when the two marks are not identical, then the plaintiff would be required to establish that the mark used by the defendant so nearly resembles the plaintiff’s registered trademark as is likely to deceive or cause confusion in the minds of the consumer public.

Onus to prove infringement on Plaintiff

The Supreme Court in the case of Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt case held that in an action for infringement the onus would be on the Plaintiff to establish that the trade mark used by the defendant in the course of trade in the goods in respect of which his mark is registered, is deceptively similar.

How can the Plaintiff establish that the Defendant’s mark is identical or resembles the Plaintiff’s mark?

This issue was elaborately discussed by the Delhi High Court in the case of Atlas Cycle Industries Ltd. v. Hind Cycles Limited, wherein the Court stated that in a case of trademark infringement, the plaintiff may establish that its trademark is identical with or so nearly resembles the plaintiff’s work either visually or phonetically or otherwise, that it is likely to deceive or cause confusion in relation to the case in respect of which the plaintiff got his mark registered.

Thus, if the essential features of the trade mark of the plaintiff have been adopted by the defendant, the fact that there are some additional features in the defendant’s mark which show marked differences is immaterial in an action for infringement.

Trademar Passing-off

Section 27 of the Act  recognizes common law rights of the trademark owner to take action against any person for passing of goods as the goods of another person or as services provided by another person or remedies thereof. The remedy made available under Section 27 of the Act protects the rights of the proprietor of an unregistered trademark to register complaint against another person for passing off his goods as goods the goods of proprietor. An unregistered proprietor of trademark can also oppose an application for registration on grounds as enumerated under Section 11 of the Act.

In an action of passing off, the Plaintiff has to establish prior use to secure an injunction and that the registration of the mark or similar mark in point of time, is irrelevant.

Lord Oliver in the case of Reckitt & Colman Products Ltd. v. Borden Inc. enumerated three elements for a successful passing off action:

• Goodwill owned by a trader
• Misrepresentation
• Damage to goodwill

Thus, the passing action is essentially an action in deceit where the common law rule is that no person is entitled to carry on his or her business on pretext that the said business is of that of another.

Tests in the case of passing off– The Supreme Court in the case of Cadila Healthcare Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceutical Ltd., laid down the test of passing off and observed that a passing off action depends upon the principle that nobody has a right to represent his goods as the goods of some body. In other words a man is not to sell his goods or services under the pretence that they are those of another person. As per Lord Diplock in Erwen Warnink BV v. J.Townend & Sons[, the modern tort of passing off has five elements, namely

• A misrepresentation
• Made by a trader in the course of trade
• To prospective customers of his or ultimate consumers of goods or services supplied by him
• Which is calculated to injure the business or goodwill of another trade (in the sense that this is a reasonably foreseeable consequence), and
• Which causes actual damage to a business or goodwill of the trader by whom the action is brought or (in a quia timet action) will probably do so.

Further in the case of Corn Products Refining Co. v. Shangrila Food Products Ltd., it was observed that the principle of similarity could not to be very rigidly applied and that if it could be prima facie shown that there was a dishonest intention on the part of the defendant in passing off goods, an injunction should ordinarily follow and the mere delay in bringing the matter to Court was not a ground to defeat the case of the plaintiff.

Is fraud an essential element of passing-off?

According to Kerly Law of Trademarks– Passing off cases are often cases of deliberate and intentional misrepresentation, but it is well-settled that fraud is not a necessary element of the right of action, and the absence of an intention to deceive is not a defence though proof of fraudulent intention may materially assist a plaintiff in establishing probability of deception. The burden to prove passing off is on the Plaintiff or goods, besides the essential features which are sufficient to distinguish the same from that of the plaintiff. Thus, while in an action for infringement of a registered trade mark the plaintiff has to establish either an use of his registered trade mark as such or of an identical mark or of a deceptively similar mark by the defendant, he has to establish in an action for passing off that the defendant’s mark or goods are such that the defendant can pass off his goods as those of the plaintiff.

Difference between Trademark Infringement and Passing Off

The difference between a passing off action and an action for trademark infringement was expounded by the Delhi High Court in the case of Cadbury India Limited and Ors. v. Neeraj Food Products as under:

• An action for passing off is a common law remedy whereas an action for trademark infringement is a statutory remedy.
• Passing off action in essence is an action of deceit that is, a passing off by a person of his own goods as those of another whereas in case of infringement, the Plaintiff on account of being registered proprietor of the disputed trademark, claims to have an exclusive right to use the mark in relation to those goods.
• The use by the defendant of the trademark of the plaintiff may be prerequisite in the case of an action for infringement while it is not an essential feature of an action for passing off.
• If the essential features of the trademark of the plaintiff have been adopted by the defendant, the fact that the getup, packing and other writing or marks on the goods or on the packets in which the defendant offers his goods for sale show marked differences or indicate clearly a trade origin different from that of a registered proprietor of the mark, would be immaterial for the case of infringement of the trademark. The liability of the defendant for such infringement may be absolute. In the case of passing off, the defendant may escape liability if he can show that the added material is sufficient to distinguish his goods from those of the plaintiff.

The distinction between passing off and infringement was examined by Judge Clauson in the case of Listen Ltd. V. Harley, wherein he opined that if you are restraining the infringement of a registered mark, you can restrain the man from using the mark; but, restrain him from selling the articles under the label containing that word without clearly distinguishing his goods from the goods of the Plaintiff is quite a different thing.

The Supreme Court in a recent case of S. Syed Mohideen v. P. Sulochana Bai, stated that passing off right is a broader remedy than that of infringement. This is due to the reason that the passing off doctrine operates on the general principle that no person is entitled to represent his or her business as business of other person. The said action in deceit is maintainable for diverse reasons other than that of registered rights which are allocated rights under the Act.