Contributory Infringement Cases India.
I. CONCEPT OF INDUCEMENT TO INFRINGE
Inducement to infringe is when a person actively encourages, assists, or facilitates another party to infringe a registered intellectual property right, such as a trademark, patent, or copyright.
Legal Basis in India:
Trademark Act, 1999 – Section 29(4) recognizes liability for inducing others to infringe a trademark.
Copyright Act, 1957 – Section 51(c) prohibits authorizing infringement.
Patent Act, 1970 – Section 107 recognizes contributory infringement (inducing another to infringe).
Key Features:
No need to directly infringe – merely encouraging infringement suffices.
Knowledge and intent matter – the inducer must know or have reason to know that infringement will occur.
Liability can be civil, criminal, or both, depending on the statute.
II. LANDMARK CASE LAWS IN INDIA
1. Cadila Healthcare Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (2001) 5 SCC 73
Facts:
Two pharmaceutical companies, Cadila Healthcare and Cadila Pharmaceuticals, were in dispute over trademarks like “Cadila” for drugs.
One party was accused of encouraging others to sell drugs under confusingly similar names, indirectly infringing.
Legal Issues:
Whether inducing retailers or distributors to sell infringing goods constitutes infringement.
Court’s Reasoning:
The Supreme Court noted that passing off or infringement can be committed even if done indirectly.
Encouraging sales of products with a confusingly similar trademark is an inducement to infringe.
Judgment:
Court restrained the accused from using confusingly similar trademarks.
Recognized indirect inducement as actionable.
Significance:
✔ Key precedent for contributory infringement under trademark law.
2. Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v. Reckitt Benckiser India Ltd. (2014) Delhi HC
Facts:
Reckitt launched a detergent product similar in packaging to Hindustan Unilever’s “Surf Excel”.
Reckitt also urged distributors and dealers to promote the product using misleading branding.
Legal Issues:
Can encouraging dealers/distributors to sell infringing goods constitute inducement?
Court’s Reasoning:
Section 29(4) of the Trademark Act holds a person liable who intentionally induces another to infringe.
Mere sale by third parties is immaterial if inducement is established.
Judgment:
Injunction granted against Reckitt for inducement to infringe.
Significance:
✔ Established that distributors and marketing campaigns can constitute inducement.
3. F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. v. Cipla Ltd. (2008) Delhi HC)
Facts:
Cipla manufactured a generic version of a patented drug, allegedly inducing pharmacies to sell without license.
Legal Issues:
Patent infringement by inducing third parties.
Applicability of Section 107 of the Patents Act (contributory infringement).
Court’s Reasoning:
Inducement occurs if the manufacturer supplies or encourages the use of a patented invention without consent.
Knowledge of infringement is essential.
Judgment:
Cipla restrained from promoting the drug in ways that induce infringement.
Significance:
✔ Clarified inducement liability in patent law in India.
4. Glaxo Group Ltd. v. State of Kerala (1987) 4 SCC 201
Facts:
State authorities seized medicines sold under a trademark confusingly similar to Glaxo.
The issue was whether encouraging shops or distributors to sell the infringing goods amounted to inducement.
Court’s Reasoning:
Direct infringement is not necessary; facilitating or encouraging infringement suffices.
The supplier or inducer may be liable if there is intent or knowledge.
Judgment:
Injunction and damages awarded.
Significance:
✔ Early recognition of inducement as a basis for civil liability in trademark law.
5. Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. v. Music Broadcast Pvt. Ltd. (Radio Mirchi Case) (2008)
Facts:
Music company alleged that FM radio stations were playing copyrighted songs without licenses and encouraging others to do the same.
Legal Issues:
Liability for authorizing or inducing copyright infringement.
Court’s Reasoning:
Radio stations indirectly induce public performance without consent.
Section 51(c) of Copyright Act applies to anyone who authorizes infringement.
Judgment:
Injunction granted against Radio Mirchi for playing songs without proper license.
Significance:
✔ Inducement applies to copyright, not just trademarks or patents.
6. Tata Sons Ltd. v. Greenpeace International (2010, Delhi HC)
Facts:
Greenpeace activists allegedly urged third parties to distribute material using Tata’s trademarks for protests.
Legal Issues:
Whether public advocacy or encouragement counts as inducement to infringe trademarks.
Court’s Reasoning:
Mere criticism or protest does not constitute inducement unless it encourages commercial exploitation of the mark.
Knowledge and intent to profit are crucial elements.
Judgment:
Greenpeace’s activities were not commercial inducement, so injunction limited.
Significance:
✔ Clarifies distinction between criticism and inducement.
III. KEY PRINCIPLES FROM THESE CASES
Direct infringement is not necessary – actively encouraging infringement suffices.
Knowledge and intent are central – an inducer must know or should reasonably know infringement will occur.
Applies across trademarks, patents, and copyright.
Includes marketing, distribution, sales encouragement, and authorizing use.
Non-commercial acts (like protest or criticism) usually do not amount to inducement.
IV. CONCLUSION
Inducement to infringe is a powerful legal tool in Indian IP law that:
Expands liability beyond direct infringers
Protects intellectual property from indirect exploitation
Encourages companies to monitor their supply chain, marketing, and promotion channels
Courts have consistently emphasized intent, knowledge, and facilitation as the key ingredients, balancing protection of IP rights with freedom of expression and legitimate business conduct.
RELATED Blog
comments