Trademark And Patent Violations
Trademark and Patent Violations: Overview
1. Trademark Violations:
Trademarks protect brand names, logos, slogans, or symbols that distinguish goods and services. Violations occur when a party uses a mark identical or confusingly similar to a registered trademark without permission, leading to consumer confusion or brand dilution.
Legal Provisions (India):
The Trade Marks Act, 1999
Section 29: Prohibition of infringement of registered trademarks.
Section 30: Use of trademarks by a registered proprietor.
Section 103: Penalties for trademark infringement.
Types of Violations:
Passing off (unauthorized use of a mark to mislead consumers)
Counterfeiting (imitating trademarks to sell fake products)
Domain name disputes using trademarked names
2. Patent Violations:
Patents protect inventions and innovations. Patent violations occur when an invention is manufactured, used, sold, or imported without permission from the patent holder.
Legal Provisions (India):
The Patents Act, 1970
Section 48: Exclusive rights of patent holder.
Section 107: Remedies for infringement (injunctions, damages).
Section 104: Offenses for knowingly infringing patents.
Types of Violations:
Direct infringement (making or selling patented products)
Indirect infringement (contributing to or inducing infringement)
Unauthorized import or use
Case Law on Trademark Violations
1. Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (2001)
Facts: Both companies operated in the pharmaceutical sector. Cadila Health Care objected to the use of a similar-sounding name by Cadila Pharmaceuticals, claiming it caused confusion.
Legal Issue: Whether the similar mark infringed trademark rights.
Judgment: Supreme Court ruled on “likelihood of confusion” and adopted a principle of “phonetic similarity, visual similarity, and commercial impression”. The court restrained the use of the confusing mark.
Significance: Landmark case defining tests for trademark infringement in India.
2. Asian Paints Ltd. v. A.P. Agencies (2003)
Facts: A competitor sold paints under a similar brand name, packaging, and color schemes.
Legal Issue: Whether “passing off” occurred.
Judgment: Court held that trade dress and packaging are protectable, and injunction was granted against the infringing party.
Significance: Expanded trademark protection to product packaging and get-up.
3. Dabur India Ltd. v. Emami Ltd. (2006)
Facts: Emami launched a product with similar name and packaging to Dabur’s “Honey” product.
Legal Issue: Confusion between marks and unfair competition.
Judgment: Court granted injunction, emphasizing consumer perception and deceptive similarity.
Significance: Strengthened passing-off principles in India.
4. ITC Ltd. v. Nestle India Ltd. (2018)
Facts: ITC objected to Nestle’s use of a mark similar to ITC’s registered “Sunfeast” for biscuits.
Legal Issue: Trademark infringement and passing off.
Judgment: The Delhi High Court analyzed likelihood of confusion and found partial similarity; relief was granted to ITC.
Significance: Reiterated importance of distinctiveness and reputation of trademarks.
Case Law on Patent Violations
1. Novartis AG v. Union of India (2013)
Facts: Novartis applied for patent on the cancer drug Glivec. The application was rejected under Section 3(d) (prevention of evergreening).
Legal Issue: Whether Novartis could claim patent rights over a modified version of an existing drug.
Judgment: Supreme Court rejected the patent application, emphasizing incremental modifications do not qualify as inventive.
Significance: Landmark ruling on patentability standards in India.
2. Bayer Corporation v. Union of India (2014)
Facts: Bayer accused an Indian generic company of manufacturing its patented drug without authorization.
Legal Issue: Patent infringement and damages.
Judgment: Court granted injunction and damages in favor of Bayer under Patents Act Sections 48 & 107.
Significance: Affirmed enforcement of pharmaceutical patents in India.
3. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v. Intex Technologies (2017)
Facts: Ericsson claimed infringement of its telecom patents by Intex.
Legal Issue: Whether Intex’s mobile phones violated Ericsson’s patents.
Judgment: Delhi High Court held Intex liable and awarded royalties and damages.
Significance: Demonstrated enforcement of tech patents and licensing rights.
4. F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. v. Cipla Ltd. (2008)
Facts: Cipla manufactured generic version of Roche’s patented anti-cancer drug.
Legal Issue: Patent infringement vs. public interest (affordability of drugs).
Judgment: Court balanced patent rights and access to medicine, granting limited injunctions but allowing generic production for domestic use.
Significance: Highlighted public health exceptions in patent law.
5. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v. Novartis (2016)
Facts: Dispute over generic production of an anti-diabetic drug patented by Novartis.
Legal Issue: Infringement of patent rights.
Judgment: Court upheld the patent for Novartis, imposing injunctions on Sun Pharma.
Significance: Reinforced strict enforcement of valid patents in India.
Key Takeaways
Trademark violations involve unauthorized use of names, logos, packaging, or designs, with focus on consumer confusion.
Patent violations involve unauthorized manufacturing, use, sale, or import of patented inventions.
Courts in India apply likelihood of confusion, phonetic similarity, commercial impression for trademarks.
For patents, courts evaluate novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability.
Remedies include injunctions, damages, royalties, fines, and sometimes criminal prosecution for willful infringement.
RELATED Blog
comments