IPR
Topic 36 Infringement Sec29 4 9
Topic 36 — Trademark Infringement: Section 29(4) to (9)
Beyond the core confusion-based infringement covered by Section 29(1)–(3), the Trade Marks Act 1999 contains five further infringement provisions. Section 29(4) extends protection against dilution of marks with reputation — even where the goods are dissimilar. Section 29(5) addresses use of a registered mark as part of a trade or corporate name. Section 29(6) defines what counts as "use". Section 29(7) covers use of marks on packaging or labelling material. Section 29(8) governs comparative advertising. Section 29(9) extends infringement to spoken (oral) use. This topic walks through each provision in detail, the leading cases, and the modern issues — particularly online infringement, keyword-based search advertising, and dilution of well-known marks in dissimilar classes.
1. Section 29(4) — Dilution of Marks with Reputation
Section 29(4) — Dilution "A registered trade mark is infringed by a person who, not being a registered proprietor or a person using by way of permitted use, uses in the course of trade, a mark which — (a) is identical with or similar to the registered trade mark; and (b) is used in relation to goods or services which are not similar to those for which the trade mark is registered; and (c) the registered trade mark has a reputation in India and the use of the mark without due cause takes unfair advantage of or is detrimental to, the distinctive character or repute of the registered trade mark." |
A. The Four Cumulative Conditions
Indian courts (following ITC Limited v. Philip Morris Products SA, 2010 (42) PTC 572 (Del)) require all four conditions cumulatively:
1 IDENTICAL/SIMILAR mark comparison | 2 DISSIMILAR GOODS unrelated classes |
3 REPUTATION in India | 4 UNFAIR ADVANTAGE or detriment |
B. "Reputation in India" — Different from Well-Known Status
Section 29(4)(c) requires only that the registered mark have a "reputation in India". This is a lower threshold than the formal well-known mark status under Section 11(6)–(10). The trademark owner need only demonstrate recognition in the Indian market — not the full set of factors required to be added to the well-known marks register.
📖 Crompton Greaves Consumer Electricals Ltd. v. V Guard Industries Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine Del 1838 Facts — V-Guard adopted "PEBBLE" in 2013 for electric water heaters (Class 11). In 2022, Crompton Greaves began using "PEBBLE" for electric appliances. V-Guard sued; trial court granted injunction. Crompton Greaves appealed. Holding — Delhi High Court (Division Bench, March 2024) dismissed the appeal. Held that Section 29(4) requires only reputation in India, not formal well-known mark status. V-Guard's sales figures established reputation; Crompton's adoption was without due cause and intended to take unfair advantage. Significance — A leading recent authority on Section 29(4). Confirms that "reputation in India" is a flexible standard distinct from formal well-known status. Reinforces that even non-iconic marks with substantial market presence can claim Section 29(4) protection. |
C. "Without Due Cause"
The defendant's use must be "without due cause". Examples of "due cause" that defeat dilution claims:
- Genuine descriptive use — the defendant uses the term in its dictionary meaning, not as a brand identifier (e.g., "PEBBLE" used to describe a small stone).
- Honest concurrent use established before the plaintiff's mark acquired reputation.
- Comparative advertising within the limits of Section 30(1) and Section 29(8) (covered below).
- Genuine artistic or commentary use — parody, criticism, news reporting.
D. "Unfair Advantage" or "Detriment"
The defendant's use must result in EITHER:
- Unfair advantage — the defendant rides on the coat-tails of the famous mark's reputation, benefiting commercially without contributing to the reputation. The classic "free-rider" scenario.
- Detriment to distinctive character (blurring) — the famous mark's ability to identify a single source is eroded.
- Detriment to reputation (tarnishment) — the famous mark is associated with low-quality, offensive, or undesirable goods, harming its prestige.
✅ ITC v. Philip Morris (2010) — the four-factor test In ITC Ltd. v. Philip Morris Products SA, 2010 (42) PTC 572 (Del), Justice Ravindra Bhat formulated the now-canonical four-factor test under Section 29(4): (1) the impugned mark is identical or similar to the senior mark; (2) the senior mark possesses a reputation in India; (3) the use of the impugned mark is without due cause; (4) the use takes unfair advantage of or is detrimental to the distinctive character or reputation of the registered trade mark. All four conditions must be satisfied cumulatively. The test is the operative framework applied in every Section 29(4) case. |
E. Other Leading Section 29(4) Cases
📖 Daimler Benz Aktiengesellschaft v. Hybo Hindustan, AIR 1994 Del 239 Pre-Section 29(4) but conceptually foundational. The Delhi High Court restrained use of "BENZ" with stylised three-pointed star for undergarments, recognising the cross-class protection of famous marks. Doctrinal predecessor of Section 29(4). |
📖 Tata Sons Ltd. v. Manoj Dodia, 2011 (46) PTC 244 (Del) Already covered in Topic 31. Established TATA as a well-known mark and applied dilution principles under Section 29(4). The Delhi High Court issued permanent injunction across multiple unrelated classes. |
📖 Ford Motor Co. v. C.R. Borman, 2008 (38) PTC 76 (Del-DB) Facts — Ford Motor Company sued an Indian entity using "FORD" for footwear. Holding — Delhi High Court (Division Bench) held that Ford had reputation in India and the use of FORD on dissimilar goods (footwear) constituted dilution under Section 29(4). The Court clarified that "likelihood of confusion" is not the governing test for dilution — reputation plus unfair advantage/detriment is sufficient. Significance — Early Indian authority confirming that Section 29(4) operates on a different conceptual basis from Section 29(1)–(2). Confusion is not required. |
2. Section 29(5) — Use as a Trade or Corporate Name
Section 29(5) "A registered trade mark is infringed by a person if he uses such registered trade mark, as his trade name or part of his trade name, or name of his business concern or part of the name, of his business concern dealing in goods or services in respect of which the trade mark is registered." |
Section 29(5) is a specialised infringement provision. It captures use of a registered mark as part of the defendant's trade or corporate name — even if not used on goods or in advertising. The provision applies only where the defendant's business deals in the goods or services for which the trademark is registered.
📖 CIPLA Ltd. v. CIPLA Industries Pvt. Ltd., 2017 (69) PTC 425 (Bom-FB) Facts — CIPLA Ltd. (pharmaceuticals, Class 5) sued CIPLA Industries (household articles like soap dishes, photo frames, Class 21) for use of "CIPLA" in its corporate name. Holding — A Full Bench (3 judges) of the Bombay High Court resolved the conflict between earlier decisions. Held that Section 29(5) applies only where the defendant's business deals in the goods/services for which the plaintiff's mark is registered. Where the goods are dissimilar, Section 29(5) does not apply; the plaintiff must instead invoke Section 29(4) dilution. Significance — Settled the long-standing debate on the scope of Section 29(5). For dissimilar goods/services, Section 29(4) is the only route; Section 29(5) is reserved for same-class business name use. |
✅ Section 29(4) and Section 29(5) operate in different fields Section 29(5) — same-class business-name use is automatically infringement, no need to prove confusion or reputation. Section 29(4) — different-class use; requires reputation + unfair advantage / detriment. The CIPLA Full Bench decision (Bom 2017) confirmed this segregation: a plaintiff cannot invoke Section 29(5) for cross-class corporate-name use; she must establish Section 29(4) dilution conditions. |
3. Section 29(6) — What Counts as "Use"
Section 29(6) "For the purposes of this section, a person uses a registered mark, if, in particular, he — (a) affixes it to goods or the packaging thereof; (b) offers or exposes goods for sale, puts them on the market, or stocks them for those purposes under the registered trade mark, or offers or supplies services under the registered trade mark; (c) imports or exports goods under the mark; or (d) uses the registered trade mark on business papers or in advertising." |
Section 29(6) lists four categories of use. The list is illustrative, not exhaustive — "in particular" leaves room for other forms of use. Indian courts have held that the following also qualify as "use":
- Use on websites and online listings (Reuters Ltd. v. India Today, Tata Sons v. Greenpeace).
- Use as keywords for search advertising (debated; Indian position not yet definitively settled).
- Use as domain names (Yahoo! Inc. v. Akash Arora — Topic 37).
- Use on mobile applications and digital platforms.
- Use in metatags and source code for SEO (analyzed under "initial interest confusion" doctrine).
4. Section 29(7) — Use on Packaging or Material
Section 29(7) "A registered trade mark is infringed by a person who applies such registered trade mark to a material intended to be used for labelling or packaging goods, as a business paper, or for advertising goods or services, provided such person, when he applied the mark, knew or had reason to believe that the application of the mark was not duly authorised by the proprietor or a licensee." |
Section 29(7) targets the printer / supplier of packaging or labelling material bearing the registered mark. The provision is critical for combating counterfeiting at its source — the printer who supplies fake packaging to counterfeiters can be held liable. The provision requires knowledge or constructive knowledge ("reason to believe") that the application was unauthorised.
5. Section 29(8) — Comparative Advertising
Section 29(8) "A registered trade mark is infringed by any advertising of that trade mark if such advertising — (a) takes unfair advantage of and is contrary to honest practices in industrial or commercial matters; or (b) is detrimental to its distinctive character; or (c) is against the reputation of the trade mark." |
Section 29(8) governs comparative advertising. Indian law generally permits truthful comparative advertising — naming a competitor's product to highlight one's own advantages. But the comparison must be (i) honest, (ii) not detrimental to the distinctive character of the competitor's mark, and (iii) not against the reputation of the competitor's mark.
📖 Reckitt & Colman of India Ltd. v. M.P. Ramchandran, 1999 PTC 741 (Cal) Facts — Reckitt & Colman, makers of "ROBIN" blue, sued M.P. Ramchandran for an advertisement claiming superiority over "Robin" in cleaning ability. Holding — Calcutta High Court laid down five principles of comparative advertising: (1) a tradesman is entitled to declare his goods the best; (2) he can also say his goods are better than competitors'; (3) for that purpose, he can compare advantages of his own goods over competitors'; (4) but he cannot, while saying his goods are better than competitors', say that competitors' goods are bad; (5) if he says competitors' goods are bad, he commits defamation/disparagement. Significance — Foundational Indian framework for comparative advertising; the "Reckitt principles" remain the working test under Section 29(8) and Section 30(1). |
📖 Pepsi Co. Inc. v. Hindustan Coca Cola Ltd., 2003 (27) PTC 305 (Del-DB) Facts — Pepsi sued Coca-Cola India over an advertisement that mocked Pepsi's blue colour and "Pappi" tagline. Holding — Delhi High Court held the advertisement was disparaging — went beyond legitimate comparison into denigration. Injunction granted. Significance — Application of Reckitt principles in cross-brand mockery contexts; reaffirms that disparagement crosses the line from permissible comparison. |
6. Section 29(9) — Spoken Use
Section 29(9) "Where the distinctive elements of a registered trade mark consist of or include words, the trade mark may be infringed by the spoken use of those words as well as by their visual representation and reference in this section to the use of a mark shall be construed accordingly." |
Section 29(9) extends infringement to oral use of word marks. A radio advertisement, telephone solicitation, or street-vendor cry that uses a registered word mark falls within the provision. The extension is critical for media-rich infringement: jingles, voice-overs, podcasts, voice search ("Hey Alexa, order Coca-Cola") all involve oral use.
✅ Why Section 29(9) matters for modern enforcement In the era of voice-activated devices, podcasts, audiobooks, and voice-search advertising, oral use of trademarks is rapidly increasing. Section 29(9) ensures that the statutory framework of trademark infringement extends to these modes. Courts have used the provision to enjoin radio jingles that mimic competitor brand names and call-centre scripts that use rivals' marks for cross-selling. |
7. Online and Internet Trademark Infringement
A. Domain Names
Domain names that incorporate registered trademarks raise infringement issues. Indian courts have held since Yahoo! Inc. v. Akash Arora (1999) — covered in Topic 37 — that the use of a registered mark as a domain name is "use" under Section 29 and falls within both infringement and passing off. The .IN Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (INDRP) is the parallel administrative remedy.
B. Keyword Advertising
When advertisers bid on a competitor's registered trademark as a Google AdWord (or equivalent), the use raises the question whether keyword purchasing constitutes "use" under Section 29. Indian courts have not yet definitively ruled. The European Court of Justice in Google France (C-236/08, 2010) held that keyword purchase is "use" but does not always cause confusion. Indian courts have grappled with the issue in Consim Info Pvt. Ltd. v. Google India Pvt. Ltd. (Mad HC) and Hamdard National Foundation v. Sultan India (Del HC), but a definitive Supreme Court ruling is awaited.
C. Intermediary Liability
Online platforms — marketplaces (Amazon, Flipkart), search engines (Google), social media (Facebook, Instagram) — host content posted by users. Intermediaries may host or facilitate trademark-infringing material without themselves being infringers. Section 79 of the Information Technology Act 2000 provides safe harbour subject to compliance with notice-and-takedown procedures. The Christian Louboutin case (2018) and Amway India v. 1MG (Del HC 2019) have fleshed out the operational framework.
📖 Christian Louboutin SAS v. Nakul Bajaj, 2018 (76) PTC 508 (Del) Facts — Louboutin sued an Indian e-commerce platform Darveys.com for selling counterfeit Louboutin shoes. Holding — Delhi High Court held that the platform was not a passive intermediary but actively curated, listed, marketed and shipped the goods. Section 79 safe harbour was unavailable. Liability was fixed. Significance — A landmark in Indian intermediary liability for trademark infringement. Sets out the test for distinguishing passive intermediaries (entitled to safe harbour) from active marketplaces (not entitled). |
8. Practical Application — Choosing the Right Sub-Section
✅ Sub-section selection — strategic guide for plaintiffs For identical-mark + identical-goods use → plead Section 29(1) AND 29(2)(c) AND invoke 29(3) presumption. For similar-mark + similar-goods use → plead Section 29(2)(b). For identical-mark + similar-goods use → plead Section 29(2)(a). For dilution of famous mark across unrelated classes → plead Section 29(4) with evidence of reputation, no due cause, unfair advantage / detriment. For corporate-name use in same business class → plead Section 29(5). For unauthorised printing of packaging → plead Section 29(7) with evidence of constructive knowledge. For comparative advertising that goes beyond honest comparison → plead Section 29(8) with Reckitt principles. For radio/audio/voice use → plead Section 29(9) for the oral component. For e-commerce platform liability → plead Section 29 + Section 79 IT Act analysis. |
🎯 EXAM POINTERS — TOPIC 36
|