Trademark Infringement in India: Protect Your Brand the Right Way

Trademark infringement occurs when an unauthorized party uses a mark that is identical or confusingly similar to a registered trademark, in a manner likely to cause consumer confusion. Under the Indian Trademarks Act, 1999, registered trademark owners have the exclusive right to use their marks, and any unauthorized use can be legally challenged.

In practical terms, infringement includes copying a logo, brand name, or any distinctive mark on similar or related goods and services without permission. The law presumes that such unauthorized use leads to consumer confusion, damaging the trademark owner’s brand and goodwill. Even the use of a well-known trademark on different goods may amount to infringement if it unfairly exploits the original mark’s reputation.

This protection ensures that trademark owners can maintain their brand identity and prevent others from misleading consumers or benefiting from their established goodwill.

When Does Someone “Infringe” on Your Trademark?strong>

Trademark infringement happens when someone, without your permission, uses your registered mark in any of the following ways, as outlined under Section 29 of the Trademarks Act, 1999.

1. Identical Mark on Similar Goods: This occurs when someone uses the same trademark on goods or services that are very similar to yours, leading to confusion or misleading consumers.

Example: KRBL Ltd. vs. Praveen Kumar Buyyani & Ors. (2025)

KRBL Ltd., which has owned the INDIA GATE trademark for rice since 1993, sued the defendants for using the name BHARAT GATE on similar rice products. The Delhi High Court held that the mark BHARAT GATE was deceptively similar, both phonetically and visually, to INDIA GATE, and that such similarity could mislead consumers into believing the products were associated. The court emphasized that even if the marks are not identical, the likelihood of confusion is sufficient to establish infringement under Sections 29(1) and 29(2)(a) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

2. Similar Mark on Identical Goods: This happens when a mark is nearly identical to your registered trademark and is used on the same goods or services, confusing. The law presumes that confusion will occur due to the similarity between the goods and the mark.
Example: Coca-Cola vs. Coke

Coca-Cola sued a local manufacturer for selling a nearly identical product using a very similar logo and the name “Coke” in a non-carbonated drinks market. This was found to infringe on Coca-Cola’s registered trademark. This scenario is covered under Section 29(2)(b) and (c) of the Act.

3. Famous Mark Dilution: If a well-known trademark is used on unrelated goods, it could dilute the brand’s distinctiveness. Even if the goods differ, using a famous mark (or something similar) could harm its reputation or uniqueness.

Example: Louis Vuitton vs. Chewy Vuitton

Louis Vuitton took legal action against a pet store selling dog accessories under the name “Chewy Vuitton” for using the iconic LV logo. The court ruled that using Louis Vuitton's mark on pet products diluted its brand, even though the goods were different. This is covered under Section 29(4) of the Act.

4. Passing Off Acts (Unregistered Trademarks): "Passing off" occurs when a mark that closely resembles or is identical to an unregistered trademark is used without authorization. This applies when an infringer uses your trademark in their trade name, packaging, or advertising, knowing it will mislead customers about the source of the goods.

Example: Cadbury vs. Neeraj Food Products

Cadbury successfully sued Neeraj Food Products for selling chocolates under the name “James Bond” that mimicked Cadbury’s packaging and look. Even though Cadbury didn’t register the specific design elements, they were able to claim passing off because the look-alike branding caused customer confusion.

Trademark Infringement Law: Trade Marks Act, 1999strong>

The Trademarks Act of 1999 is the primary law that protects trademarks in India.

• Section 28 grants trademark owners the exclusive right to use their mark.
• Section 29 defines trademark infringement. It states that a registered trademark is infringed when anyone, other than the owner or an authorized user, uses a mark that is identical or confusingly similar to the registered mark in trade. This applies to goods or services covered by the trademark’s registration.

This broad rule covers most cases where a similar or identical mark is used in a way that causes confusion or involves direct copying of the original trademark.

Your trademark is your brand’s identity. Infringement can steal your customers and harm your reputation. If consumers purchase a look-alike product, they might blame you for poor quality, or the infringer might take away your sales. Legal action is available to protect your investment. Being proactive can help deter copycats, and the law offers remedies to stop infringers and compensate you for damages.

Trademark infringement is typically categorized into direct and indirect (secondary) infringement.

1. Direct Infringementstrong>

Direct infringement is the classic case: someone who is not you (the proprietor) or your licensee uses your trademark in trade without permission. The law does not always require exact copying; it can be enough if the mark is deceptively similar to yours and used on the same or similar goods/services.

Key elements of direct infringement include:

• An unauthorized user.
• An identical or similar mark.
• Overlapping goods/services that confuse.

For example: selling shoes with a logo nearly identical to a famous sports brand would be a direct infringement.

Infringement under Section 29 also covers subtler cases:

• Identical mark + similar goods (causes confusion)
• Similar mark + identical or similar goods (confusion likely)
• Identical mark + identical goods (confusion presumed)
• Use of a mark identical/similar to a well-known trademark, even on dissimilar goods (dilution)
• Using the registered trademark in a trade name or labeling without authorization
• Applying the mark on packaging or for advertising with the knowledge that it’s unauthorized

These are all forms of direct infringement under Section 29 as interpreted by courts.

Example of Direct Infringement: Daimler-Benz AG v. Hybo Hindustan (1993)

An Indian undergarment company used the name "Benz" and a logo similar to Daimler-Benz’s famous three-pointed star. The court ruled that the use of the name “Benz” on clothing was infringing, as it caused confusion and diluted the famous car brand’s trademark.

2. Indirect Infringementstrong>

Indirect infringement, also known as secondary liability, isn’t directly mentioned in Section 29 of the Trademarks Act, 1999, but Indian courts apply common law principles and corporate criminal liability (from the IPC and CrPC) to address it. In simple terms, it holds people or companies responsible if they help or benefit from another person's infringement of a trademark.

There are two main types of indirect infringement:

• Contributory Infringement: This happens when a party helps or provides the means for someone to infringe a trademark. For example, if a manufacturer sells blank labels or machines used to make counterfeit products, knowing the buyer plans to break the law, they can be held responsible.
• Vicarious Liability: This occurs when a party, such as an employer, is held responsible because of their relationship with the infringer. If an employee infringes a trademark while working for their employer, the company can be held accountable. Section 114 of the Act holds company officials responsible if the company violates trademark laws unless they acted in good faith.

In short, if someone plays a role in helping or benefiting from someone else’s infringement, they can face indirect liability. This ensures that those who assist or enable infringements cannot escape the law by using a third party or an employee to carry out the illegal act.

The Trademarks Act, 1999 outlines the legal framework to protect registered trademarks and defines when infringement occurs. Below are some important sections that deal with trademark infringement and its exceptions.

1. Section 29: What Constitutes Infringementstrong>

Section 29(1) of the Trademarks Act, 1999 defines trademark infringement. It states that a registered trademark is infringed when anyone, other than the trademark owner or an authorized user, uses a mark that is identical or confusingly similar to the registered trademark in connection with goods or services for which it is registered.

In simpler terms, if someone uses your registered trademark or a very similar version of it on the same or related goods, it is considered infringement. This applies whether the goods are identical or merely related in a way that could cause consumer confusion.

To clarify further, Section 29 provides specific examples of how a trademark may be infringed. These include using the mark on products, packaging, advertising, or business papers without the owner's consent. For example, if someone places your registered logo on their product or uses it in an advertisement to promote their goods, this would be considered an infringement of your trademark rights.

2. Section 30: When Infringement Doesn’t Applystrong>

Section 30 outlines important exceptions to trademark infringement. One key principle is the exhaustion of rights. Once a trademarked product is sold legally, the trademark owner's control over subsequent sales is no longer in effect. According to Section 30(3), selling genuine goods that were originally put on the market by the trademark owner (or with their consent), either in India or abroad, is not considered infringement.

In simpler terms, once you buy a genuine product, like branded sneakers, you can resell them without infringing on the trademark. However, Section 30(4) clarifies that this exception doesn’t apply if the goods are altered in any way. For example, if you change the product's quality or condition or repackage it, this could void the exception.

Additionally, Indian law recognizes international exhaustion of trademark rights, which means the principle applies even if the goods were sold outside India. However, this has been debated in Indian courts. In the case of Kapil Wadhwa v. Samsung Electronics, the Delhi High Court leaned toward international exhaustion, but the Supreme Court has not yet given a final decision on this matter.

3. Sections on Penalties and Enforcementstrong>

Trademark infringement can be enforced through civil and criminal law. Section 29 gives the civil cause of action (injunctions, damages, etc.). Other sections of the Act provide remedies and penalties:

• Section 134 allows trademark owners to file infringement suits in certain courts.
• Section 135 explicitly lists remedies: civil (injunctions, damages, accounts of profits) and criminal (fines, imprisonment). For example, it confirms that trademark owners can claim the infringer’s profits and seek injunctions.

For criminal enforcement, Sections 103 and 104 (read with Section 135) define offenses like applying for false trademarks or selling goods with false marks. These carry jail terms (6 months to 3 years) and substantial fines (₹50,000 to ₹2 lakhs, increasing for repeat offenses). A second conviction raises the minimum jail term to one year with higher fines.

Such offenses are cognizable (meaning police can arrest without a warrant) and non-bailable. Complaints under Sections 103/104 are filed in magistrate courts, which direct police to investigate.

Here’s how both trademark infringement and passing off differ:

1. Protecting Unregistered Brandsstrong>

Even without registration, you have recourse. Under passing off, an owner can stop unauthorized use of a mark or name that misrepresents one’s goods as another’s. Section 27 of the Act expressly preserves passing off rights. If your mark is unregistered, you must show that your mark has goodwill, the infringer’s use misrepresents origin, and you suffer damage. Passing off is more effort (proof needed), but it does protect unregistered brands.

2. Registered vs. Unregistered Marksstrong>

A registered mark is entitled to statutory protection: you can sue for infringement by simply showing deceptive similarity. An unregistered mark has no statutory shield; you must rely on passing off. For example, even if you have used a trademark for years, without registration, you still must bring a passing-off suit to enforce rights.

3. When to Use Which: Choosing the Right Legal Pathstrong>

• Registered mark: File a suit under Section 29 for infringement; you may also add a passing off count for additional relief (called a “combined action”).
• Unregistered mark: File a passing off suit in civil court.
• Often, new trademark owners register promptly to switch to the stronger infringement remedy.

Keep an eye out for misuse of your mark or confusing imitations:

1. Signs your mark might be infringed: Sudden drop in sales? Customers confused? Do new products or ads appear with your branding or very similar names? Are other businesses asking about your products? These could signal infringement.
2. Online infringement: Check e-commerce sites (Amazon, Flipkart, etc.) for listings using your trademark. Infringers often mimic brand names, images, or keywords to appear in searches. Also monitor social media (Instagram, Facebook, Google Ads) for pages or ads using your mark.
3. Recognizing fakes in the market: Genuine products typically have consistent logo placement, quality, and packaging. Fakes may have spelling errors, poor logos, or significantly lower prices. Keep samples to compare. If someone sells “look-alike” goods sporting your logo or design, note the differences.
4. Monitoring your brand: Set up Google alerts for your brand name. Hire a trademark watch service to scan new applications and web listings. Periodically check the trademark registry to catch similar filings. Registering your mark with Customs (under the Intellectual Property Rights (Imported Goods) Enforcement Rules) lets Customs intercept counterfeit imports. If you imported legitimate goods, record them too.

By actively looking out for unauthorized uses, you can stop infringement early. Additionally, you can protect your brand by recording your registered trademark with Indian Customs under the Intellectual Property Rights (Imported Goods) Enforcement Rules, 2007. This allows customs officials to seize counterfeit imports, preventing infringing goods from entering the market.

Under Indian law, counterfeiting is a criminal offense that differs from civil trademark infringement. If counterfeit goods bear your registered trademark, they could be prosecuted under the counterfeiting provisions of Section 103 of the Trademarks Act. If you find that your trademark is being infringed, it's crucial to respond swiftly and carefully.

Key steps include:

1. Gather Evidence: Collect samples of the infringing goods, packaging, labels, or ads. Take clear photos. Note where and when you saw the infringing use (store names, website URLs, date/time). Obtain invoices or witness statements if possible. The stronger your evidence, the better your case.

2. Send a Legal Notice (Cease & Desist): A formal cease-and-desist letter is usually the first move. It should state your trademark rights, describe the infringement, demand that they stop, and warn of legal action. Clearly articulate that unauthorized use of your registered mark is illegal. This gives the infringer a chance to comply. Having a lawyer draft and send the notice makes it more effective. Often, an infringer will cease and apologize once put on notice.

3. File a Lawsuit: Civil Remedies: If the infringer ignores the notice, file a civil suit for infringement. This can be done in a district court (per Section 134 of the Trademarks Act, 1999 jurisdiction rules). Your lawsuit can seek:

• • Injunctions: Preliminary (interim) and permanent orders stopping the infringing use. Courts often grant interim relief quickly on a strong prima facie case.
  • Damages: Compensation for losses you suffered due to the infringement. Damages are awarded to make up for lost sales or harm to goodwill.
  • Accounts of Profits: An alternative to damages where the defendant must hand over the profits made from the infringement to you.
  • Destruction of Goods: The Court may order the destruction or delivery of infringing items.
  • Costs: Legal costs and lawyers’ fees can be awarded against the infringer. The key civil remedies available in India include preliminary or permanent injunctions, damages, and an account of profits.

4. Criminal Charges: Criminal Remedies

If the trademark misuse involves counterfeiting or fraudulent use, you can take criminal action under Sections 103–105 of the Trademarks Act. These cases are treated seriously under Indian law.

Criminal Penalties Include:strong>

• Imprisonment:
  • 6 months to 3 years for first-time offenders
  • Minimum of 1 year for repeat offenders
• Fines:
  • ₹50,000 to ₹2 lakh for the first offense
  • ₹1,00,000 to ₹2 lakh for repeat offenses
• Seizure and Arrest:
  • Police can seize infringing goods and documents without a warrant
  • Police can arrest the offender based on a magistrate’s order
  • A criminal complaint must be filed with a magistrate, who will direct an investigation

Criminal remedies are especially effective against large-scale counterfeiters and organized infringement. They can also be pursued alongside civil proceedings.

5. Mediation and Settlements: Sometimes, a negotiated solution is quicker. You can offer a settlement: for example, the infringer might agree to change their mark substantially or pay a licensing fee. Mediation (through a neutral arbitrator) can be considered before suing. However, any deal should involve legal counsel to ensure your rights are fully protected.

Owning a trademark is just the start; you must actively guard it. Key preventive measures include:

1. Registration of Trademark: The single best preventive step is to register your mark in India. A registered trademark gives you exclusive rights to use it nationwide. Only registered marks get statutory protection against infringement. In practice, registration also deters infringers once they know your mark is officially recognized.
2. Regular Monitoring and Searches: Keep watch on new trademark filings (trademark office database) and online platforms. Use Google Alerts and trademark watch services to detect confusing marks or counterfeit listings. Monitoring helps catch problems early.
3. Proper Use of ™ and ® Symbols: Use the ™ symbol on unregistered marks and ® on registered marks consistently. This indicates your claim of ownership. Many infringers are less likely to copy a mark that visibly shows it’s protected. Proper marking also strengthens your case in court by showing “notice” to the public.
4. Domain and Online Protections: Secure domain names related to your trademark (such as .in, .com, or popular social media handles) even if not immediately needed. Use content takedown mechanisms on websites or marketplaces: e.g., file trademark infringement notices on e-commerce sites and DMCA/ICC profiles on social media to get fake listings removed.
5. Customs Recordal: Register your trademark with the India Customs under the IPR (Imported Goods) Rules. This allows Customs to seize or block the import of counterfeit or infringing goods using your mark. A notable case (Western Digital) showed that registering with Customs helped stop fake imports.

By combining official registration with vigilant brand monitoring and smart use of marketing and online tools, you can significantly reduce the risk of infringement.

These landmark cases illustrate how Indian courts handle trademark disputes, including both infringement and passing off actions.

1. Yahoo! Inc. v. Akash Arora (Delhi HC, 1999)strong>

Yahoo! had not registered its mark in India at the time. The defendant used the domain “yahooindia.com” to run a similar internet service. The court held that the defendant’s use of the deceptively similar domain name constituted passing off, noting Yahoo’s goodwill and the likelihood of confusion. (This case is often cited as a leading example of cybersquatting/passing off.)

2. Amazon v. Happy Belly Bakes (Delhi HC, 2017)strong>

A small bakery in Bengaluru called “Happy Belly Bakes” has been using that mark since 2008. Amazon (Global Stores) later launched its in-house brand, “Happy Belly,” for bakery products nationwide. The court ruled in favor of the bakery, holding that Amazon’s use of “Happy Belly” infringed the bakery’s trademark. The case underscores that even huge companies can be stopped from using a name already in use by a smaller business.

3. The Coca-Cola Company v. Bisleri (Delhi HC, 2009)strong>

In 1993, Coca-Cola acquired the "Maaza" brand from Bisleri. Later, Bisleri tried to reclaim the trademark, even filing it in other countries like Turkey. Coca-Cola sought an injunction to prevent this, and the Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Coca-Cola. The court granted a permanent injunction, stopping Bisleri from using the "Maaza" mark in India.

This case confirmed that trademark assignments must be respected across jurisdictions and prevented Bisleri from re-claiming the trademark it had transferred to Coca-Cola.

4. Daimler-Benz v. Hybo Hindustan (Delhi HC, 1993)strong>

An undergarment seller used the name “Benz” and a similar logo (a human figure in a ring) on clothing. The court granted an injunction, calling the car company’s three-pointed star “a well-known mark” and noting that consumers would naturally associate “Benz” with the famous cars. This case affirmed that well-known marks are protected even in unrelated fields, and infringers must keep a “safe distance”.

5. Cadbury India v. Neeraj Food Products (Delhi HC, 2007)strong>

Cadbury’s famous “Gems” chocolates had a character called “James Bond” in their ads. The defendant used “James Bond” as a chocolate brand with similar purple packaging. The court found this a clear attempt to ride on Cadbury’s goodwill. It granted an injunction and awarded ₹10 lakhs in damages to Cadbury. This case shows that mimicking a brand’s look and feel and references can be an infringement.

6. Starbucks Corp. v. Sardarbuksh Coffee (Delhi HC, 2018-2019)strong>

Starbucks registered “STARBUCKS” and its logo in India. A local cafe called “Sardarbuksh Coffee & Co.” used a logo with a bearded figure in a circle and had a green-and-black color scheme. The court found the new logo deceptively similar in ‘dominant features’ to Starbucks’ logo and granted an injunction. It held that an infringer must change their logo substantially – merely changing colors was not enough.

Each of these cases reinforces that Indian courts protect trademark rights strongly. They illustrate the principles above: confusing similarity, well-known status, and protection for smaller traders.