Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(c) Defendant's mark must take unfair advantage or be detrimental to the distinctive character or repute of Plaintiff's mark; and (d) use of Defendant's mark should be in such a manner that it is 'without due cause'. Section 29(4) has been analysed in great depth by this Court in ITC Limited v. Philip Morris Products SA and Ors., 2010 SCC OnLine Del 27 and I may usefully allude to a few observations in this regard. The Court has held that Section 29(1) and (2) of the Act relate to infringement where there is resemblance or deceptive similarity between a registered mark and another, in relation to same or similar goods and in such a case, if requisite degree of resemblance is established, infringement is made out and where the marks and the goods are identical, infringement is presumed under Section 29(3). However, a slightly different standard has been set by the Legislature in a case of infringement, where the goods or products are dissimilar, and there is trademark dilution. The Court relied on the concept of dilution as follows:-

33. The old law in India, i.e the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, did not provision for trademark dilution, as in the case of Section 29(4). The principle of dilution therefore, was developed by our courts, having regard to internationally recognized standards about the need to protect generally well known trademarks, whose exploitation, without any good cause in relation to diverse and dissimilar products or services could injure and "dilute" its appeal. Thus, in Daimler Benzaktiegesellschaft v. Eagle Flask Industries Ltd., ILR (1995) 2 Del 817 this court held that:

18. In the instant case, "Mercedes" is a name given to a very high priced and extremely well engineered product. In my view, the defendant cannot dilute that by user of the name Mercedes with respect to a product like a thermos or a casserole." The observations have been assimilated in case law, by the courts in India, and applied, wherever trademark dilution was alleged (Ref Larsen & Toubro Limited v. Lachmi Narain Traders, ILR (2008) 2 Del 687, Sunder Parmanand Lalwani v. Caltex (India) Ltd., AIR 1969 Bom 24; Bata India Ltd. v. Pyare Lal & Co. Meerut City, AIR 1985 All 242; Kiriloskar Diesel Recon (P) Ltd. v. Kirloskar Proprietary Ltd., AIR 1996 Bom 149)."

49. As commented earlier, the analogy of tests evolved in infringement actions where similar goods or services are in question appears to be inapposite, after the enactment of Section 29(4). The plaintiff has to fulfill a more stringent test (than the deceptive similarity standard) of proving identity or similarity, where trademark dilution is complained. Applying the reasoning of the decisions cited previously, it is held that a "global" look, rather than a focus only on the common elements of the mark, is to be taken, while considering if the impugned or junior mark infringes, by dilution, an existing registered mark....."