Journal of Intellectual Property Rights

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access

Theoretical Underpinnings of Trademark Law: Decisions of the Supreme Court of India


Affiliations
1 Jindal Global Law School, O.P. Jindal Global University, Sonipat — 131 001, Haryana,, India
2 National Law Institute University, Bhopal — 462 044, Madhya Pradesh,, India
 

This Paper identifies and analyses the theoretical underpinnings of trademark law in the light of decisions of the Supreme Court of India (here in after, the Court). Outcome of analysis is four-fold. One, only the Utilitarian Theoryhas been invoked by the Court and that too not explicitly but only by implication to justify trademark law. Two, judicial ratiocination mainly hinges on two grounds that trademark law maximizes happiness by directing unwary customer to the source of goods or services, and minimizes the pain of unwary customer by protecting her from actual or likely deception or confusion as to the source of goods or services. Three, protection of exclusive right of trademark holder in the trademark is merely a means necessary to promote social good in general and interest of unwary customer in particular. Four, judicial invocation of publici juris is designed to pre-empt tragedy of commons. At the end, Paper develops an argument that the Court should have applied judicially manageable standards to rigorously scrutinize theoretical underpinnings of trademark law.

Keywords

Utilitarian Theory, Publici Juris, The Trade Marks Act, 1999, Theoretical Underpinnings, Supreme Court of India, Ratiocination, Intellectual Property, Common Law, Equity, Consimili Casu, Unwary Purchaser, Consumer Welfare, Trademark Monopoly, Trademark Trafficking, Public Policy, Commercial Morality, Trademark Infringement, Passing Off Action.
User
Notifications
Font Size

  • (1285) 13 Edw. 1.

  • Chaytor A H and Whittaker W J (eds), Maitland F W, The Forms of Actions at Common Law (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge), 1936. (Book was first published with Equity in 1909).

  • Raza A, Theoretical Underpinnings of Copyright and Design Laws: Decisions of the Supreme Court of India, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 26(4) (2021) 220–234.

  • Online repository of the Journal of Intellectual Property Rights (JIPR), http://nopr.niscair.res.in/handle/123456789/45 (accessed on 14 December 2021). A review of papers published in JIPR from Volume 1(1) [January 1996] to Volume 26(4) [July 2021] reveals that no paper focusing on the theoretical underpinnings of trademark law has been published.

  • Raza A, Theoretical Underpinnings of Patent Law: Decisions of the Supreme Court of India, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 27(4) (2022) 285–289.

  • As on 30 December 2021, Supreme Court has delivered 86 decisions on the trademark law out of which only 31 decisions invoke the theoretical underpinning. 14 decisions are on The Copyright Act, 1957 (Act 14 of 1957) of which 6 deals with the theoretical underpinnings; 12 decisions are on The Patents Act, 1970 (Act 39 of 1970) of which only 2 decisions invoke the theoretical underpinning; and 2 decisions are on The Designs Act, 2000 (Act 16 of 2000) of which only 1 decision deals with the theoretical underpinnings. There is no direct decision of the Supreme Court on the remaining 3 IP statutes, namely: The Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 (Act 48 of 1999); The Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001 (Act 53 of 2001); and The Semiconductor Integrated Circuits Layout- Design Act, 2000 (Act 37 of 2000).

  • Act 43 of 1958.

  • Act 47 of 1999.

  • The decisions on trademark law have been taken from the Judgment Information System of the Supreme Court (JUDIS), https://main.sci.gov.in/judgments (accessed 30 December 2021). For the purposes of citations: Supreme Court Reports (SCR), TruePrint copies from Supreme Court Cases (SCC), SCC OnLine, Patent and Trade Marks Cases (PTC), Supreme Court Almanac (SCALE) and All India Reporter (AIR) have been referred and relied upon.

  • [1953] 4 SCR 1028, Full Bench decision.

  • [1953] 4 SCR 1028, 1046–1047.

  • [1953] 4 SCR 1028, 1048.

  • [1953] 4 SCR 1028, 1047.

  • [1960] 1 SCR 968. Full Bench decision. Justice A K Sarkar delivered the judgment.

  • [1960] 1 SCR 968, 979.

  • [1963] 2 SCR 484. Full Bench. Justice S K Das delivered the judgment.

  • [1963] 2 SCR 484, 493.

  • [1963] 2 SCR 484, 494.

  • [1965] 1 SCR 737. Full Bench decision. Justice N RajagopalaAyyangar delivered the judgment.

  • [1965] 1 SCR 737, 755–756.

  • (1973) 1 SCC 56. Full Bench decision. Justice J M Shelat delivered the judgment.

  • (1893) 10 R. P. C. 200.

  • (1973) 1 SCC 56, 59.

  • (1973) 1 SCC 56, 59.

  • (1986) 1 SCC 465. Division Bench decision. Justice D P Madan delivered the judgment.

  • (1986) 1 SCC 465, 493.

  • (1984) 1 All ER 426, 433.

  • (1986) 1 SCC 465, 494.

  • (1928) Ch L 405, 409.

  • (1986) 1 SCC 465, 510.

  • 1990 Supp. SCC 727. Full Bench decision. Court was unanimous.

  • 1990 Supp. SCC 727, 734.

  • (1995) 5 SCC 545. Division Bench decision. Justice S C Agarwal delivered the judgment.

  • (1995) 5 SCC 545, 557. Court quoted from Narayanan P, Law of Trade Marks and Passing Off (4th edn, Eastern Law House, Kolkata), 2016, p. 335.

  • [1996] Supp. 8 SCR 695. Division Bench decision. Justice S B Majumdar delivered the judgment.

  • [1996] Supp. 8 SCR 695, 708.

  • [1996] Supp. 8 SCR 695, 708–709.

  • [1996] Supp. 2 SCR 820. Full Bench decision. Justice Ramaswamy delivered the judgment of the Court.

  • [1996] Supp. 2 SCR 820, 831.

  • [1996] Supp. 2 SCR 820, 832.

  • [1996] Supp. 5 SCR 369. Division Bench decision. Justice J S Verma delivered the judgment.

  • [1996] Supp. 5 SCR 369, 381.

  • [1996] Supp. 5 SCR 369, 386.

  • [1996] Supp. 3 SCR 329. Division Bench decision. Justice G N Ray delivered the judgment.

  • [1955] 2 SCR 252. Full bench decision. Justice Sudhi Ranjan Das penned down the judgment.

  • AIR 1959 SC 433. Full Bench decision. Justice T L VenkataramaAiyyar penned down the judgment.

  • [1960] 2 SCR 911. Full Bench decision. Justice K N Wanchoo penned down the judgment.

  • [1965] 2 SCR 192. Constitution Bench. Chief Justice P B Gajendragadkar (as then he was) delivered the judgment.

  • [1971] 1 SCR 70. Division Bench decision. Justice J M Shelat delivered the judgment.

  • [1972] 2 SCR 572. Division Bench decision. Justice P Jagmohan Reddy delivered the judgment.

  • [1985] Supp. 3 SCR 165. Full bench decision. Justice R S Pathak delivered the judgment.

  • [1998] 1 SCR 1027. Full Bench decision. The Court was unanimous.

  • [1998] Supp. 2 SCR 359. Division Bench decision. Justice S Saghir Ahmad delivered the judgment.

  • [2000] 1 SCR 1247. Division Bench. Justice M Jagannadha Rao delivered the unanimous judgment.

  • 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1212. Division Bench decision. Justice K M Joseph delivered the judgment of the Court.

  • [2000] Supp. 1 SCR 86. Division Bench decision.

  • [2000] Supp. 1 SCR 86, 98.

  • [2000] Supp. 1 SCR 86, 108.

  • Kerly D M, Law of Trade Marks and Trade Names (11th edn, Sweet and Maxwell, London), 1983, Para 14.21.

  • ‘The identification of an essential feature depends partly on the courts’ own judgment and partly on the burden of the evidence that is placed before it. Ascertainment of an essential feature is not to be by ocular test alone; it is impossible to exclude consideration of the sound of words forming part or the whole of the mark.’ [2000] Supp. 1 SCR 86, 108–109.

  • (1906) 23 RPC 774.

  • Halsbury’s Law of England, Volume 38 (3rd edn, LexisNexis Butterworths, United Kingdom), 1964, Para 987.

  • [2000] Supp. 1 SCR 86, 111.

  • [2000] Supp. 1 SCR 86, 112–113.

  • [2000] Supp. 1 SCR 86, 114.

  • (1962) RPC 265 (HL).

  • [2000] Supp. 1 SCR 86, 116.

  • [2000] Supp. 1 SCR 86, 117. Court cited Navaratna Phamaceutical Laboratories Ltd [1965] 1 SCR 737; Ruston & Hornsby Ltd v The Zamindara Engineering Co AIR 1970 SC 1649 and Wander Ltd vAntox India 1990 Supp. SCC 727.

  • (1905) 22 RPC 601(HL).

  • (1900) 17 RPC 48.

  • Schweppes Ltd v Gibbens (1905) 22 RPC 601(HL).

  • [2001] 2 SCR 743. Full Bench decision.

  • [2001] 2 SCR 743, 749.

  • ErwenWarnink BV v J Townend & Sons 1979(2) AER 927.

  • [2001] 2 SCR 743, 749.

  • [1953] 4 SCR 1028, 1046–1047. Referred in Cadila Health Care Ltd v Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd [2001] 2 SCR 743, 750.

  • [1960] 1 SCR 968, 978. Referred in Cadila Health Care Ltd v Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd [2001] 2 SCR 743, 751.

  • [1963] 2 SCR 484, 493. Referred in Cadila Health Care Ltd v Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd [2001] 2 SCR 743, 752.

  • (1906) 23 RPC 774. Referred in Cadila Health Care Ltd vCadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd [2001] 2 SCR 743, 752.

  • [1965] 1 SCR 737, 755–56. Referred in Cadila Health Care Ltd v Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd [2001] 2 SCR 743, 756.

  • (1906) 23 RPC 774, 777.

  • [2001] 2 SCR 743, 756–757.

  • [2001] 2 SCR 743, 758.

  • [2000] Supp. 1 SCR 86, 117. Referred in Cadila Health Care Ltd v Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd [2001] 2 SCR 743, 760–761.

  • [2001] 2 SCR 743, 761.

  • 231 USPQ 128 (2nd Cir. 1986).

  • 25 USPQ 2nd, 1473 (TTAB 1993).

  • 106 USPQ 379.

  • [2001] 2 SCR 743, 762–763.

  • [2001] 2 SCR 743, 763.

  • 169 USPQ 1 (2nd Cr. 1971).

  • [2001] 2 SCR 743, 765.

  • McCarthy J T, McCarthy on Trade Marksand Unfair Competition (3rd edn, Clark Boardman Callaghan, New York), Para 23.12.

  • [2001] 2 SCR 743, 766–767.

  • [2001] 2 SCR 743, 767.

  • [2001] 2 SCR 743, 767–768.

  • (2002) 3 SCC 65. Division Bench decision. Justice R C Lahoti delivered the judgment of the Court.

  • (2002) 3 SCC 65, 71.

  • (2002) 3 SCC 65, 72.

  • Buckley R A, Salmond and Heuston on the Law of Torts (20th edn, Sweet & Maxwell, London), 1992, 395.

  • (2002) 3 SCC 65, 72.

  • 2004 (28) PTC 585 (SC). Division Bench decision. Justice S N Variava delivered the judgment of the Court.

  • [1996] Supp. 5 SCR 369, 386. Cited in 2004 (28) PTC 585 (SC), 587.

  • Cadila Health Care Ltd v Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd [2001] 2 SCR 743, 768.

  • 2004 (28) PTC 585 (SC), 588.

  • 2004 (28) PTC 566 (SC). Division Bench decision. Justice Ruma Pal delivered the judgment of the Court.

  • 2004 (28) PTC 566 (SC), 569–570.

  • 2004 (28) PTC 566 (SC), 570. Court cited Rowland D and Macdonald E, Information Technology Law (2nd edn, Cavendish Publishing, London), 2000, p. 251.

  • 2004 (28) PTC 566 (SC), 570.

  • The Court considered the case of Cadbury Scehweppes v Pub Squash 1981 RPS 429 and Erven Warnink v Townend 1980 RPC 31.

  • 2004 (28) PTC 566 (SC), 570–571. Court cited Aristoc v Rysta1945 AC 68.

  • 2004 (28) PTC 566 (SC), 571.

  • AIR 2000 Bombay 27.

  • (1999) PTC 19 201.

  • (2001) PTC 859 (Del.).

  • (2001) PTC 432 (Del.).

  • (2001) PTC 619 (Del.).

  • (2002) 24 PTC 355 (Del.).

  • 2004 (28) PTC 566 (SC), 571.

  • 2004 (28) PTC 566 (SC), 574.

  • 2004 (28) PTC 566 (SC), 576–577. Court referred to the Collins English Dictionary (Collins, United Kingdom).

  • 2004 (28) PTC 566 (SC), 577.

  • 2005 (30) PTC 233 (SC). Division Bench decision. Justice P K Balasubramanyan delivered the judgment.

  • 2005 (30) PTC 233 (SC), 237.

  • 2005 (30) PTC 233 (SC), 239.

  • 2006 (32) PTC 1 (SC). Division Bench decision. Justice S B Sinha delivered the judgment of the Court.

  • 2006 (32) PTC 1 (SC), 9.

  • AIR 2006 SC 3304. Division Bench decision.

  • AIR 2006 SC 3304, 3314.

  • Morcom C, Roughton A and Graham J, The Modern Law of Trade Marks and Service Marks (Butterworths Law, England), 1999.

  • AIR 2006 SC 3304, 3314.

  • [1995] Supp. 2 SCR 514. Cited in AIR 2006 SC 3304, 3314.

  • (2002) 3 SCC 65. Cited in AIR 2006 SC 3304, 3314–3315.

  • AIR 2006 SC 3304, 3315.

  • [1973] 1 SCR 1050. Cited in AIR 2006 SC 3304, 3315.

  • (1999) RPC 117. Cited in AIR 2006 SC 3304, 3315.

  • 1998 PTC (18) 580. Cited in AIR 2006 SC 3304, 3315–3316.

  • 2004 (28) PTC 585 (SC). Cited in AIR 2006 SC 3304, 3316.

  • AIR 2006 SC 3304, 3317. Dhariwal Industries Ltd v M S S Food Products 2005 (30) PTC 233 (SC), 237.

  • AIR 2006 SC 3304, 3317–3318.

  • AIR 2006 SC 3304, 3318. Court cited ICICI Bank Ltd v Sidco Leathers Ltd 2006 (5) SCALE 27.

  • AIR 2006 SC 3304, 3318.

  • AIR 2006 SC 3304, 3321–3322.

  • AIR 2006 SC 3304, 3322.

  • AIR 2006 SC 3304, 3322.Ruston & Hornsby Ltd v Zamindara Engineering Co (1969) 2 SCC 727.

  • AIR 2006 SC 3304, 3322.

  • [1965] 1 SCR 737, 754–55. Cited in AIR 2006 SC 3304, 3322.

  • (1994) 2 SCC 448. Cited in AIR 2006 SC 3304, 3324.

  • (2004) 3 SCC 90

  • AIR 2006 SC 3304, 3324.

  • 2007 (34) PTC 161 (SC). Division Bench decision. Dr Arijit Pasayat delivered the judgment of the Court.

  • S M Dyechem Ltd v Cadbury (India) Ltd [2000] Supp. 1 SCR 86. Cited in2007 (34) PTC 161 (SC), 162.

  • [1965] 1 SCR 737.

  • 2007 (34) PTC 161 (SC), 163.

  • (2007) 6 SCC 1. Division Bench decision. Justice Harjit Singh Bedi delivered the judgment of the Court.

  • (2007) 6 SCC 1, 8.

  • (2007) 3 SCC 780. Division Bench decision. Justice S H Kapadia delivered the judgment of the Court.

  • 2005 (189) ELT 257 (SC)

  • (2007) 3 SCC 780, 786.

  • (2007) 3 SCC 780, 787.

  • (2007) 3 SCC 780, 787–788.

  • (2007) 3 SCC 780, 789.

  • AIR 1965 Bom 35.

  • AIR 1965 Bom 35. Para 27 and 30.

  • (2007) 3 SCC 780, 790.

  • AIR 1947 Bom 454.

  • (2007) 3 SCC 780, 791.

  • Act 47 of 1963.

  • (2007) 3 SCC 780, 791.

  • (2007) 3 SCC 780, 791–792.

  • (2007) 3 SCC 780, 793.

  • 2008 (11) SCALE 175. Division Bench decision. Justice S B Sinha delivered the judgment of the Court.

  • 2008 (11) SCALE 175, 179.

  • AIR 2009 SC 892. Division Bench decision. Justice S B Sinha delivered the judgment of the Court.

  • AIR 2009 SC 892, 900–901.

  • 2009 (1) SCALE 497. Division Bench decision. Justice S B Sinha delivered the judgment of the Court.

  • 2009 (1) SCALE 497, 506.

  • 2009 (1) SCALE 497, 509.

  • 2009 (1) SCALE 497, 510.

  • (2011) 4 SCC 85. Division Bench decision. Justice Dalveer Bhandari delivered the judgment of the Court.

  • McCarthy J T, McCarthy on Trade Marksand Unfair Competition, Volume 2 (3rd edn, Clark Boardman Callaghan, New York), para 12.5.

  • (2011) 4 SCC 85, 110.

  • (2011) 4 SCC 85, 120.

  • 2015 (10) SCALE 505. Division Bench decision. Justice Vikramajit Sen delivered the judgment.

  • 2015 (10) SCALE 505, 508–509.

  • 2015 (10) SCALE 505, 512.

  • (2016) 2 SCC 683. Division Bench decision. Justice A K Sikri delivered the judgment of the Court.

  • (1990) 1 All E.R. 873; also known as ‘Jif Lemon case’.

  • (2016) 2 SCC 683, 699–700.

  • (2016) 2 SCC 683, 700.

  • (2016) 2 SCC 683, 701.

  • (2018) 2 SCC 1. Division Bench decision. Justice Ranjan Gogoi delivered the judgment of the Court.

  • Reckitt & Colman Products Ltdv Borden Inc(1990) 1 All E.R. 873.

  • (2018) 2 SCC 1, 17–18.

  • (2018) 2 SCC 1, 19.

  • (2018) 9 SCC 183. Division Bench decision. Dr A K Sikri delivered the judgment of the Court.

  • (2018) 9 SCC 183, 211.

  • Act 43 of 1958.

  • (2018) 9 SCC 183, 213–214.

  • (2018) 18 SCC 346. Division Bench decision. Justice Rohinton F Nariman delivered the judgment of the Court.

  • (2018) 18 SCC 346, 351.

  • Haldiram Bhujiawala v Anand Kumar Deepak Kumar [2000] 1 SCR 1247 (Division Bench decision. Justice M Jagannadha Rao delivered the unanimous judgment); Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd v MRTP Commission 2002 (8) SCALE 507 [Division Bench decision. Justice S B Sinha delivered the judgment of the Court]; Hardie Trading Ltd v Addisons Paint and Chemicals Ltd [2003] Supp. 3 SCR 686 [Division Bench decision. Justice Ruma Pal delivered the judgment of the Court]; Commissioner of Central Excise, Calcutta v Emkay Investments (Pvt) Ltd (2005) 1 SCC 526 [Full Bench decision. Justice Dr A R Lakshmann delivered the judgment]; Bhavanesh Mohanlal Amin v Nirma Chemicals Works 2005 (31) PTC 497 (SC) [Division Bench decision. Justice Arijit Pasayat delivered the judgment]; Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichy v Grasim Industries Ltd [2005] 3 SCR 466 [Full Bench decision. Justice S N Variava delivered the judgment of the Court]; ICICI Bank Ltd v Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay [2005] Supp. (2) SCR 62 [Division Bench decision. P P Naolekar delivered the judgment of the Court]; Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur v Hira Cement [2006] 1 SCR 1077 [Division Bench decision. Justice S B Sinha delivered the judgment of the Court]; Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh v Khanna Industries [2006] Supp. (9) SCR 725 [Division Bench decision. Justice Arijit Pasayat delivered the judgment of the Court]; Reiz Electrocontrols (P) Ltd v Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-I (2006) 6 SCC 213 [Division Bench decision. Dr Arijit Pasayat delivered the judgment of the Court]; Whirlpool of India Ltd, Bangalore v Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bangalore [2006] Supp. 10 SCR 305 [Division Bench decision. Justice Markandey Katju delivered the judgment]; Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore v Brindavan Beverages (Pvt) Ltd [2007] 7 SCR 1033 [Division Bench decision. Dr Arijit Pasayat delivered the judgment of the Court]; Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur v Sri Ganganagar Bottling Co [2007] 9 SCR 669 [Division Bench decision. Dr Arijit Pasayat delivered the judgment of the Court]; Commissioner of Customs v Ferodo India Pvt Ltd 2008 (3) SCALE 153 [Division Bench decision. Justice S H Kapadia delivered the judgment of the Court]; Dabur India Ltd v KR Industries 2008 (37) PTC 332 (SC) [Division Bench decision. Justice S B Sinha delivered the judgment of the Court]; PD Lakhani v State of Punjab 2008 (6) SCALE 236 [Division Bench decision. Justice S B Sinha delivered the judgment on behalf of the Court]; Unison Electronics Pvt Ltd v Commissioner, Central Excise, Noida [2009] 3 SCR 607 [Division Bench decision. Justice Dr Arijit Pasayat delivered the judgment of the Court]; Commissioner Central Excise, Delhi v Ace Auto Comp Ltd 2010 (13) SCALE 387 [Division Bench decision. Justice D K Jain delivered the judgment of the Court]; DAV Boys Sr Sec School v DAV College Managing Committee [2010] 8 SCR 952 [Division Bench decision. Justice P Sathasivam delivered the judgment of the Court]; Infosys Technologies Ltd v Jupiter Infosys Ltd 2010 (44) PTC 625 (SC) [Division Bench decision. Justice R M Lodha delivered the judgment of the Court]; Jeffrey J Diermeier v State of West Bengal 2010 (5) SCALE 695 [Division Bench decision. Justice D K Jain delivered the judgment of the Court]; Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd v Surendra Oil & Dal Mills (Refineries) [2010] 10 SCR 703 [Division Bench decision. Justice Aftab Alam delivered the judgment of the Court]; Purshottam Vishandas Raheja v Shrichand Vishandas Raheja 2011 (5) SCALE 391 [Division Bench decision. Justice Gokhale delivered the judgment of the Court]; Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai v Kalvert Foods India Pvt Ltd [2011] 9 SCR 902 [Division Bench decision. Justice Mukundakam Sharma delivered the judgment]; Commissioner, Central Excise, Bangalore v Meyer Health Care Pvt Ltd [2011] 4 SCR 794 [Division Bench decision. Dr Mukundakam Sharma delivered the judgment of the court]; Rasiklal Manickchand Dhariwal v M S S Food Products 2011 (13) SCALE 183 [Division Bench decision. Justice R M Lodha delivered the judgment of the Court]; Skyline Education Institute (India) Private Ltd v S L Vaswani 2010 (42) PTC 217 (SC) [Division Bench decision. Justice G S Singhvi delivered the judgment of the Court]; Suresh Dhanuka v Sunita Mohapatra 2012 (49) PTC 417 (SC) [Full Bench decision. Justice Altamas Kabir delivered the judgment of the Court]; Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai III Commissionerate, Chennai v Australian Foods India (Pvt) Ltd, Chennai [2013] 1 SCR 932 [Division Bench decision. Justice D K Jain delivered the judgment of the Court]; Young Achievers v IMS Learning Resources Pvt Ltd (2013) 10 SCC 535 [Division Bench decision. Justice K S Radhakrishnan delivered the judgment of the Court]; Lakha Ram Sharma v Balar Marketing Private Limited 2014 (57) PTC 225 (SC) [Division Bench decision. Justice A K Sikri delivered the judgment of the Court]; Satnam Overseas v Sant Ram & Co 2014 (57) PTC 220 (SC) [Division Bench decision. Justice K S Radhakrishnan delivered the judgment]; Precious Jewels v Varun Gems 2014(60) PTC 465 (SC) [Division Bench decision. Justice Anil R Dave delivered the judgment of the Court]; Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai v Nebulae Health Care Ltd 2015 (12) SCALE 94 [Division Bench decision. Justice A K Sikri delivered the judgment of the Court]; Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd v Sanjay Dalia 2015 (63) PTC 1 (SC) [Division Bench decision. Justice Arun Mishra delivered the judgment of the Court]; Kali Aerated Water Works, Salem v Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai 2015 (7) SCALE 44 [Division Bench decision. Justice A K Sikri delivered the judgment on behalf of the Court]; Vir Rubber Products Pvt Ltd v Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai III 2015 (5) SCALE 206 [Division Bench decision. Justice A K Sikri delivered the judgment on behalf of the Court]; Royal Orchid Hotels Ltd v Kamath Hotels (India) Ltd (2018) 1 SCC 728 [Division Bench decision. Justice Ranjan Gogoi delivered the judgment]; Patel Field Marshal Agencies v P M Diesels Ltd (2018) 2 SCC 112 [Division Bench decision. Justice Ranjan Gogoi delivered the judgment]; Parakh Vanijya Pvt Ltd v Baroma Agro Product (2018) 16 SCC 632 [Division Bench decision. Justice R Banumathi delivered the judgment]; U C Surendranath v Mambally’s Bakery (2019) 20 SCC 666 [Division Bench decision. Justice R Banumathi delivered the judgment]; International Association for Protection of Intellectual Property (India Group) v Union of India (2021) 4 SCC 519 [Division Bench decision. Justice S Ravindra Bhat delivered the judgment of the Court]; Rajkumar Sabu v Sabu Trade Pvt Ltd 2021 SCC OnLine SC 378 [Justice Aniruddha Bose delivered the judgment on behalf of the Court]; Sudhir Kumar v Vinay Kumar 2021 SCC OnLine SC 734 [Division Bench decision. Justice M R Shah delivered the judgment of the Court]; and Commissioner of GST and Central Excise v Citi Bank 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1212 [Division Bench decision. Justice K M Joseph delivered the judgment of the Court].


Abstract Views: 143

PDF Views: 80




  • Theoretical Underpinnings of Trademark Law: Decisions of the Supreme Court of India

Abstract Views: 143  |  PDF Views: 80

Authors

Aqa Raza
Jindal Global Law School, O.P. Jindal Global University, Sonipat — 131 001, Haryana,, India
Ghayur Alam
National Law Institute University, Bhopal — 462 044, Madhya Pradesh,, India

Abstract


This Paper identifies and analyses the theoretical underpinnings of trademark law in the light of decisions of the Supreme Court of India (here in after, the Court). Outcome of analysis is four-fold. One, only the Utilitarian Theoryhas been invoked by the Court and that too not explicitly but only by implication to justify trademark law. Two, judicial ratiocination mainly hinges on two grounds that trademark law maximizes happiness by directing unwary customer to the source of goods or services, and minimizes the pain of unwary customer by protecting her from actual or likely deception or confusion as to the source of goods or services. Three, protection of exclusive right of trademark holder in the trademark is merely a means necessary to promote social good in general and interest of unwary customer in particular. Four, judicial invocation of publici juris is designed to pre-empt tragedy of commons. At the end, Paper develops an argument that the Court should have applied judicially manageable standards to rigorously scrutinize theoretical underpinnings of trademark law.

Keywords


Utilitarian Theory, Publici Juris, The Trade Marks Act, 1999, Theoretical Underpinnings, Supreme Court of India, Ratiocination, Intellectual Property, Common Law, Equity, Consimili Casu, Unwary Purchaser, Consumer Welfare, Trademark Monopoly, Trademark Trafficking, Public Policy, Commercial Morality, Trademark Infringement, Passing Off Action.

References