Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access

Trademark Law Declared by the Supreme Court of India in Twentieth-Century


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
 

The Parliament of India makes, amends, and unmakes law. The Supreme Court of India (hereinafter, the Supreme Court), under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, declares the law and makes and unmakes the law while deciding cases through the process of judicial review and interpretation-construction. The constitutional powers of these two branches are related but separate. The law made by the Parliament stands constitutionally valid unless declared uconstitutional, eviscerated or read down by the Supreme Court. As the analyses reveals,1 the constitutionality of none of the seven intellectual property (hereinafter, IP) enactments has been challenged before the Supreme Court in any of the cases brought before it. Had the constitutionality of these statutes been challenged even then the statutes are presumed to be constitutionally valid and the person who challenges the validity of the statute and any provision thereof has a heavy burden to discharge. The Supreme Court ordinarily interprets-constructs the provisions of the statute and applies the same to decide the question(s) of law and/or question of facts in a lis between the parties before it. The answer of the Supreme Court becomes binding not only in personam but also in rem for the future cases. Among all the IP cases decided by the Supreme Court, trademark law may be called as the King of IP decisions with maximum number of reported decisions followed by copyright, patent and design laws. The first trademark case was decided by the Supreme Court in the year 1953, after 1196 days (3.27 years) of its establishment. In 20th century, the Supreme Court has decided a total of 19 cases on trademark law. On an average, the Supreme Court has decided .38 (point three eight) trademark case in a year; or one trademark case in 978.94 (point nine four) days or in 2.68 (point six eight) years. A review of reported decisions of 20th century reveals that the Court has: (i) declared Trademark Law in 15 decisions; (ii) not only interpreted the provisions of the statutes but has also constructed them; (iii) not declared anything on the constitutionality of the trademark statutes as no such question of constitutionality was involved; (iv) delivered all the decisions unanimously as no dissenting or concurring judgment is reported; (v) decided maximum number of cases by Full Bench (11) and remaining 8 decisions by Division Bench. It is also observed that two Chief Justices of India and one Acting Chief Justice were on the Bench in three decisions, but the judgment was authored only by the Acting Chief Justice. Paper proceeds with the same argument and method as developed and adopted in the first three papers covering patent law, copyright law and design law published under the theme "IP Laws Declared by the Supreme Court‟. This Paper seeks to cull out the principles of trademark law as declared by the Supreme Court in 20th century decisions.

Keywords

Trademark, Supreme Court of India, Law Declared, Article 141, The Constitution of India, The Trade Marks Act, 1940, The Trade and Merchandise Marks Act 1958, The Trade Marks Act, 1999, Bench, Decisions, Dissenting, Concurring, Constructed Meaning, Principles, Interpretation-Construction, Twentieth Century, Unwary Purchaser, Trademark Trafficking, Trademark Infringement, Passing Off Action, Remedy.
User
Notifications
Font Size

  • 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; Raza A, Theoretical Underpinnings of Patent Law: Decisions of the Supreme Court of India, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 27 (4) (2022) 285–289; Raza A and Alam G, Theoretical Underpinnings of Trademark Law: Decisions of the Supreme Court of India, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 27 (5) (2022) 351–366; Raza A and Alam G, Theoretical Underpinnings of Copyright and Design Laws Post-KrishikaLulla and Godrej Sara Lee: Decisions of the Supreme Court of India, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 27 (6) (2022) 434–441.
  • Raza A and Alam G, Patent Law Declared by the Supreme Court of India, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 28 (1) (2023) 46–67.
  • Raza A, Alam G and Talib M A, Copyright Law Declared by the Supreme Court of India, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 28 (2) (2023) 151–170.
  • Raza A and Alam G, Design Law Declared by the Supreme Court of India, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 28 (3) (2023) 236–241.
  • 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 1 August 2022). For the purposes of citations: Supreme Court Reports (SCR), TruePrint copies from Supreme Court Cases (SCC), SCC OnLine, Supreme Court Almanac (SCALE) and All India Reporter (AIR) have been referred and relied upon. Where, the judgment is not available on the above-mentioned judgment reporters, reliance has been placed on the judgment copy as available on JUDIS.
  • Act 47 of 1999.
  • Vide notification No. S.O. 1048(E), dated 15 September 2003. Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3(ii).
  • Act 43 of 1958.
  • Act 5 of 1940.
  • The expression ‗interpretation-construction‘ has been used in the same sense as explained by Lawrence B Solum. Solum L B, The Interpretation-Construction Distinction, Constitutional Commentary, 27 (2010) 95–218.
  • Judgment dated 7 May 1953, Civil Appeal No. 135 of 1952. Judgment Information System (JUDIS) of the Supreme Court, https://main.sci.gov.in/judgment/judis/1030.pdf; accessed 11 February 2023.
  • (1998) 8 SCC 1.
  • Act 5 of 1940.
  • Judgment dated 7 May 1953, Civil Appeal No. 135 of 1952. Judgment Information System (JUDIS) of the Supreme Court, https://main.sci.gov.in/judgment/judis/1030.pdf; accessed 11 February 2023.
  • Judgment dated 7 May 1953, Civil Appeal No. 135 of 1952. Judgment Information System (JUDIS) of the Supreme Court, https://main.sci.gov.in/judgment/judis/1030.pdf; accessed 11 February 2023; 12.
  • Judgment dated 7 May 1953, Civil Appeal No. 135 of 1952. Judgment Information System (JUDIS) of the Supreme Court, https://main.sci.gov.in/judgment/judis/1030.pdf; accessed 11 February 2023; p. 13.
  • SCC Online. Civil Appeal No. 116 of 1953 decided on 15 April 1955.
  • SCC Online. Civil Appeal No. 116 of 1953 decided on 15 April 1955, para 8.
  • SCC Online. Civil Appeal No. 116 of 1953 decided on 15 April 1955, para 14.
  • SCC Online. Civil Appeal No. 116 of 1953 decided on 15 April 1955, para 15.
  • SCC Online. Civil Appeal No. 319 of 1955 decided on 8 October 1959.
  • SCC Online. Civil Appeal No. 319 of 1955 decided on 8 October 1959, para 11.
  • SCC Online. Civil Appeal No. 319 of 1955 decided on 8 October 1959, para 15.
  • SCC Online. Civil Appeal No. 319 of 1955 decided on 8 October 1959, para 16.
  • SCC Online. Civil Appeal No. 319 of 1955 decided on 8 October 1959, para 18.
  • SCC Online. Civil Appeal No. 319 of 1955 decided on 8 October 1959, para 19.
  • SCC Online. Civil Appeal No. 319 of 1955 decided on 8 October 1959, para 21.
  • State of Uttar Pradesh v Hafiz Mohammad Ismail, [1960] 2 SCR 911 (Full Bench decision and Justice K N Wanchoo delivered the unanimous judgment of the Court.); and Management of Hamdard Dawakhana Wakf Delhi v Workmen, JUDIS, Civil Appeal No. 199 of 1962 decided on 15 October 1962 (Full Bench decision and Justice P. B. Gajendragadkar delivered the unanimous judgment of the Court).
  • SCC Online. Civil Appeal No. 22 of 1960 decided on 27 April 1962.
  • Act 5 of 1940.
  • SCC Online. Civil Appeal No. 22 of 1960 decided on 27 April 1962, para 6.
  • SCC Online. Civil Appeal No. 22 of 1960 decided on 27 April 1962, para 7.
  • SCC Online. Civil Appeal No. 22 of 1960 decided on 27 April 1962, para 8.
  • SCC Online. Civil Appeal No. 22 of 1960 decided on 27 April 1962, para 13.
  • SCC Online. Civil Appeals Nos. 522 and 523 of 1962 decided on 20 October 1964.
  • The Trade Marks (Amendment) Act, 1946 (Act 12 of 1946).
  • SCC Online. Civil Appeals Nos. 522 and 523 of 1962 decided on 20 October 1964, para 21.
  • SCC Online. Civil Appeals Nos. 522 and 523 of 1962 decided on 20 October 1964, para 28.
  • SCC Online. Civil Appeals Nos. 522 and 523 of 1962 decided on 20 October 1964, para 29.
  • SCC Online. Civil Appeals Nos. 522 and 523 of 1962 decided on 20 October 1964, para 31.
  • (1970) 3 SCC 665.
  • (1970) 3 SCC 665, 670.
  • (1970) 3 SCC 665, 671.
  • (1970) 3 SCC 665, 675.
  • (1970) 3 SCC 665, 676.
  • (1973) 1 SCC 56.
  • (1973) 1 SCC 56, 59.
  • Joint Secretary to the Government of India v Messrs Food Specialities Ltd, (1985) 4 SCC 516. Full Bench decision. Judgment of the Court was delivered by Justice R S Pathak.
  • Act 1 of 1944.
  • (1986) 1 SCC 465.
  • (1986) 1 SCC 465, 491.
  • (1986) 1 SCC 465, 492.
  • (1986) 1 SCC 465, 492–493.
  • (1986) 1 SCC 465, 493.
  • (1986) 1 SCC 465, 494.
  • (1986) 1 SCC 465, 510.
  • 1990 (Supp) SCC 727.
  • 1990 (Supp) SCC 727, 731–732.
  • 1990 (Supp) SCC 727, 732.
  • 1990 (Supp) SCC 727, 733.
  • 1990 (Supp) SCC 727, 734.
  • (1995) 5 SCC 545.
  • (1995) 5 SCC 545, 555.
  • (1995) 5 SCC 545, 557.
  • (1995) 5 SCC 545, 564–565.
  • (1995) 5 SCC 545, 565.
  • Act 5 of 1908.
  • (1995) 5 SCC 545, 576.
  • (1996) 9 SCC 430.
  • (1996) 9 SCC 433.
  • (1996) 9 SCC 436.
  • (1996) 9 SCC 437.
  • (1996) 9 SCC 437–438.
  • (1996) 5 SCC 714.
  • (1996) 5 SCC 714, 727.
  • (1997) 1 SCC 99.
  • (1997) 1 SCC 99, 109–110.
  • (1997) 1 SCC 99, 110.
  • (1997) 4 SCC 201.
  • (1997) 4 SCC 201, 223–224.
  • (1997) 4 SCC 201, 224.
  • (1998) 3 SCC 244.
  • (1998) 8 SCC 1.
  • (1998) 8 SCC 1, 22.
  • (1998) 8 SCC 1, 26.
  • Vide Notification No. S.O. 1048(E), dated 15th September, 2003, Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3(ii).

Abstract Views: 125

PDF Views: 98




  • Trademark Law Declared by the Supreme Court of India in Twentieth-Century

Abstract Views: 125  |  PDF Views: 98

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


The Parliament of India makes, amends, and unmakes law. The Supreme Court of India (hereinafter, the Supreme Court), under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, declares the law and makes and unmakes the law while deciding cases through the process of judicial review and interpretation-construction. The constitutional powers of these two branches are related but separate. The law made by the Parliament stands constitutionally valid unless declared uconstitutional, eviscerated or read down by the Supreme Court. As the analyses reveals,1 the constitutionality of none of the seven intellectual property (hereinafter, IP) enactments has been challenged before the Supreme Court in any of the cases brought before it. Had the constitutionality of these statutes been challenged even then the statutes are presumed to be constitutionally valid and the person who challenges the validity of the statute and any provision thereof has a heavy burden to discharge. The Supreme Court ordinarily interprets-constructs the provisions of the statute and applies the same to decide the question(s) of law and/or question of facts in a lis between the parties before it. The answer of the Supreme Court becomes binding not only in personam but also in rem for the future cases. Among all the IP cases decided by the Supreme Court, trademark law may be called as the King of IP decisions with maximum number of reported decisions followed by copyright, patent and design laws. The first trademark case was decided by the Supreme Court in the year 1953, after 1196 days (3.27 years) of its establishment. In 20th century, the Supreme Court has decided a total of 19 cases on trademark law. On an average, the Supreme Court has decided .38 (point three eight) trademark case in a year; or one trademark case in 978.94 (point nine four) days or in 2.68 (point six eight) years. A review of reported decisions of 20th century reveals that the Court has: (i) declared Trademark Law in 15 decisions; (ii) not only interpreted the provisions of the statutes but has also constructed them; (iii) not declared anything on the constitutionality of the trademark statutes as no such question of constitutionality was involved; (iv) delivered all the decisions unanimously as no dissenting or concurring judgment is reported; (v) decided maximum number of cases by Full Bench (11) and remaining 8 decisions by Division Bench. It is also observed that two Chief Justices of India and one Acting Chief Justice were on the Bench in three decisions, but the judgment was authored only by the Acting Chief Justice. Paper proceeds with the same argument and method as developed and adopted in the first three papers covering patent law, copyright law and design law published under the theme "IP Laws Declared by the Supreme Court‟. This Paper seeks to cull out the principles of trademark law as declared by the Supreme Court in 20th century decisions.

Keywords


Trademark, Supreme Court of India, Law Declared, Article 141, The Constitution of India, The Trade Marks Act, 1940, The Trade and Merchandise Marks Act 1958, The Trade Marks Act, 1999, Bench, Decisions, Dissenting, Concurring, Constructed Meaning, Principles, Interpretation-Construction, Twentieth Century, Unwary Purchaser, Trademark Trafficking, Trademark Infringement, Passing Off Action, Remedy.

References