Similarity of marks is an issue that trademark law in India has
consistently dealt with over time, thus evolving crucial
principles. As per judicial dicta, there should be only one
trademark, one source & one proprietor. Thus, it is neither
permissible nor advisable to use a mark similar to a registered
mark. The foremost criteria used by authorities to make out a case
of similarity or deceptive similarity is whether any confusion
would be caused in the mind of an unwary purchaser.
The issue came up for deliberation in the Delhi High Court in
the case of Infosys Technologies Limited vs Marwadi Inforys
Technologies Ltd (2009 (41) PTC 622 (Del.)). Infosys
Technologies Limited, incorporated in 1981prayd for an order of
permanent injunction against Marwadi Inforys who was engaged in the
business of computer related products under the trade name
Infosys Technologies Limited contended that Marwadi Inforys must
be restrained from using the trademark "INFOSYS"
or "INFY" in isolation or in conjunction with
any other mark and passing off their goods and services by
marketing or advertisements under the trademark "Further,
Infosys Technologies also prayed for an order for delivery up of
all goods, bearing or capable of reproducing the trademark
"INFOSYS", claiming damages worth Rs.20
Infosys Technologies submitted that they had conducted a survey
around August 2003, and had discovered Marwadi Inforys Technologies
was using the trademark "INFOSYS" in their
business of website development, web based software development,
domain name registration and stand alone turnkey software projects,
which is similar to the business of Infosys Technologies. Under
these circumstances Infosys Technologies served upon Marwadi
Inforys Technologies a legal notice twice, dated 6-8-2003 and
16-1-2007, but the Marwadi Inforys Technologies showed complete
disregard to the legal notice and continued using the infringed
mark "INFOSYS" in its commercial activities
which has confused and mislead the public at large
The Delhi Court held that Marwadi Inforys had indulged in the
infringement of trademark "INFOSYS" which
belonged to Infosys Technologies, and hence Infosys Technologies
must be granted an order of injunction. Regarding the claim of
damages, the court held that as the assessment of damages is based
on cogent evidence furnished for the purpose, which had not been
provided by Infosys Technologies. In this view, the award was
restricted to costs of the proceedings.
This article enunciates the recent, much awaited, and landmark judgment delivered on September 16, 2016 by Hon'ble Delhi High Court throwing light on the important provisions of the Copyright Act, 1962.
Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion recently issued an office memorandum pursuant to receiving representations from various stakeholders for guidance with respect to the applicability of the provisions of Section 31D of the Copyright Act, 1957.
An Invention Disclosure Form is the documentation of the invention. This is a means to document particulars of your invention and submitting it to the patent attorney who is filing your patent application.
The Patents Act 1970, along with the Patents Rules 1972, came into force on 20th April 1972, replacing the Indian Patents and Designs Act 1911. The Patents Act was largely based on the recommendations of the Ayyangar Committee Report headed by Justice N. Rajagopala Ayyangar. One of the recommendations was the allowance of only process patents with regard to inventions relating to drugs, medicines, food and chemicals.
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).