{"id":134270,"date":"2026-04-08T12:45:23","date_gmt":"2026-04-08T12:45:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/?post_type=comparative_guide&#038;p=134270"},"modified":"2026-04-13T07:43:04","modified_gmt":"2026-04-13T07:43:04","slug":"india-trademark-disputes","status":"publish","type":"comparative_guide","link":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/chapter\/india-trademark-disputes\/","title":{"rendered":"India: Trademark Disputes"},"content":{"rendered":"","protected":false},"template":"","class_list":["post-134270","comparative_guide","type-comparative_guide","status-publish","hentry","guides-trademark-disputes","jurisdictions-india"],"acf":[],"appp":{"post_list":{"below_title":"<div class=\"guide-author-details\"><span class=\"guide-author\">Rahul Chaudhry &amp; Partners<\/span><span class=\"guide-author-logo\"><img src=\"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/1\/2025\/03\/firm-logo.jpg\"\/><\/span><\/div>"},"post_detail":{"above_title":"<div class=\"guide-author-details\"><span class=\"guide-author\">Rahul Chaudhry &amp; Partners<\/span><span class=\"guide-author-logo\"><img src=\"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/1\/2025\/03\/firm-logo.jpg\"\/><\/span><\/div>","below_title":"<span class=\"guide-intro\">This country specific Q&amp;A provides an overview of Trademark Disputes laws and regulations applicable in India<\/span><div class=\"guide-content\"><div class=\"filter\">\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t<input type=\"text\" placeholder=\"Search questions and answers...\" class=\"filter-container__search-field\">\r\n\t\t\t<\/div>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t<ol class=\"custom-counter\">\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">To represent a client before Court in respect of a potential trademark infringement matter, do you require a Power of Attorney \u2013 and if so, what are the execution formalities required by your courts?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Yes, to represent a client before a court in a potential trademark infringement matter, two Powers of Attorney (PoA) are required. One to sign and receive the court papers and appoint counsels on behalf of the party (where the party is a company\/entity ), and one to authorise the counsels to represent the client. The PoA appointing and authorising counsel is known as the Vakalatnama. The execution formalities of both the powers are different.<\/p>\n<p>The PoA authorising the signing of the court papers must be supported by an appropriate Board Resolution in the case of a limited liability entity. It needs to be executed before a notary public and in cases of overseas entities duly apostilled\/legalised.<\/p>\n<p>The Vakalatnama needs to be signed by the signatory who has been authorised vide the first PoA to appoint and authorise counsels in the matter. It generally need not be signed before a notary but needs the acceptance of the counsels mentioned in the Vakalatnama by having their signatures thereon.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Is it a requirement in your jurisdiction to send a cease and desist letter to a potential infringer before commencing proceedings for infringement? What are the consequences for a trademark owner who chooses not to send a pre-action letter?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>In India, it is not a mandatory\/statutory legal requirement to send a cease-and-desist letter before initiating trademark infringement proceedings. The decision to address a cease-and-desist letter depends upon the nature of infringement and whether there is a possibility of the infringer actually complying. Even if a cease-and-desist letter is not sent, the trademark owner can still file an infringement suit without any seriously damaging legal repercussions.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">In your jurisdiction, is there a risk that a pre-action letter could give rise to claim against the trademark owner for unjustified threats? What steps should a trademark owner take to ensure any cease and desist letter does not expose the trademark owner to any liability.<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Yes, a pre-action letter could give rise to claim against the trademark owner for unjustified threats. However, such an action becomes infructuous as soon as a suit for infringement is filed by the trademark owner or the trademark owner is able to prove infringement in the unjustified threats action.<\/p>\n<p>In order to avoid liability, cease and desist \/pre-action letter must only be sent if the intention is to follow up with legal action.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Is it mandatory for the parties to have attempted mediation or other alternative dispute resolution proceedings prior to commencing infringement proceedings? If so, what is the minimum expectation?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, it is mandatory for parties to exhaust the remedy of pre-institution mediation before filing a suit, unless an urgent interim relief is sought.<\/p>\n<p>This provision applies to commercial disputes, including trademark infringement cases.<\/p>\n<p>Where no urgent relief is sought, the minimum expectation is to file an application with the designated legal services authorities for conducting pre-institution mediation, prior to institution of a suit, and to complete the mediation proceedings as per the prescribed rules.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Are claims for trademark infringements heard before a general commercial Court or a specialist Court focused on Intellectual Property disputes? Are trademark infringement claims decided by a judge or by a jury?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>In India, trademark infringement claims are heard before general Commercial Courts which may or may not have designated Intellectual Property (IP) Divisions, rather than a specialized IP-only court.<\/p>\n<p>India follows a judge-led system\u2014trademark infringement cases are decided by a judge, not a jury.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Is there a time limit for commencing trademark infringement proceedings once the facts giving rise to the infringement are known to the trademark owner. After how long would such a claim be time-barred? What action would a trade mark owner have to know to give rise to such a claim being time-barred (for example, is it knowing that a mark in question is in use or is it knowing that a trade mark application has been filed and\/or registered?)<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>If the infringement is ongoing, each instance is considered a new cause of action, effectively resetting the limitation time period with each occurrence due to a recurring cause of action.<\/p>\n<p>In other words, a right to file a suit arises afresh with each recurring act of infringement. However, courts place significant emphasis on delay and laches when considering the grant of interim injunctions.<\/p>\n<p>Additionally, if a trademark owner of an earlier trademark knowingly allows another party to use a registered trademark without objection for a continuous period of five years, they may lose the right to challenge that use later.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">In your jurisdiction does the law protect unregistered trademarks of any kind, including by way of passing off, unfair competition or protection of trade dress. What are the criteria for their subsistence?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>India is a first to use country where the registration of a trademark is not mandatory. The rights of a prior user have been held to be superior to that of a prior registrant. Unregistered trademarks including trade dress are protected under the law of passing off, unfair competition and copyright law.<\/p>\n<p>The criteria for their subsistence are use, reputation and goodwill attached to the mark and association of the same with the Plaintiff.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">In your jurisdiction will the Court hear claims for registered trademark infringement in parallel with claims for passing off,unfair competition, infringement of trade dress or other misleading advertising, or does a claimant need to bring such claims in a separate cause of action?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>In our jurisdiction the court will hear claims for registered trademark infringement in parallel with claims for passing off, unfair competition, infringement of trade dress or other misleading advertising provided they arise from the same set of facts.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">In your jurisdiction, do your Courts share jurisdiction with your Trade Mark Office, such that parties need to seek to seize the forum they prefer first in time, or does the Court take precedence and intervene to stay or transfer any live Registry proceedings (for example relating to invalidity or revocation of registered trade mark) which may overlap with an issued infringement claim and related counterclaim?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>In India, courts and the Trademark Office only share jurisdiction in invalidity or rectification proceedings. In case a rectification action is filed before the inception of an infringement claim it can be filed either in the appropriate High Court or the appropriate Trademark Office. During the pendency of an infringement claim the rectification action can only be filed in the appropriate High Court.<\/p>\n<p>The court is bound to stay the infringement claim proceedings if a rectification is pending before the Trademark Office prior to the institution of the infringement claim but can pass interim orders including injunctions.<\/p>\n<p>The Trademark Office can in its discretion transfer the rectification to the High Court at any stage.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Where the defendant has a counterclaim for invalidity or cancellation of the registered trademark being asserted against it (either on the basis of earlier rights or as a result of non-use by the trademark proprietor), does the counterclaim become part of the infringement action, so that both issues are heard by the same Court within a single action, with the Court making a determination at its conclusion, or are the validity issues bifurcated and heard in separate parallel proceedings? If in your jurisdiction validity issues are bifurcated, what are the practical consequences of this from a timing perspective? For example, does this mean that a Court will stay the infringement claim and proceed with the validity attack first to avoid finding a trademark infringed, only to have a separate Court find the trademark invalid at a later date?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>The counterclaim for invalidity or cancellation of the registered trademark does not become part of the infringement action so that both issues are heard by the same court within a single action \u2013 the validity issues are bifurcated and heard in separate proceedings. The validity proceedings have to be concluded first before deciding the infringement claim. The court is bound to stay the infringement claim and first seek a decision on the validity claim.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">In your jurisdiction, does a defendant have a defence of using a mark honestly and concurrently available to them?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Honest and concurrent use is recognised as a ground for registration of identical or similar trade marks in respect of similar goods and services but is not expressly provided as a statutory defence in infringement proceedings. However, in appropriate circumstances, courts may consider bona fide, honest and concurrent use while evaluating the defence in trademark infringement proceedings.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">When considering the validity of a registered trade mark, does the Court consider whether the trade mark has been registered in bad faith? If so, what actions would indicate this bad faith?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Yes, the court considers whether the trademark has been registered in bad faith while considering the validity of a registered trademark and may cancel a trademark which has been registered in bad faith. Actions involving dishonesty, such as trademark squatting, copying of a well-known trademark with the intent to misappropriate its goodwill, obtaining registration through deliberate misstatements to the registrar, among others, indicate bad faith.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">If the main objective in commencing infringement proceedings is to secure an injunction, is a claimant required to state how much their claim is worth at the point their claim is issued?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Yes, under Indian law, even if the main goal of an infringement proceeding is to obtain an injunction, the claimant must still specify the claim\u2019s value when filing the case. The amount of claim made determines the jurisdiction of the court.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Is it possible to seek a preliminary injunction in your jurisdiction? If so, what is the criteria a trademark owner needs to establish and is there a bond or other undertaking in damages payable to compensate the defendant if the Court finds no infringement following a substantive hearing?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Yes, it is possible to seek a preliminary (interim) injunction in trademark infringement cases in India. The criteria for granting a preliminary injunction are:<\/p>\n<ol>\n<li>Prima Facie Case<\/li>\n<li>Irreparable Injury<\/li>\n<li>Balance of Convenience<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p>In India, it is rare for a court to require the Plaintiff to file a bond or other undertaking in damages payable to compensate the Defendant if the court finds no infringement following a substantive hearing.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Is a licensee (whether exclusive or non-exclusive) of a registered trademark entitled to commence proceedings for trademark infringement? Does the trademark proprietor need to be joined as a party to the proceedings, and does it have an effect whether the licensee is registered before the local Trademark Registry?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>A licensee of a registered trademark is entitled to commence proceeding for trademark infringement only if the license agreement allows such filing and if the agreement is recorded with the Registrar of Trade Marks. If the license agreement allows it and the licensee is a recorded registered user, the proprietor need not be joined as a party to an infringement claim.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Where the claim for trademark infringement is premised on similarity between the defendant\u2019s mark and the trademark owner\u2019s registered mark, does the proprietor need to demonstrate that confusion has occurred or simply that there is a risk of confusion? What is the minimum standard required to secure a finding of infringement?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>To establish trademark infringement based on the similarity between the defendant\u2019s mark and the trademark owner\u2019s registered mark, the proprietor needs to demonstrate a likelihood of confusion among the relevant public, rather than provide acts\/scenarios of actual confusion. If acts of actual confusion can be shown, the same will definitely make it easier to establish and or confirm the likelihood of confusion.<\/p>\n<p>There is no minimum standard prescribed. The similarity of rival trademarks is viewed from the perspective of an unwary purchaser with average intelligence and imperfect memory. As to confusion, it is perhaps an appropriate description of the state of mind of a customer who, on seeing a particular mark thinks that it differs from the mark on goods which he has previously bought, but is doubtful whether that impression is due to imperfect recollection.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">In your jurisdiction is it possible to rely on post-sale confusion as a means of securing a finding of trade mark infringement?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Post sale confusion is a relatively novel concept in Indian trademark jurisprudence and has not been comprehensively analysed \/ applied by courts. However, the doctrine of post-sale confusion has been recognised by the Supreme Court of India.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">In your jurisdiction what type of disclosure or discovery is typically ordered by the Court in respect of trademark infringement actions from both parties?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>In India, the parties to a trademark infringement suit are required to disclose all documents in their power, possession and control along with all other relevant information pertaining to their claims\/defence at the time or filing the suit or defence. Some of the pertinent documents that need to be filed along with the suit include trademark registration certificates, sales and revenue records, marketing and promotional expenses incurred, awards and recognitions received, previous correspondence and legal notices exchanged between parties etc. The parties\u2019 claim\/ defence has to be accompanied by a sworn statement that no material fact or document in their power and possession has been concealed from the court.<\/p>\n<p>Thereafter, either party to the suit can file an application seeking discovery through interrogatories. Interrogatories are a form of written discovery in trademark infringement suits, where one party serves a set of written questions on the opposing party, who must respond under oath. These questions are used to obtain key information about the case. Typically, the court does not order for discovery on its own and does so only on the request of the parties of the suit to ensure fair trial after considering the relevance and necessity of such interrogatories in the interest of justice. The party filing the interrogatories has to establish that the information sought and\/or the documents sought are necessary and relevant for the fair and just adjudication of their claims\/defence and the same is material to be presented before the court.<\/p>\n<p>Under the relevant legal provisions, a party can apply to the court for an order requiring the other party to:<\/p>\n<p>a. Disclose documents that are relevant to the case.<\/p>\n<p>b. Allow inspection of such documents which may include:<\/p>\n<p>i. Business records;<br \/>\nii. Sales and marketing materials;<br \/>\niii. Correspondence between the parties previously undisclosed;<br \/>\niv. Any other documents that may prove or disprove the infringement claim;<br \/>\nv. Any document\/information to assess damages.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What type of expert evidence is permitted by the Court in your jurisdiction? Does the Court accept consumer surveys and are there specific rules about how consumer surveys are conducted. Do the parties need to request prior permission from the Court to adduce survey evidence?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Consumer surveys are accepted as evidence by Indian courts. There are no specific rules about how consumer surveys are conducted. However, courts have opined that if a consumer survey is to have validity, some of the points that need consideration are:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>The interviewees must be selected so as to represent a relevant cross-section of the public.<\/li>\n<li>The size must be statistically significant.<\/li>\n<li>It must be conducted fairly.<\/li>\n<li>All the surveys carried out must be disclosed including the number carried out, how they were conducted, and the totality of the persons involved.<\/li>\n<li>The questions must not be leading nor should they lead the person answering into speculation.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Parties do not need prior permission from the court to present survey evidence.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Does evidence submitted by your client in trademark infringement proceedings have to be accompanied with a statement of truth or other similar declaration?  Which party is typically responsible for signing the statement of truth (or similar), the entity itself or the entity's representatives?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>The evidence submitted by a client in a trademark infringement suit is in the form of an affidavit which is sworn on oath, and contains a statement as to which facts that have been included in the evidence deposition are based on their own knowledge, and which are matters of information or belief. Documents relied upon by the party are generally produced along with the evidence affidavit.<\/p>\n<p>Where the party is a legal entity, the affidavit is required to be signed by a duly authorised representative of the entity.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">In your jurisdiction is it possible for a claimant to seek summary judgment and\/or strike out of an infringement claim? What are the legal criteria for a Court to grant summary judgment?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Yes, in India, a claimant (plaintiff) can seek a summary judgment and a party can also apply to reject or strike out a claim in trademark, copyright and patent infringement cases.<\/p>\n<p>The following are the criteria which are taken into account to grant a summary judgment:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>The party has no real prospect of defending or succeeding in their claim.<\/li>\n<li>The case does not require oral evidence or extensive factual examination and can be based on pleadings, affidavits, and documentary evidence.<\/li>\n<li>There is no compelling reason to proceed with a full trial.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Courts can strike out pleadings in a suit\/claim that are frivolous or vexatious, or tend to prejudice fair trial or are an abuse of the process of the court, and can also reject a plaint\/claim if it does not disclose a cause of action or where the action appears to be barred by any law.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">How long does it typically take to reach judgment in a trademark infringement action from issue of the claim, through to first instance decision? What is the lower and upper range of legal costs for such an action?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>It is difficult to accurately predict the time taken to reach a judgment in a trademark infringement action from the issue of the claim, through to first instance decision since there is no straight-jacket formula for the same.<\/p>\n<p>The first instance decision is the decision in the application for the grant of an interlocutory injunction. This injunction can either be granted ex parte i.e. immediately on filing, or inter partes, which can take around 2 months to 1 year.<\/p>\n<p>Normally, it is safe to assume that a trademark infringement suit which is contested and which proceeds to trial can take anywhere between 3 years to 7 years to attain finality.<\/p>\n<p>However, in India, a large number of trademark infringement suits tend to get amicably resolved at the interlocutory stage once an interim injunction has been awarded or refused.<\/p>\n<p>There is no upper and lower limit of the legal costs that a plaintiff or defendant can incur for pursuing a trademark infringement action. Hence, the legal costs can vary depending on the facts and merits from case to case.<\/p>\n<p>The legal costs for a trademark infringement action depends upon matter to matter and we do our best to keep it very reasonable for our clients. In case the matter is highly contested and is likely to proceed to trial, then the legal costs tend to get higher.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Following a first instance decision, is it possible for either party to appeal the decision? What are the grounds upon which an appeal can be lodged? Is it necessary to request permission to appeal, or are appeals automatically permissible? If either party file an appeal, is the enforcement of the first instance decision stayed pending the outcome of the appeal?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Yes, it is possible for either party to appeal the decision of the first instance.<\/p>\n<p>The first instance decision may be appealed on various grounds, including but not limited to, i) error in appreciation of fact; and ii) failure in appreciation of relevant law, etc.<\/p>\n<p>It is not necessary to request a permission to appeal. The right to appeal a decision of first instance is a statutory right conferred by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.<\/p>\n<p>The first instance decision is not automatically stayed upon filing of the appeal. For a stay of the decision of first instance, a specific application seeking stay of the operation of the first instance decision, showing sufficient cause, is to be moved.<\/p>\n<p>A court may grant stay of execution of a decree where:<\/p>\n<p>i. substantial loss may result to the party applying for stay of execution unless the order is made;<br \/>\nii. the application has been made without unreasonable delay; and<br \/>\niii. security has been given by the applicant for the due performance of such decree or order as may ultimately be binding upon him.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">If the parties have been involved in a dispute before the local Trademark Office, what relevance does this have on later infringement proceedings? For example where trademark owner (A) may have already sought to oppose the registration of a third party (B\u2019s) mark in proceedings before the local Trade Mark Office, is the trademark owner estopped from seeking invalidity of a registered trade mark where its opposition failed where the invalidity action is based on the same grounds as the unsuccessful opposition?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>In India, the findings of facts and law in a dispute before the local trademark office does have relevance on later infringement proceedings.<\/p>\n<p>If the trademark owner has already sought to oppose the registration of a third party mark in proceedings before the local Trademark Office, the trademark owner is estopped from seeking invalidity of a registered trademark where its opposition failed where the invalidity action is based on the same grounds as the unsuccessful opposition.<\/p>\n<p>There is no estoppel if there is a change in the circumstances as to when the opposition was filed and when the invalidity proceedings are initiated.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">In your jurisdiction, does the Court consider both liability and quantum within the same proceeding, or will any damages be assessed after the Court has reached a decision on liability? How are damages for trademark infringement proceedings typically assessed in your jurisdiction?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>In India, courts consider both liability (whether trademark infringement or passing off has occurred) and quantum of damages within the same proceeding. Damages need to be proved but there is also the option to seek a prayer for accounts of profit in place of damages.\u00a0For accessing damages, the court considers factors such as lost profits, conduct of infringing parties, duration of infringement etc.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">In addition to an injunction and damages, what other remedies are available in your jurisdiction?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>In India, trademark infringement and passing off cases can lead to multiple remedies beyond injunctions and damages. The Trade Marks Act, 1999, along with civil and criminal laws, provides for the following additional remedies:<\/p>\n<p><strong>1. Accounts of Profits<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Instead of proving actual damages, the plaintiff may opt for an account of profits, where the infringer is required to disclose earnings from the unauthorized use of the mark. The court may then order the infringer to pay the profits made from the infringement.<\/p>\n<p><strong>2. Delivery-Up and Destruction of Infringing Goods<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Courts can order the infringer to deliver up all infringing materials, including:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Counterfeit products<\/li>\n<li>Labels, packaging, advertising materials<\/li>\n<li>Machinery used to manufacture the infringing goods<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>These materials are then destroyed to prevent further misuse.<\/p>\n<p><strong>3. Anton Piller Orders (Ex-Parte Search and Seizure Orders)<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Indian courts may issue Anton Piller orders, which allow the plaintiff to conduct surprise raids and searches on the infringer\u2019s premises to seize counterfeit goods, documents, and evidence. These orders help prevent the destruction of evidence.<\/p>\n<p><strong>4. Mareva Injunctions (Asset Freezing Orders)<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>In cases where there is a risk that the infringer may move or hide assets to avoid paying damages, courts can issue a Mareva injunction to freeze the infringer\u2019s assets until the case is resolved.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Following a decision on the merits, is the winner entitled to recover all or a portion of its legal costs incurred in bringing or defending the proceedings. If legal costs are recoverable, what is the procedure involved and how does the Court assess the level of legal costs which should be reimbursed by the losing party.<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Yes, the winning party in a trademark suit is entitled to recover its legal costs, but full reimbursement is rare.<\/p>\n<p>The court has the discretion to determine the costs payable and the assessment of costs depends on factors including:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>The complexity of the case\/matter.<\/li>\n<li>The conduct of the parties (whether the losing party unnecessarily prolonged the case, is a habitual offender, filed a frivolous counterclaim etc.).<\/li>\n<li>Actual expenses incurred.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Once the Court has issued a judgment, how long typically does the losing party have to comply with the Court\u2019s judgment including any final injunction issued? What are the consequences for failing to comply and how would the winning party seek enforcement of its judgement.<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>In India, the time available for the losing party to comply with a court\u2019s judgment is immediate unless stated otherwise.<\/p>\n<p>1. Decrees and Judgments: The losing party must comply within the time specified in the judgment. If no specific time is mentioned, compliance should be immediate from the date of the decree\/judgment.<\/p>\n<p>2. Injunction Orders: If the court grants an injunction (mandatory or prohibitory), compliance is expected immediately unless the court grants a specific time for execution.<\/p>\n<p>In the event that the losing party does not comply with the judgment:<\/p>\n<p>1. Contempt of Court \u2013 Disobedience of a court order, particularly an injunction, can lead to contempt proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, resulting in fines or imprisonment.<\/p>\n<p>2. Execution of Decree \u2013 The winning party can enforce the judgment under Order XXI of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), 1908.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\r\n<div class=\"word-count-hidden\" style=\"display:none;\">Estimated word count: <span class=\"word-count\">4449<\/span><\/div>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t<\/ol>\r\n\r\n<script type=\"text\/javascript\" src=\"\/wp-content\/themes\/twentyseventeen\/src\/jquery\/components\/filter-guides.js\" async><\/script><\/div>"}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comparative_guide\/134270","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comparative_guide"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/comparative_guide"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=134270"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}