Introduction:

We have a lot of Cricket fans in the house. You may have heard a several times from the commentary
box – The trade mark shot of MSD – and that is – Helicopter?
The famous moonwalk is the trademark of legendary Michel Jackson
And ofcourse the Tabla the Trademark instrument of Zakir Husain.

So why are they called Trademarks? It marks a symbol of association. When you see a Helicopter shot
you associate it’s use by MSD, same goes for Moonwalk and Tabla. Here the Trademark is used just as a
metaphor. Actually Trademark has a much deeper meaning.

Let’s look at how Trademark is defined in Indian court of Law.

Trademark defined under Section 2 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 as, "trade mark means a mark capable
of being represented graphically and which is capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one
person from those of others and may include shape of goods, their packaging and combination of
colors." A mark can include a device, brand, heading, label, ticket, name, signature, word, letter,
numeral, shape of goods, packaging or combination of colors or any such combinations.

Essentials of Trade Marks

1. It should be a mark.
2. It should be capable of being represented graphically.
3. It should be capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one person from those of others.

Functions of Trade Mark

1. Identifies the Goods of one Trader and distinguish them from goods sold by others. It protects
the public from confusion and deception by identifying the source or origin of particular
products.
Basically Addidas and Adiboss or for instance Apple and PinApple
2. Signifies that all goods bearing a particular trade mark come from a single source.
3. It protects owner’s trade and business as well as the good will.
4. It acts as a prime instrument in advertising and selling the goods.
Case 1:

After a 20-year-old legal battle, Kaira District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Limited
popularly known as Amul has successfully protected its trademark from Shri Shakti Dairy, who
were held by the Commercial Court in Vadodara to be guilty of infringing Amul's trademark by
selling and marketing their products under names that were matching with Amul's original
tradename.
It was held by the Vadodara Commercial Court that the usage of the name "Anul" by the
Defendants was an infringement of the Plaintiff's trademark and brand name "Amul". The
reasoning used by the Court to arrive at this conclusion was that the Defendant's tradename of
"Anul" rhymed with the Plaintiff's tradename "Amul" and was thus very likely to cause
confusion in the mind of the consumers.

Plaintiff's Contention

 Anul Tazza and Shakti vs well known brand of Amul. The color scheme use was also
same both for packaging and Branding.
 It was argued that the products of the Defendant were sold at village areas under the
name "Anul" where the village folk could very easily get confused as it would be difficult
for them to differentiate between the two.

Defendant's Contentions

 No scope for confusion to be caused to the customers because the names used for its
brand was phonetically different.
 It was submitted that there were others as well who were imitating the labels of the
Plaintiff Amul, and thus, Amul Dairy did not have any monopoly right on the said label
and trademark.
 It was argued that the case was misconceived because the Defendants have themselves
coined and invented the term "Anul".

Court's Decision

 It was held that the brand names "Anul Taaza" and "Anul Shakti" rhymed with the
names of the products of the Plaintiff. Therefore, the brand names were deceptively
similar to Amul's brand name and was likely to cause confusion among customers.

 The Court took note of the fact that there were several documentary evidences of the
registration of Amul and its milk brands that were produced. It was thus held to be clear
 that "Amul" is the registered trademark of Amul Dairy. Moreover, the Defendant failed
to furnish any evidence to prove that "Anul" was coined and invented by it.

Thus, the Defendant, its marketing firm along with their agents, dealers and distributors were
injuncted from manufacturing, processing, marketing and packing under the impugned labels.