Trade dress protection-comparative study of US and Indian position
- by Tripti-bhushan
- Aug 31, 2019 17:37
Idea of Trade Dress in India
The Indian law does not have a different arrangement for the exchange dress under its current Trade mark enactment not at all like the US law which perceives the idea exchange dress under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act.
The new Trade Marks Act, 1999, which came into power in September 2003 is generally founded on the English Trade imprint Act, 1994 perceived the idea of exchange dress on the lines of The Lanham Act. The revised Act of 1999 perceives exchange dress through the new meaning of Trade mark additionally comprises of the state of merchandise, bundling or mix of hues or any mix thereof. Extensively, Section 2 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
Characterizes the accompanying as:
(m) "mark" incorporates a gadget, brand, heading, name, ticket, name, signature, word, letter, numeral, state of products, bundling or blend of hues or any mix thereof;
(q) "bundle" incorporates any case, box, compartment, covering, organizer, repository, vessel, coffin, bottle, wrapper, name, band, ticket, reel, outline, container, top, top, plug a stopper; Hence the new meaning of exchange mark under Indian law involves every one of the components of the exchange dress as under US law. The Indian courts have been perceiving the idea of exchange dress even before 2003.
In Cadbury India Limited and Ors. Versus Neeraj Food Products3, the Delhi High Court held the trademark "JAMES BOND" as physically and phonetically like the enlisted trademark "Pearls" of the Cadbury. The High Court additionally held the bundling of Neeraj nourishment item to be like that of Cadbury and eventfully Neeraj Foods was controlled from utilizing said trademarks just as the bundling like that of Cadbury. In another ongoing instance of Gorbatschow Wodka v. John Distilleries4, the Plaintiff, Gorbatschow Wodka, documented an encroachment activity under the steady gaze of the Bombay High Court asserting that the Defendant has attacked its licensed innovation rights by embracing a tricky variety of the state of the containers of the Plaintiff.