INTRODUCTION
The objective of trademark law is to preserve the identification of brands, prevent customer misunderstandings, and maintain the goodwill that companies have developed. The Trade Marks Act, 1999, is the main piece of legislation controlling trademarks in India. This act gives owners the right to use their registered trademarks and offers them protection from passing off and infringement. However, the contentious practice of “trademark bullying,” in which trademark owners, typically big businesses, aggressively assert rights beyond reasonable legal bounds in order to frighten smaller firms.
Trademark bullying is defined as disproportionate, strategic, or bad-faith enforcement that aims to stifle competition rather than avoid confusion. It goes beyond simple enforcement. In India, court interpretation of infringement clauses, defences, and cost fines offers indirect protections against such misuse, notwithstanding the term’s lack of legislative recognition. Thus, the problem is at the nexus of access to justice, competition law, and intellectual property protection.
STATUTORY FRAMEWORK AND SCOPE OF ENFORCEMENT
According to Section 28 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the proprietor acquires the exclusive right to use the registered trademark and to seek remedies in cases of infringement. Section 29 elaborates on what constitutes infringement, focusing on factors such as likelihood of confusion, association, or dilution of the trademark.
Even unregistered marks are protected under Section 27, which preserves the common law remedy of passing off. The Act provides various remedies for infringement, including injunctions, damages, account of profits, and delivery-up of infringing goods, as outlined in Sections 134 and 135.
Indian trademark law incorporates important statutory restrictions to balance exclusive rights. Section 30 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, provides key defences such as descriptive use, nominative use, and use in accordance with honest practices. Additionally, Section 35 safeguards the legitimate use of one’s own name in business.
These provisions serve as important checks on monopoly claims and are particularly significant in cases where allegations verge on trademark bullying or abusive enforcement.
JUDICIAL RECOGNITION OF OVERREACH AND BAD FAITH
The phrase “Trademark Bullying” has not been officially adopted by Indian courts, but its rationale shows sensitivity to overly strict enforcement. The Supreme Court denied an expansive monopoly on the name “Nandhini” in Nandhini Deluxe v. Karnataka Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Ltd. (2018), concluding that the marks were used for distinct items and that it was unlikely that consumers would become confused. The Court underlined that unjustified monopolies over common terms cannot be established by extending trademark protection.
Also in Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (2001), the Supreme Court has emphasized the test of deceptive similarity and likelihood of confusion, stressing that the overall appearance of the marks, nature of goods, and class of purchasers must be taken into account. This case highlighted that the assessment of infringement must be based on evidence and not conjecture.
In ITC Ltd. v. Britannia Industries Ltd. (2016), the Delhi High Court denied exclusive rights to descriptive package features, reinforcing the rule that descriptive or generic aspects cannot be monopolized. The publici juris theory serves as a safeguard against bullying techniques and prohibits the appropriation of aspects of common trade.
ABUSE OF PROCESS, COSTS, AND DEFENSIVE DOCTRINES
Trademark bullying can also come into conflict with procedural doctrines such as aggressive litigation & abuse of power. As per Section 151 of the CPC, 1908, Indian courts have inherent powers to prevent the abuse of judicial proceedings.
The issue of groundless threats of legal action is specifically dealt with under Section 142 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. A declaration and injunction against unwarranted threats of infringement action can be sought. This is particularly important in cases of trademark bullying, where cease and desist letters are used as a means of threatening smaller organizations without filing a lawsuit.
Together, these procedural and statutory protections show that the law is not immune to abuse. Smaller defendants frequently lack the resources necessary to properly use these rights, and enforcement is still uneven.
POLICY CONCERNS AND REFORM PROPOSALS
Trademark bullying also raises broader issues related to consumer welfare, innovation, and competition. Apart from reducing freedom of language in branding and preventing new entrants from accessing markets, too aggressive enforcement may result in the concentration of economic power in the hands of giant corporations. Ironically, despite the purpose of trademark protection against possible misunderstanding, its abuse may result in the restriction of consumer choice and innovation.
Suggestions for improvement are the increased use of mediation, tougher cost sanctions, and more specific judicial standards for the assessment of bad faith enforcement. In assessing the likelihood of confusion in cases involving descriptive or weak trademarks, courts can adopt a tougher approach. Further safeguards can be achieved through the enactment of a law that specifies the scope of Section 142 to specifically cover coercive legal threats.
Corporate governance is also a consideration. There should be procedures within the business to ensure that the measures taken for enforcement are proportionate, evidence based, and consistent with ethical business behaviour. Claims of bullying often lead to adverse publicity, and it would appear that going too far could be counterproductive.
In conclusion, court interpretation and procedural protections aim to avoid misuse, even while statutory provisions under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. However, the ever-present need for trademark bullying calls for the need for balanced change. The protection of intellectual property should be a justifiable shield for goodwill and not a tool for intimidating other weaker players in the market.
CONCLUSION
Trademark law plays a vital role in protecting brand identity and preventing consumer confusion. However, the rise of trademark bullying where dominant players aggressively enforce rights beyond reasonable limits poses significant challenges to fair competition and access to justice. Although Indian courts have not formally recognized “Trademark Bullying,” judicial decisions and statutory provisions, such as Sections 27, 28, 29, 30, 35, and 142 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, along with procedural safeguards under the CPC, collectively work to curb abusive enforcement and protect smaller businesses.
Nevertheless, the persistence of trademark bullying highlights the need for further reforms, including clearer judicial standards, stronger cost sanctions, enhanced mediation, and explicit legislative measures targeting coercive legal threats. Encouraging proportionality, ethical corporate governance, and balanced enforcement will help ensure that trademark protection remains a shield for innovation and goodwill rather than a weapon to intimidate competitors. Ultimately, a fair and equitable trademark regime is essential to fostering a competitive market that benefits businesses and consumers alike.
Read Our Latest Article: INNOVATION-COMPETITION BALANCE: THE INTERPLAY OF IPR LAW AND COMPETITION LAW – J.P. Associates
Author: Kartikey Saxena, 5th Year Law Student, Prestige Institute of Management and Research, Gwalior.
REFERENCES
- Trademark Act, 1999 https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/15427/1/the_trade_marks_act%2C_1999.pdf
- Nandhini Deluxe v. Karnataka Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Ltd. (2018)
https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2015/18014/18014_2015_Judgement_26-Jul-2018.pdf
- Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (2001) https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1114158/
- ITC Ltd. v. Britannia Industries Ltd. (2016)