SECTION 9 AND 11 OF THE TRADEMARK ACT 1999: COMPREHENSIVE OVERVIEW

INTRODUCTION

Trademark registration is an important legal process that grants exclusive rights to a business or individual over the use of its mark. As per section 9 and 11 however, certain marks cannot be registered due to their inherent characteristics. For a mark to be eligible for registration, it must be distinctive. If a mark lacks distinctiveness, is overly descriptive, violates legal provisions, or is seen obscene, disputable and confusing, it will be denied registration.

The trademark registration process starts with submitting an application to the trademark’s registry. The examiner reviews the application and checks whether it fulfils the criteria for registration and it falls under absolute or relative grounds of refusal under sections 9 and 11 of the trademark Act 1999 respectively. The registry sends an examination report to the applicant citing its objections. Reply to such examination report is to be filed within 30 days from the date of receipt of such examination report.

ABSOLUTE AND RELATIVE GROUND OF REFUSAL OF REGISTRATION OF TRADEMARKS

• Absolute Ground under section 9 –

The absolute grounds for refusing trademark registration are linked to public policy. They are designed to protect the legitimate interests of producers or manufacturers by preserving the reputation and goodwill of the product.

The absolute grounds for refusal include:

1. Marks that lack distinctiveness or a unique character.
2. Marks that are descriptive or indicate aspects such as quantity, quality, kind or intended purpose etc.
3. Marks that have become customary (common) in everyday language or trade usage.
4. Marks that are misleading, deceptive, or likely to cause confusion.

ALL DEATIL ABOUT SECTION 9 OF TRADEMARK ACT 1999

1) Section 9(1)(a) says that

The trademarks are devoid of any distinctive character, that is to say, not capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one person from those of another person.

The term “distinctive” means “capable to distinguish.” In simple words it means that the trademark is incapable or insufficient to distinguish the goods or services of the person seeking registration from the goods or services of another person and the unique characteristic is missing in the mark.

A clearer understanding of this expression can be illustrated with examples and relevant case law:

Example –

The term “apple” cannot be registered as a trademark for apples, but it can be registered for computers and mobile phones because it serves as a distinctive mark for those items. The term “Apple” cannot be used as a trademark for actual apples, as it wouldn’t be distinctive enough to differentiate one apple producer from another, making it ineligible for registration under this section.

Case Law –

Geep flashlight industries Ltd v/s the registrar of trademark (1972)

Geep Flashlight Industries Ltd. applied to register the trademark “Janta” for electric torches. The Registrar of Trademarks refused the application, arguing that “Janta” lacked distinctiveness and was a commonly used term suggesting affordability and appeal to the general public. Despite evidence of significant sales and advertising, the court upheld the refusal.

2) Section 9(1)(b) says that

The trademarks consist exclusively of marks or indications which may serve in trade to designate the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, geographical origin or the time of production of the goods or rendering of service or other characteristics of goods or services.

This section prevents the registration of marks that are purely descriptive. Usually, a descriptive mark cannot receive exclusivity. This section is likely aimed at ensuring that trademarks are distinctive and serve the function of identifying the source of goods or services in the marketplace.

A clearer understanding of this expression can be illustrated with examples and relevant case law:

Example –

Kind – The type or category of the goods such as new, old, extra-large, etc. cannot be granted registration as a trademark. Ex- SUV car

Quality – The words indicate the standard of the goods such as Good, Better, best etc. cannot be registered as a trademark. Ex- best no.1

Quantity – The term indicates the quantity like weight and number cannot be granted trademark registration. Ex- Kgs, litres

Intended purpose – The term which is descriptive of the goods, cannot be granted registration of trademark. Ex- room freshener, floor cleaner.

Values – The term denoting the worth or the significance of the goods, cannot be granted registration of trademark. Ex – 24K for gold.

Geographical origin – These include the term of countries, cities, towns which are indicates the source place of the goods. Ex- Shimla apple, Kashmiri shawl.

Time of production of goods or providing of services – These terms indicate, when the goods or services are provided. Ex- 24×7 service.

Case Law –

Imperial Tobacco Co. of India Ltd v/s the Registrar of Trademark (1986)

Imperial Tobacco sought to register the trademark “Simla” for its cigarettes. However, the Registrar refused the application, stating that “Simla,” as a well-known geographical name, did not meet the distinctiveness requirement outlined in Section 9 of the Trademarks Act. The court supported this decision, explaining that geographical names cannot be claimed as trademarks unless they have gained distinctiveness through significant use. It emphasized that allowing such registration would unfairly restrict the use of the name by others.

3) Section 9(1)(c) says that

The trademarks consist exclusively of marks or indications which have become customary in the current language or in the Bonafide and established practices of the trade.

This clause provides the ground for refusal of registration where the trademark sought to be registered consists of marks which have become customary in usage or commonly used in the current language or used in the established practice of trade in Bonafide.

When assessing a trademark for the goods or services, it is necessary to examine the perception that the general public has towards such a trademark. If the mark is widely linked to a particular concept in the minds of consumers, it is not eligible for registration.

A clearer understanding of this expression can be illustrated with examples and relevant case law:

Example –

“Panchi Petah”

The term Panchi has become a common and generic term for Petah in the areas of Agra.

“Xerox”

The term “Xerox” has become a generic term for making photocopies, even though it was initially a brand name, preventing exclusive trademark protection.

“Escalator”

This word, originally it is a brand name and has become so commonly used to describe any moving staircase that it cannot be trademarked by a single company due to its generic usage.

Case Law –

Nestle India Ltd. v. Mood Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. (2010)

Nestle India Ltd. filed a suit against Mood Hospitality Pvt Ltd. for using the term “Pure” in relation to their food products, claiming it infringed on their trademark. The court ruled that “Pure” was a generic and descriptive term commonly used in the food industry to describe the quality of products. Under Section 9(1)(c) of the Trademarks Act, such terms that are customary in trade cannot be given exclusive right. The court held that “Pure” had become a customary term in the market and could not be claimed as a trademark.

4) Section 9(2)(a) says that

Mark shall not be registered as a trade mark if it is of such nature as to deceive the public or cause confusion.

This section does not allow the registration of trademarks that could mislead or confuse consumers. Marks that provide ambiguous or incorrect information that do not fulfil the main function of trademarks, which is to identify the source of goods or services.

A clearer understanding of this expression can be illustrated with examples and relevant case law:

Example –

A trademark featuring the phrase “ANIMAL FREE” would not be eligible if the product contains meat, and a mark that closely mimics a well-known brand with only slight variations would not fit for the registration.

Case Law –

National Sewing Thread Co., Ltd. v. James Chadwick & Bros., Ltd.

In this case, the appellant sought to register a trademark featuring a bird, which they argued was a vulture, while the respondent’s trademark depicted an eagle. The court held that the average purchaser, with ordinary intelligence, would likely confuse the appellant’s bird with the respondent’s eagle, as the bird resembled an eagle more than a vulture. The court emphasized that the appellant had failed to prove that their trademark would not deceive or cause confusion. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the High Court, ruling that the appellant’s trademark was likely to cause confusion and should not be registered.

5) Section 9(2)(b) says that

Mark shall not be registered as a trade mark if, it contains or comprises of any matter likely to hurt the religious susceptibilities of any class or section of the citizens of India.

This clause prevents the registration of a trademark that contains words or symbols potentially offensive to the religious sentiments of any group in India. It specifies that a trademark cannot be registered if its content is likely to hurt the religious feelings of any segment of Indian citizens. Essentially, it ensures that trademarks considered disrespectful to the religious beliefs of any community in India are not permitted for registration.

A clearer understanding of this expression can be illustrated with examples and relevant case law:

Example –

For example, the usage of names or devices of deities would be disrespectful, hurting religious sentiments. The registration word “Ramayan” was denied on the basis of non-distinguishable aspect along with hurting religious sentiments.

Case Law –

Lal Babu Priyadarshi v. Amritpal Singh (2015) 

The Supreme Court of India held that names or symbols of religious significance cannot be given exclusivity for business use. It ruled that using “Ramayan” as a trademark would offend the religious susceptibilities of Hindus and refused the registration under Section 9(2)(b) of the Trademark Act, 1999.

6) Section 9(2)(c) says that

Mark shall not be registered as a trade mark if it comprises or contains scandalous or obscene matter.

This sub section of the Trademark Act specifies that a mark cannot be registered as a trademark if it contains “scandalous or obscene matter.” This means that trademarks deemed offensive or morally unacceptable according to societal norms are not eligible for registration

A clearer understanding of this expression can be illustrated with examples and relevant case law:

Example –

Profane Words or Phrases, Hate Speech, Offensive Symbols, etc.

Case Law –

Myntra Logo Case (2021)

In 2021, a complaint was filed with the Mumbai Cyber Police alleging that the Myntra logo was obscene and offensive, particularly towards women. The logo’s design was said to contain elements that could be interpreted as vulgar or inappropriate. Although Myntra denied any intention to create an offensive logo, they decided to revise it to address the concerns and avoid further controversy. This case highlights the application of Section 9(2)(c) of the Trademark Act, which prohibits the registration of trademarks containing scandalous or obscene matter.

7) Section 9(2)(d) says that

Mark shall not be registered as a trade mark if its use is prohibited under the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950

This clause bars the registration of a trademark which contains a mark, the usage of which is prohibited as per the emblems and names (prevention of improper use use) Act,1950.

Section 4 of the Act prohibits any improper or inappropriate use of certain names and emblems for commercial and professional purpose.

A clearer understanding of this expression can be illustrated with examples:

Example –

The name, emblem or the official seal of the United Nations organisation (UNO).

The name, emblem or official seal od the president or governor of India.

The national flag of India.

8) Section 9(3)(a) says that

A mark shall not be registered as a trade mark if it consists exclusively of the shape of goods which results from the nature of the goods themselves.

This sub section of the Trademark Act prohibits the registration of a mark if it consists solely of “the shape of goods which results from the nature of the goods themselves.” This means that shapes intrinsic to a product’s design and not selected for distinctiveness cannot be registered as trademarks. The shape of goods which result from the nature of the goods themselves.

A clearer understanding of this expression can be illustrated with examples and relevant case law:

Example –

An egg tray, substantially manufactured for the purpose of holding egg would fail to possess distinguishable character. Another example can be taken of the default shape of mugs, glasses, vases, etc

Case Law–

Whirlpool of India Ltd vs. Videocon Industries Ltd (2014)

In this case, the plaintiff aimed to protect the shape and design of its washing machine, contending that the functional parts, like the drums, are situated inside the machine. The plaintiff argued that only the outer shape and configuration, which are designed for aesthetic appeal and do not serve a functional role, should be eligible for protection. The Bombay High Court granted protection to the design of the plaintiff’s semi-automatic washing machine, acknowledging it as distinctive and devoid of any functional attributes.

9) Section 9(3)(b) says that

A mark shall not be registered as a trade mark if, the shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result.

This sub section of the Trademark Act prohibits the registration of a mark that is exclusively “the shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result.” This means that a design that is crucial for the product’s functionality, like the shape of a plug made to fit into a socket, cannot be considered a distinctive trademark because of its technical function.

A clearer understanding of this expression can be illustrated with examples and relevant case law:

Example –

The shape of a straw, The shape of a car tyre, etc.

Case Law –

Zippo Manufacturing Company vs. Anil Moolchandani (2011)

The Delhi High Court provided protection for the design of a lighter created by the plaintiff, highlighting its distinctive shape. The court determined that since the shape served no functional purpose, replicating it could confuse consumers into believing that the defendant’s lighter was produced by the plaintiff’s company. Consequently, the court granted an injunction that barred the respondent from using a shape that was identical to the one registered by the appellant.

10) Section 9(3)(c) says that

A mark shall not be registered as a trade mark if, the shape which gives substantial value to the goods.

The shape of goods which adds substantial value to the goods, shapes are deemed to more effective than other alternatives for carrying out certain tasks.

This clause bars the registration of a trademark consisting of a shape which provide substantial value to the goods. The test to decipher what adds a substantial value to the goods in what compels a particular customer to select a particular shape over other shape and material or any other attributes of the product

A clearer understanding of this expression can be illustrated with examples:

Example –

The shape of straw, cups, bottle, etc.

• Relative Ground under section 11 –

The grounds for refusal outlined in Section 11 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, come into play when a proposed trademark may confuse the public due to its resemblance to an existing registered trademark.

The relative ground for refusal includes:

1. If your mark is similar to an existing mark and the goods or services associated with it are also similar.
2. If your mark resembles an existing mark, even if the goods or services differ.
3. If your mark closely similar a prior mark to the point that it may confuse the general public.
4. If your mark shares similarities with a well-known mark, and the registrar believes you might be trying to unfairly benefit from its goodwill and reputation.
5. If your mark is similar to an existing copyrighted work.
6. If your mark could be mistaken for a prior, non-registered mark that already exists.

ALL DEATIL ABOUT SECTION 11 OF TRADEMARK ACT 1999

1) Section 11(1) says that

Save as provided in section 12, trade mark shall not be registered if, because of-

• its identity with an earlier trade mark and similarly of goods or services covered by the trade mark, or
• its similarity to an earlier trade mark and the identity or similarity of the goods of services covered by the trade mark

Subclause (a) states that a trade mark will be denied registration if it is identical to a trade mark that is already registered or if it pertains to similar goods and services that the existing mark covers.

Subclause (b) indicates that a trade mark will also be denied registration if it is similar, but not identical, to an already registered trade mark or if it is linked to identical or similar goods and services.

A clearer understanding of this expression can be illustrated with examples and relevant case law:

Example:

If a brand name is similar to an existing one, it could lead to confusion. For example, “Sunset Electronics” and “Sunrise Electronics” are similar names.

Case Law

Nandhini Deluxe v. Karnataka Co-Operative Milk Producers Federation Limited (2018)

The case involved a dispute over the trademarks “NANDHINI” and “NANDINI.” The appellant, Nandhini Deluxe, sought to register “NANDHINI” for its restaurant services, while the respondent had already registered “NANDINI” for dairy products. The Supreme Court ruled that although the marks were similar, they could coexist since the goods offered by the parties were different (restaurants vs. dairy products).

2) Section 11(2) says that

A trade mark which –

• is identical with or similar to an earlier trade mark, and
• is to be registered for goods or services which are not similar to those for which the earlier trade mark is registered in the name of a different proprietor.

Shall not be registered if or to the extent the earlier trade mark is a well-known trade mark in India and use of the later mark without due cause would take unfair advantage of or be detrimental to the distinctive character or repute of the earlier trade mark.

To register a trademark, two key conditions must be met

First, the proposed trademark should not clash with any existing registered trademarks.

Second, the goods and services linked to the trademark must be distinct from those associated with any earlier registered trademark, particularly if that trademark is well-known in India. Not adhering to these conditions may lead to the rejection of the trademark application.

This clause is designed to prevent the misuse of the proposed trademark for unfair gain. Additionally, it seeks to protect the unique identity and reputation of the previously registered trademark.

A clearer understanding of this expression can be illustrated with examples and relevant case law:

Example:

An attempt to register “Google” for a line of clothing would likely be rejected, as it could dilute the distinctive character of the well-known trademark.

Case Law

FDC Limited v. Nilrise Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. (2022)

FDC Limited filed a suit against Nilrise Pharmaceuticals for using the mark “ZOYPOD,” claiming it was confusingly similar to their registered mark “ZIPOD” for a pharmaceutical product. The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction, restraining Nilrise from using “ZOYPOD,” finding the marks deceptively similar and likely to cause confusion among consumers. 

3) Section 11(3) says that

A trade mark shall not be registered if, or to the extent that, its use in India is liable to be prevented –

• by virtue of any law in particular the law of passing off protecting an unregistered trade mark used in the course of trade, or
• by virtue of law of copyright.

A trademark cannot be registered if any Indian law prohibits its registration. This encompasses laws that prevent the passing off of unregistered trademarks in India. Furthermore, it protects marks that cannot be registered due to copyright limitations, as specified in the Indian Copyright Act of 1957.

A clearer understanding of this expression can be illustrated with examples and relevant case law:

Example:

A consumer might easily confuse “Appal” with “Apple” due to their visual and phonetic similarity, leading to a potential “passing off” violation.

Case Law

Starbucks Corporation v. Sardarbuksh Coffee & Co (2018)

Starbucks Corporation took legal action against Sardarbuksh Coffee & Co. for trademark infringement and passing off, claiming that Sardarbuksh’s name and logo were too similar to its own, potentially leading to consumer confusion. The Delhi High Court sided with Starbucks, ordering Sardarbuksh to change its name and logo to avoid misleading the public.

4) Section 11(4) says that

Nothing in this section shall prevent the registration of a trade mark where the proprietor of the earlier trade mark or other earlier right consents to the registration, and in such case the Registrar may register the mark under special circumstances under section 12.

Explanation. – For the purposes of this section, earlier trade mark means-

• a registered trade mark or convention application referred to in section 154 which has a date of application earlier than that of the trade mark in question, taking account, where appropriate, of the priorities claimed in respect of the trade marks.
• a trade mark which, on the date of the application for registration of the trade mark in question, or where appropriate, of the priority claimed in respect of the application, was entitled to protection as a well-known trade mark.

A trademark can be registered under specific conditions as outlined in Section 12 of the Act. This is allowed if the owner of an earlier registered trademark or the holder of any related rights gives their consent to the Registrar for the trademark’s registration.

In this context, an “earlier trademark” includes:

• A trademark that is already registered.
• An application with an earlier filing date as per Section 18 of the Act, which also covers international registrations under Section 36E.
• A conventional application submitted under Section 154 of the Act that predates the trademark in question.
• A well-known trademark that was recognized before the application date for the trademark in question.

A clearer understanding of this expression can be illustrated with example:

Example:

If Nike explicitly gives permission for the company to use “Niki” as a trademark, then the Registrar could register the mark despite its similarity to “Nike” due to the consent provided.

5) Section 11(5) says that

A trade mark shall not be refused registration on the grounds specified in sub-section (2) and (3), unless objection on any one or more of those grounds is raised in opposition proceedings by the proprietor of the earlier trade mark.

According to this clause, if the owner of an existing registered trademark does not object on any grounds during the opposition process, the trademark registration will not be denied.

A clearer understanding of this expression can be illustrated with example:

Example:

Company A operates a popular brand called “Apple” of flavoured beverages and Company B Applies to register a trademark for “Applecart” for a line of fruit-based juices, despite the similarity between “Apple” and “applecart,” does not file an opposition against Company B’s trademark application. Registration allowed Because of the lack of opposition, even though the marks might be considered somewhat similar, the Registrar is likely to register “applecart” for Company B under Section 11(5). 

6) Section 11(6) says that

The Registrar shall, while determining whether a trade mark is a well-known trade mark, take into account any fact which he considers relevant for determining a trade mark as a well-known trade mark including –

• the knowledge or recognition of that trade mark in the relevant section of the public including knowledge in India obtained as a result of promotion of the trade mark.
• the duration, extent and geographical area of any use of that trade mark.
• the duration, extent and geographical area of any promotion of the trade mark, including advertising or publicity and presentation, at fairs or exhibition of the gods or services to which the trade mark applies.
• the duration and geographical area of any registration of or any publication for registration of that trade mark under this Act to the extent they reflect the use or recognition of the trade mark.
• the record of successful enforcement of the rights in that trade mark, in particular, the extent to which the trade mark has been recognized as a well-known trade mark by any court on Registrar under that record

The Registrar of Trade Marks has the discretion to evaluate any factors they find pertinent when assessing whether a trade mark is considered well-known. Important aspects to consider include:

• The degree of awareness and recognition of the trade mark within India and among the relevant public.
• The length of time, extent, and geographical area in which the trade mark has been used.
• The duration, scope, and geographical reach of the trade mark’s advertising efforts.
• The history of effective rights enforcement, including cases where the trade mark has been recognized as well-known by a court or registrar.

A clearer understanding of this expression can be illustrated with example:

Example: (COCA- COLA)

Public knowledge: The court would assess how widely the public recognizes the “Coca-Cola” brand.

Geographical reach: The extent to which the brand is known across different regions in India. 

Advertising and promotion: The significant marketing efforts by Coca-Cola to promote their brand. 

Past enforcement actions: Any previous legal cases where the company has successfully protected their trademark against infringement.

7) Section 11(7): says that

The Registrar shall, while determining as to whether a trade mark is known or recognized in a relevant section of the public for the purposes of sub-section (6), take into account.

• the number of actual or potential consumers of the goods or services.
• the number of persons involved in the channels of distribution of the goods or services.
• the business circles dealing with the goods or services.

To which that trade mark applies.

When determining if a trademark is recognized or known among the relevant public for clause (6), the registrar will also consider these factors:

• The number of current or potential consumers of the goods or services.
• The number of people involved in the distribution channel.
• The business circles dealing with the goods or services

A clearer understanding of this expression can be illustrated with example:

Example:

If a new company tries to register “Appli” for smartphone applications, while “Apple” is already a recognized brand in the tech industry, the Registrar needs to determine if “Appli” might confuse a substantial number of potential smartphone users in India. This evaluation would rely on the factors specified in Section 11(7).

8) Section 11(8) says that

Where a trade mark has been determined to be well-known in at least one relevant section of the public in India by any court or Registrar, the Registrar shall consider that trade mark as a well-known trade mark for registration under this Act.

As per this clause, if a trade mark has been determined as a well-known trade mark by virtue of any court or registrar, then the registrar shall consider it as a well-known trade mark for the purpose of this Act.

A clearer understanding of this expression can be illustrated with example:

Example:

A luxury fashion brand such as Louis Vuitton, looking to register a trademark in India for a new line of accessories, could utilize Section 11(8) because of its well-established global reputation, even if its presence in the Indian market is somewhat limited.

9) Section 11(9) says that

The Registrar shall not require as a condition, for determining whether a trade mark is a well-known trade mark, the any of the following, namely: –

• That the trade mark has been used in India,
• That the trade mark has been registered.
• That the application for registration of the trade mark has been filed in India.
• That the trade mark –
  • is well known in or
  • has been registered in; or
  • in respect of which an application for registration has been filed in, any jurisdiction other than India; or
• That the trade mark is well known to the public at large in India.

The Registrar, in evaluating if a trademark is well-known, might overlook specific factors, including:

• If the trademark has been previously used in India.
• If the trademark is already registered. 
• If the trademark has an application pending for registration.
• If the trademark is registered, recognized as well-known, or has a pending application for registration in other countries outside India.
• If the trademark is acknowledged as well-known within India.

A clearer understanding of this expression can be illustrated with example:

Example-

A luxury fashion brand “Tom Ford” is highly renowned American brand but relatively unknown in India. When applying to register “Tom Ford” as a trademark in India, the Registrar cannot deny the application simply because the brand does not have significant Indian market penetration, as long as evidence demonstrates its international reputation and “well-known” status.

10) Section 11(10) says that

While considering an application for registration of a trade mark and opposition filed in respect thereof, the Registrar shall –

• protect a well-known trade mark against the identical or similar trademarks
• take into consideration the bad faith involved either of the applicant or the opponent affecting the right relating to the trade mark.

This clause defines the responsibility and intent of this section through two sub-clauses:

• To protect well-known trademarks from identical or confusingly similar trademarks.
• To take into account the bad faith intentions of the applicant or the party making the objection.

A clearer understanding of this expression can be illustrated with example:

Example-

Registering “Samsung” for a local restaurant may be prohibited as it could harm the reputation of the well-known brand.

11) Section 11(11) says that

Where a trade mark has been registered in good faith disclosing the material information’s to the Registrar of where right to a trade mark has been acquired through use in good faith before the commencement of this Act, then, nothing in this Act shall prejudice the validity of the registration of the trade mark or right to use that trade mark on the ground that such trade mark is identical with or similar to a well-known trade mark.

If a trademark was registered prior to the commencement of this Act and is identical or similar to a well-known trademark, its registration will continue to be valid as long as it is used in good faith and the necessary information is provided to the registrar. In these instances, nothing in this Act will affect the validity of the trademark registration.

A clearer understanding of this expression can be illustrated with example:

Example-

Since Company A was using “Apple” for clothing in good faith before the Act came into effect, even though it may be considered similar to the well-known “Apple” brand of electronics, they would likely be protected under Section 11(11) and allowed to continue using their trademark

CONCLUSION

Sections 9 and 11 of the Trademark Act, 1999, play a crucial role in the regulation of trademark registration in India. Section 9 outlines the absolute grounds for refusal, which include marks that are not distinctive, are merely descriptive, or contain scandalous or obscene elements. On the other hand, Section 11 deals with relative grounds for refusal, concentrating on potential conflicts with existing trademarks, well-known trademarks, and copyright issues. These provisions are designed to protect consumers from confusion, maintain the goodwill of established brands, and ensure the integrity of the trademark registration process. A solid grasp of Sections 9 and 11 enables businesses and individuals to navigate the registration process more effectively, minimizing the chances of mistakes or rejections. The Trademark Act, 1999, provides a strong framework for protecting intellectual property rights while fostering fair competition and consumer welfare. By following the guidelines established in Sections 9 and 11, stakeholders can ensure that trademarks are registered and used in a manner that respects the rights of others and promotes fairness and transparency.

Authored By – Rituraj Khare (BBA LLB) 5^th year

Link to Ipindia’ website: https://www.ipindia.gov.in

Wish to read similar articles? Click on the link to read more: https://jpassociates.co.in/role-of-ipr-startup-growth/