Long before India had a dedicated statutory framework for protecting well-known trademarks, its courts were already doing the heavy lifting. Through the common law action of passing off, Indian judges consistently shielded internationally recognized marks from being exploited by local traders – even when those marks were not registered in India and the foreign brand had no active business presence here. This judicial tradition, spanning roughly from the mid-1980s to the enactment of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, laid a remarkably progressive foundation for India’s alignment with global trademark norms.
Table of Contents
- The legal landscape before 1999
- The landmark case: Kamal Trading Co. v. Gillette UK Limited (1988)
- What the Bombay High Court held
- The doctrine of transborder reputation
- Extending protection to dissimilar goods: the Daimler Benz case
- What the courts were doing: a departure from strict territoriality
- Other notable pre-1999 decisions
- How 1999 changed the landscape
- Significance of the common law era
The legal landscape before 1999
The Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 – the law that governed trademarks in India before 1999 – contained no specific provisions recognizing or protecting “well-known” marks as a distinct category. There was no statutory definition, no special test, and no provision extending protection beyond the class of goods for which a mark was registered. The Indian Legislature extended extraordinary protection to well-known marks only in 1999, and prior to that, such marks were protected under the common law principles of passing off.
Passing off is a tort that prevents one party from misrepresenting its goods or services as those of another. In the trademark context, its classic requirements are: the claimant must have goodwill or reputation attached to the mark, there must be a misrepresentation by the defendant likely to deceive the public, and actual or likely damage must result. But what made India’s pre-1999 jurisprudence distinctive was how courts stretched and applied these principles to protect foreign marks whose physical products were not even being sold in India at the time of the dispute.
The landmark case: Kamal Trading Co. v. Gillette UK Limited (1988)
Gillette UK Limited was a subsidiary of the Gillette Company, USA, which had been carrying on a worldwide business in the manufacture and sale of safety razor blades, safety razors, shaving creams, shaving brushes, and related goods for several years. The company had been using the trademark ‘7 O’CLOCK’ since 1913 and had entered into a collaboration agreement with Indian Shaving Products Limited for the manufacture and sale of safety razor blades in India. Gillette’s goods had not been directly imported into India after 1958 due to import restrictions.
In 1985, Gillette became aware that Kamal Trading Co. was selling toothbrushes in the Bombay market under the same trademark ‘7 O’CLOCK’. The mark appeared with an ‘R’ in a circle – indicating registration – and the packaging bore the expression ‘Hollywood-London-Paris’, making it deceptively similar to Gillette’s registered mark. Gillette instituted a passing off action and obtained an interim injunction from the District Court. Kamal Trading appealed to the Bombay High Court.
What the Bombay High Court held
The appellants (Kamal Trading) raised two principal arguments: first, that Gillette had not been selling its products in India since 1958, meaning it had no subsisting goodwill in the country; and second, that the two products – razors and toothbrushes – belonged to entirely different classes, so there could be no confusion. The Bombay High Court rejected both arguments decisively.
The Court held that it was not possible to conclude that goodwill or reputation stands extinguished merely because goods are not available in a country for some duration. It reasoned that goodwill is not limited to a particular country because trade has spread all over the world and goods are transported from one country to another very rapidly and on an extensive scale.
Crucially, the court also addressed the cross-category issue. The Bombay High Court held that the plaintiff had acquired an extensive reputation all over the world, including India, by using the mark ‘7 O’CLOCK’ on razors and shaving creams, and that the use of an identical mark by the defendant on toothbrushes would lead the customer to be deceived. The court’s reasoning was simple and powerful: the entire purpose of passing off law is to prevent a person from selling their own goods under the pretence that they are the goods of another.
In doing so, the Bombay High Court dissented from the English law position laid down in the Budweiser case, which had held that sporadic sales to a limited audience could not constitute sufficient business presence to ground an injunction. This was a conscious departure – Indian courts were carving out a more expansive, globally-oriented approach to trademark protection.
The doctrine of transborder reputation
The Kamal Trading judgment was one of the earliest Indian articulations of what would become a well-established doctrine: transborder reputation. The idea is that in an era of global communication, international travel, and cross-border advertising, a brand’s goodwill can permeate a market even without physical sales in that market.
The modes of communication mean that the reputation of a product or service can easily transcend territorial limits through promotions, advertisements, commercial publicity, and international market presence. Several marks, despite not being marketed or used in India, have obtained judicial protection under the common law of passing off.
This principle was firmly crystallized by the Supreme Court in N.R. Dongre v. Whirlpool Corporation (1996). The Supreme Court held that the knowledge and awareness of a trademark in respect of the goods of a trader is not necessarily restricted only to the people of the country where such goods are freely available, but the knowledge and awareness of the same reaches even the shores of those countries where the goods have not been marketed. When a product is launched in one country, people in other countries become acquainted with it almost simultaneously through advertisements in newspapers, magazines, television, and cinemas, even where the product is unavailable due to import restrictions. Dissemination of knowledge of a trademark through advertising in media amounts to use of the trademark, whether or not that advertising is coupled with actual availability of the product.
In the Whirlpool case, the plaintiff had not subsequently renewed their trademark registration after 1977. At the relevant time, Whirlpool had a worldwide reputation and used to sell their machines at the US Embassy in India and also advertised in international magazines having circulation in India. Despite this, the defendant had started using the mark on its own washing machines. Both the Delhi High Court and later the Supreme Court sided with Whirlpool, confirming that transborder reputation, evidenced through advertising spillover, was sufficient to sustain a passing off claim.
Extending protection to dissimilar goods: the Daimler Benz case
While Kamal Trading involved two products with some consumer overlap (personal grooming goods), Indian courts went further still. In Daimler Benz Aktiengesellschaft v. Hybo Hindustan (AIR 1994 Del 239), the Delhi High Court protected the famous Mercedes-Benz brand against its use on a completely unrelated category of goods.
An injunction was sought by German car manufacturer Mercedes Benz against the defendant, an Indian entity which was using a three-pointed star (represented in human form) within a circle with the word ‘Benz’ for totally unrelated goods – in this instance, vests and briefs. The Delhi High Court granted the injunction against the defendant, holding that the symbol represented both internationally and in India the highest standards of quality.
The court observed that the mark ‘Benz’ is not an ordinary trademark but a mark of quality, excellence, and international repute. The use of such a mark in connection with any other goods would lead to the dilution of its distinctiveness and tarnish the image. This ruling pushed India’s common law protection further toward the concept of trademark dilution – the idea that a famous mark can be harmed not just by confusion, but by having its exclusive identity blurred or tarnished through association with unrelated goods.
What the courts were doing: a departure from strict territoriality
The classical rule in trademark law, inherited from English jurisprudence, is the territoriality principle – a trademark only has rights in the territory where it is registered and used. India’s pre-1999 courts consciously moved away from this strict interpretation. The line of action followed by Indian courts on the protection of foreign marks indicates a positive departure from the English and American approach. The actions of the Indian judiciary were laudatory, reflecting the flexible stands taken in affording foreign well-known trademarks their due recognition against misuse and unscrupulous infringement.
In many cases, the courts did not follow the classical interpretation of goodwill and reputation that required a mark to be used in India, but instead relied on the transborder reputation acquired by a trademark. The judicial thinking was to discourage the practice of well-known brands being copied by local traders.
The courts developed a practical test: could it be shown that a meaningful segment of the Indian public – whether traders, consumers, or those likely to purchase the goods – was aware of the foreign mark? If so, goodwill existed in India, and passing off could be established. Evidence of awareness typically came from advertising in international publications that circulated in India, presence at international trade fairs, and goods being sold to embassy personnel or diplomatic communities.
Other notable pre-1999 decisions
The Kamal Trading, Whirlpool, and Daimler Benz cases were not isolated instances. The Delhi High Court in Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association v. Blue Cross Health Clinic (1990) granted an ex-parte injunction on the ground that there was international reputation of the plaintiff’s mark, although there was no registration or use of the trademark in India. Similarly, in 1991, the Delhi High Court in Apple Computer Inc. v. Apple Leasing restrained a local defendant from using the word “APPLE” and its associated half-bitten apple device for computer education services, even though Apple had no direct business in India at the time due to import restrictions. In Calvin Klein Inc. v. International Apparel Syndicate (1996), the Calcutta High Court observed that the goodwill and reputation of an international trademark are entitled to protection even where there was no user of the mark in India by the plaintiff.
Each of these decisions reinforced a consistent message from Indian courts: the owner of an internationally recognized mark does not lose its common law rights in India simply because market conditions, import restrictions, or regulatory barriers kept its products off Indian shelves.
How 1999 changed the landscape
When the Trade Marks Act, 1999 came into force (with effect from September 15, 2003), it formalized what the courts had already been doing through case law. Section 2(1)(zg) of the Act defines a ‘well-known trademark’ as one which has become so well known to the substantial segment of the public which uses such goods that the use of such mark in relation to other goods or services would be likely to be taken as indicating a connection between those goods and a person using the mark in relation to the first-mentioned goods.
Sections 11(6) to 11(9) of the Act lay down an inclusive checklist for Registrars while determining whether a mark is ‘well-known’, and notably, one of the factors that need not be considered is whether the mark is used or registered in India – suggesting that the statute protects marks from different geographical locations and extends well-known status to foreign marks.
The courts were already actively protecting well-known trademarks prior to the Act’s entry into force, but the clear criteria under the Act have helped brand owners assess more accurately the evidence and information required for a mark to qualify as well known. The statute also introduced explicit protection against use on dissimilar goods under Section 29(4), something the courts had pioneered in Daimler Benz nearly a decade earlier.
The transition from common law to statute was thus not a disruption but a codification. The 1999 Act took the principles the judiciary had developed case by case – transborder reputation, goodwill without physical presence, cross-category protection – and gave them a permanent statutory home, aligning India with its obligations under the TRIPS Agreement and the Paris Convention.
Significance of the common law era
The period between the mid-1980s and 1999 is more than a historical footnote. It demonstrates that India’s courts proactively developed a coherent, internationally-aware body of trademark law in the absence of any statutory mandate to do so. The judges recognized that in a world connected by media, travel, and international trade, the strict territoriality principle was inadequate to prevent the exploitation of foreign brands by local opportunists.
The Kamal Trading judgment in particular stands as a watershed – it established that physical sale is not the only measure of market presence, that goodwill built through decades of global use cannot be erased by a temporary absence from the Indian market, and that passing off can succeed even across different categories of goods when the mark in question is sufficiently famous. These principles remain central to Indian trademark law today.
What do you think? If a well-known foreign brand has zero sales in India but is regularly advertised in international magazines available here, should that alone be enough to block an Indian company from registering the same mark domestically? And given how courts applied passing off so expansively before 1999, was there any real need for the statutory framework that followed – or did the Trade Marks Act, 1999 simply confirm what the judiciary had already achieved through common law?
Leave a Reply