Office Location


E-5, 2nd Floor, Defence Colony
New Delhi - 110024
Tel : 011-24336744



Office No. 1410, 14th Floor, Maker Chamber V, Nariman Point, Mumbai
Tel : +91 22-22873499



Level 18, One Horizon Center, Golf Course Road, DLF Phase 5, Sector 43, Gurgaon 122002, India
Tel : +91 124 668 8146 / +91 124 668 8147


Mumbai (Entertainment and Media Practice)

Office No. 213, 2nd Floor, A-wing, Crystal Plaza, Andheri Link Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai.
Tel : 022-62360762


Mumbai (Corporate and Transactional Practice)

909/A, Capital Building, Bandra Kurla Complex, East Mumbai- 400098



21/2, 1st Main Road,
Opp Indian overseas Bank,
Bengaluru - 560009



77A, Cantt., Kanpur - 208004

Cipla Limited is the registered trade mark holder of the mark CIPLA in Class 5

Cipla Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Plaintiff') is the registered trade mark holder of the mark CIPLA in Class 5, whereas M/s Cipla Industries Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Defendants') have registration for the mark CIPLA PLAST in Class 21.

In 2012, the Plaintiff filed a suit for infringement and passing-off against the Defendants. The Plaintiff claimed that the Defendants have infringed upon their marks by incorporating the Plaintiffs' registered trade mark into their trade name/corporate name. Justice Gautam Patel vide his order dated April 26, 2016, expressed that he is not in consonance with the findings of the Division Bench in Raymond vs. Raymond Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.1 and that Division Bench's view required reconsideration.

The Plaintiff submitted that Sections 29(4) and (5) are inclusive and that the statute must be read as a whole to give a consistent and harmonious interpretation. Additionally, the Plaintiff submitted that the Division Bench overlooked Section 29 (8), and that sub-section (8) will apply irrespective of the goods or the nature of business of the Defendants.

The Defendant submitted that sub-section (4) can only be invoked when it is a "Trade Mark versus Mark" situation and NOT in the case of a "Trade Name versus Name" situation and asserted that a literal interpretation of the subsections (4) and (5) will have to be made. The Full Bench while interpreting Section 29 (5) of the Act laid down the following requirements for invoking Sub-Section (5). Firstly, the infringer should use a registered trade mark as his trade name or as part of his trade name. Secondly, the infringer should be using the trade mark in respect of similar goods and services. The question before the Court was, whether Section 29 (4) of the Act can be invoked in a case where the second requirement of Sub-Section (5) is not met. The Honorable Court was of the view that the phraseology makes it clear that Sub-Section (4) applies in a 'trade mark versus mark' situation and hence cannot be applied as both the Sub-Sections are mutually exclusive.

As the language of both the Sub-Sections are plain and clear, a literal rule of interpretation has to be applied. The words "in the course of trade" and "in relation to goods or services" used in Sections 29 (4) of the Act are not used in Section 29 (5) of the Act and the words "if he uses such registered trademark, as his trade name, or the name of his business concern or part of the name, of name of his business concern" used in Section 29 (5) are absent in Sections 29 (4) of the Act.

The Full Bench has interpreted the relevant provisions of the Act, by engaging in a literal interpretation of Sub-Sections (4) and (5) of Section 29, and have consequently made it quite difficult for a well-known mark or an ordinary trade mark to receive protection if it is used as a trade name in case of dissimilar goods.

The reference as decided by the Full Bench of Bombay High Court has far reaching consequences. As per strict interpretation of Sub-Section (5) of Section 29 of Act, the Plaintiff can invoke the said Section only if it is the registered proprietor of the trademark and the Defendant uses such registered trademark as his trade name or part of his trade name or name of his business concern dealing in goods or services in respect of which the trademark is registered. For dissimilar goods or services, Plaintiff cannot avail reliefs under Sub-Section 5 of Section 29 of the Act.

It would be interesting to see if the Apex Court upholds the decision of the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court should Cipla Limited decides to appeal