Safeguarding Trade Dress in India: Emerging Jurisprudence, Trends and Challenges (A Comparative Analysis with the United States)
Keywords:
Trade dress, trademark, functionality, distinctiveness, dilution, infringement, passing-offAbstract
Trade dress means the overall physical appearance of a product or service. It may include size, shape, combination of colours, method of packaging, etc. The main function of a trade dress is to create visual appeal of a proprietor’s product or service in the market so as to influence the choice of potential consumers. The ever-growing jurisprudence pertaining to trade dress has been dealt with in this paper in the context of United States and India. Various issues like functionality, distinctiveness, secondary
meaning, infringement and dilution of trade dress shall be discussed with the help of relevant precedents and statutory provisions. The article attempts to analyze the current scenario of legal protection of trade dress and interests of business owners in the Indian market.
References
Jay Franco & Sons, Inc. v. Franek, 615 F.3d 855 (7th Cir. 2010).
Qualitex, slip op. at 6; citing Inwood Laboratories, Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc., 456 U.S. 844, 850-51 (1982).
Available at https://www.upcounsel.com/trade-dress (last accessed on 24-05-19)
Ibid.
Matthew Emanuel Pineda, An Overview of Trade Dress Law in The United States, available at https://www.profolus.com/topics/trade-dress-law-united-states/ (last accessed on 25-05-19)
505 U.S. 763 (1992)
547 F.Supp. 1095 (D.N.J. 1982)
11 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1843 (S.D. Cal. 1989)
[Ferrari] Esercizio v. Roberts, 944 F.2d 1235 (6th Cir. 1991)
39 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1737 (M.D.Fla. 1995)
44 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1161 (5th Cir. 1997)
879 F.Supp. 1200 (N.D.Ga. 1995)
115 S. Ct. 1300 (1995)
In re Clarke, 17 U.S.P.Q.2d 1238 (T.T.A.B. 1990)
615 F.Supp. 628 (D. Mass. 1984)
In re Chippendales USA, Inc., 90 U.S.P.Q.2d 1535 (TTAB 2009)
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Brothers, Inc., 529 U.S. 205 (2000)
Traffix Devices v Marketing Displays, 121 S.Ct 1255 (2001)
ERBE Elektromedizin GmbH v. Canady Technology LLC, 629 F.3d 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
See Section 2(j) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
See Section 2(z) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
See Section 2(zb) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
2003 VIIIAD Delhi 228, 108 (2003) DLT 51, 2003 (27) PTC 478 Del, 2004 (1) RAJ 214
See http://www.lawyerservices.in/United-Distillers-Plc-Versus-Jagdish-Joshi-2000-07-28 (last accessed on 31-05-19)
142 (2007) DLT 724, MIPR 2007 (2) 269, 2007 (35) PTC 95 Del
2011 (47) PTC 100 (Bom.)
AIR 1972 SC 1359
CS (OS) 4 of 2011
CS(COMM) 714/2016
Reckitt & Colman Products Ltd. v Borden Inc. [1990] 1 WLR 491
Daimler Benz Aktiegesellschaft & Anr. v. Eagle Flask Industries Ltd., ILR (1995) 2 Del 817.
Daimler Benz Aktiegesellschaft v. Hybo Hindustan, AIR 1994 Del. 239.
Honda Motors Co. Ltd. v. Charanjeet Singh, 101 (2002) DLT 359.
Caterpillar Inc. v. Mehtab Ahmed, 2002 (25) PTC 483 Del.
Ford Motor Co. v. C.R. Borman, 2008 (38) PTC 76 (Del).
ITC Ltd. Philip Morris Products SA & others, 2010 (42) PTC 572 (Del.)
Yahoo! Inc. v. Sanjay Patel & Ors, CS (OS) 949/2015
