Key provisions of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, include the registration of trademarks, assignment, licensing, and protection against infringement and passing off. To be registrable, a trademark must be distinctive, non-descriptive, and not identical or confusingly similar to existing marks. A trademark registration is valid for ten years and can be renewed indefinitely.

Judgments:

1. Bata India Ltd. v. Chawla Boot House (2016): This case clarified the principle of trans-border reputation, which means that a trademark holder can assert their rights in India even if the trademark is famous internationally but not registered in India. Bata, an international footwear brand, successfully prevented a local business from using a deceptively similar mark.
2. Nandhini Deluxe v. Karnataka Co-operative Milk Producers Federation Ltd. (2018): The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the defendant, stating that using a geographical name in a trademark is not inherently deceptive. This judgment provided clarity on the use of geographical names in trademarks.
3. Colgate-Palmolive Company v. Anchor Health and Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd. (2020): The Delhi High Court in this case emphasized the importance of a “family” of trademarks, allowing Colgate to protect its well-known “COLGATE” brand and variations like “COLGATE STRONG” against infringing products.
4. Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v. Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd. (2020): In this case, the Bombay High Court ruled in favor of Hindustan Unilever, recognizing the well-known status of their “RIN” brand and the need to protect it against dilution and tarnishment by the defendant’s “GHARI” detergent brand.
5. M/s Marico Limited v. M/s Agro Tech Foods Limited (2021): This judgment reinforced the principle that even though two marks share a common generic element, they can still be distinguishable based on the dominant non-generic portions of the marks. Marico successfully defended its “SAFFOLA” brand against Agro Tech Foods’ “SAFFOLALITE.”