VidhiAagaz
International Journal ofLaw Management & Humanities
ISSN 2581-5369 · Open access
International Journal ofLaw Management & Humanities
Open accessResearch PaperVol. 7 No. V (2024)pp. 815–823

Generic Marks, Secondary Meaning and Trademark Bullying in India

GM
Guru Vignesh M.Student at Tamil Nadu National Law University, India
View PDF
753views400downloads
Published 28 September 2024 · pp. 815–823 · Vol. 7 No. V (2024)
Abstract

Generic Marks, which are generally not protected by registration is protected if they acquire a secondary meaning. There are different methods to prove that a ‘generic term’ has attained a secondary meaning. ‘Survey methods’ are usually accepted in courts to establish a prima facie case in this context. When bigger companies register a generic trade mark, they exhibit a tendency to bully smaller companies with legal actions and ultimately force them to settle or rebrand their products in the market. Though false threat of infringement is dealt with under the Indian Trademark laws, the issue of trade mark bullying is not directly addressed. The case of ‘Nandhini Deluxe’ fits the definition of trademark bullying and shows an emerging trend of trademark bullying in India.

Keywords
TrademarksGeneric NamesSurvey methodsSecondary MeaningTrademark Bullying

How to cite

Guru Vignesh M., Generic Marks, Secondary Meaning and Trademark Bullying in India, 7 Int'l J. L. Mgmt. & Human. 815 (2024).

Cite this article

Guru Vignesh M., Generic Marks, Secondary Meaning and Trademark Bullying in India, 7 Int'l J. L. Mgmt. & Human. 815 (2024).
Chat with us