Abstract

The article covers the main points regarding the Doctrine of Acquiescence in trademark law. It begins by explaining the nature of equity law and how it differs from strict statutory law, emphasizing the principles of justice and fairness. The article then introduces the doctrine of Acquiescence and its Latin maxim, highlighting its application in Indian courts and legislation. The article goes on to discuss the distinction between the Doctrine of Acquiescence and laches, explaining that they are both types of estoppel but differ in their application and consequences. It mentions that acquiescence destroys the right itself, while laches destroys the remedy but not the right. The objective of the article is clearly stated as addressing the lack of clarity and controversial application of the Doctrine of Acquiescence in trademark law. It mentions the intention to refer to various contradictory case laws to elaborate on the nature of the doctrine. The structure of the article is outlined, with two main sections: the issue of lack of clarity and the issue of controversial application. Under the first section, the article delves into the differing interpretations of the term "positive act of encouragement" and the confusion regarding when "mere ignorance" transforms into "positive encouragement." It highlights conflicting judgments and provides examples from case law. The second section discusses the controversial application of the doctrine, focusing on a Delhi High Court judgment that clarifies the defense of acquiescence against a registered proprietor of a trademark. It also mentions two Bombay High Court judgments with opposing views on the matter. The article concludes by summarizing the key points discussed, emphasizing the need for clarity and consistency in the application of the Doctrine of Acquiescence in trademark law to protect intellectual property rights effectively.

Keywords