The Supreme Court held that when a defendant adopts a mark identical to a registered trade mark for identical goods or services, likelihood of confusion is presumed under Section 29(3) of the Trade Marks Act 1999. The plaintiff need not separately prove confusion, reputation, or damage, and the Section 30(1) honest-practices defence is unavailable unless both honesty and the absence of unfair advantage are shown.
A Division Bench of the Madras High Court revived the 'Idhayam' trademark suits, holding that the unauthorised affixing of a registered mark in India on goods meant solely for export is a triable cause of action for infringement. A digest of the facts, the Order VII Rule 11 error, and the export-as-use question under the Trade Marks Act 1999.
In 1978 a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court dismissed R.G. Anand's claim that the film 'New Delhi' had pirated his stage play 'Hum Hindustani', holding that there is no copyright in an idea, theme or plot. A digest of the facts, the seven propositions Justice Fazal Ali laid down, and the lay-observer test that still governs Indian infringement law.
Bombay HC declares 'Shaadi.com' a well-known mark under Section 2(1)(zg); its reputation transcends matchmaking, so 'getshaadi.com' infringes the mark.