The protection of luxury brands presents trademark law with some of its most commercially significant and doctrinally demanding challenges. Luxury goods defined not merely by their price point but by the combination of heritage, craftsmanship, exclusivity, and aspirational identity that constitutes their essential commercial character depend on their trademarks in a manner qualitatively different from ordinary consumer goods. The trademark of a luxury brand is not merely a source identifier it is the vessel that carries the brand’s entire commercial and cultural value, the symbol through which consumers access the aspirational dimension of luxury consumption, and the primary asset around which the brand’s business model is constructed. When that trademark is infringed through counterfeiting, parallel importation, dilution, or unauthorised commercial association the harm inflicted on the brand is not merely a diversion of sales revenue but a fundamental damage to the exclusivity, prestige, and integrity that constitute the brand’s most valuable attributes.
India presents a uniquely complex environment for luxury brand protection. On one hand, India is among the world’s fastest-growing luxury goods markets, with a rapidly expanding consumer base of high-net-worth individuals who are sophisticated purchasers of global luxury brands across fashion, jewellery, watches, automobiles, spirits, and hospitality. On the other hand, India has a substantial and commercially sophisticated counterfeiting industry, a complex legal system in which enforcement proceedings can be protracted and outcomes uncertain, a parallel importation regime whose legal boundaries are not yet definitively resolved, and a grey market trade in luxury goods that challenges the brand owner’s control over distribution and pricing.
This article examines the full spectrum of luxury brand protection in India the distinctive characteristics of luxury trademark protection, the threats that luxury brands face in the Indian market, the statutory and common law instruments available to brand owners, the judicial framework that has developed for the enforcement of luxury trademark rights, the specific challenges of counterfeiting and the enforcement mechanisms available to address it, the parallel importation question, the dilution framework as applied to luxury marks, and the strategic approaches that luxury brand owners employ to protect their most valuable assets in the Indian market.
The Distinctive Character of Luxury Trademark Protection
Luxury trademarks differ from ordinary trademarks in ways that have direct implications for the scope and nature of the protection they require and deserve. Understanding these differences is essential to appreciating why the legal framework for luxury brand protection presents specific doctrinal challenges that do not arise with the same force in the ordinary consumer goods context.
The most fundamental distinguishing characteristic of a luxury trademark is the role of exclusivity in its commercial value. An ordinary trademark derives its value from the consumer’s ability to identify and locate goods of consistent quality from a particular source. A luxury trademark derives its value not only from this source-identification function but from the consumer’s understanding that the mark signifies membership in an exclusive category that goods bearing the mark are available only through limited, controlled channels, that they are produced in limited quantities by skilled craftspeople using premium materials, and that their possession communicates a particular social and cultural status. The exclusivity itself is a commercial value that the trademark embodies, and any use of the mark that undermines that exclusivity whether through counterfeiting, unauthorised distribution, or association with inferior goods harms the brand in ways that go beyond the conventional trademark harm of consumer confusion.
This exclusivity dimension of luxury trademark value has direct implications for the scope of protection that luxury marks require. A luxury mark deserves protection not only against uses that cause consumer confusion the standard trademark infringement analysis but against uses that dilute the mark’s exclusive associations, tarnish its prestige, or undermine the consumer’s understanding that genuine luxury goods bearing the mark are available only through authorised channels. The dilution doctrine, which protects famous marks against harm to their distinctive character and reputation regardless of consumer confusion, is therefore of particular importance in the luxury brand context.
The second distinguishing characteristic of luxury trademarks is the degree of consumer sophistication involved in luxury goods purchasing. The purchaser of a genuine luxury product a Hermès Birkin bag, a Patek Philippe watch, or a bottle of Petrus is typically a highly sophisticated consumer who is intimately familiar with the brand’s visual identity, quality standards, and authorised distribution channels. This sophistication reduces the risk of direct confusion between genuine luxury goods and high-quality counterfeits in the purchase of genuine goods from authorised channels. But it creates a different kind of harm the sophisticated luxury consumer who purchases what they believe to be a genuine product at an authorised retailer and subsequently discovers it is counterfeit suffers a profound betrayal of trust that ordinary trademark confusion does not replicate. And the consumer who knowingly purchases a counterfeit luxury good from an unauthorised channel exploiting the brand’s visual identity without the brand’s quality participates in a transaction that harms the brand’s prestige and exclusivity even though they are not confused.
The Threat Landscape – Counterfeiting, Dilution, Parallel Importation, and Grey Markets
Luxury brands in India face four principal categories of trademark threat, each presenting distinct legal challenges and requiring distinct enforcement responses.
Counterfeiting the manufacture and sale of goods that bear unauthorised reproductions of a luxury brand’s registered trademarks is the most direct and most commercially damaging form of luxury trademark infringement. The Indian counterfeiting market encompasses a wide range of luxury product categories fashion accessories, watches, jewellery, cosmetics, spirits, and textiles and operates at multiple levels of sophistication, from crude imitations that are obvious fakes to high-quality counterfeits that are difficult to distinguish from genuine goods without expert examination.
The commercial harm caused by counterfeiting to luxury brands is multidimensional. The direct revenue loss from the diversion of sales to counterfeit products is one dimension, though its magnitude in the luxury context is debated many purchasers of counterfeit luxury goods would not purchase genuine goods at luxury prices, so the counterfeit sale does not necessarily represent a lost genuine sale. More significant, from the luxury brand perspective, is the reputational harm the association of the brand’s trademark with inferior goods damages the brand’s prestige, undermines consumer confidence in the authenticity of genuine goods bearing the mark, and erodes the exclusivity that is central to the luxury value proposition.
Trademark dilution through blurring and tarnishment is the second major threat to luxury brands in India, and it has been examined in detail in the preceding article on trademark dilution. For luxury brands, dilution by tarnishment is of particular concern the use of a luxury mark in relation to goods of inferior quality, or in commercial contexts inconsistent with the brand’s prestigious associations, directly damages the brand’s most valuable asset its reputation for exclusivity and quality.
Parallel importation the importation and sale of genuine goods bearing the trademark owner’s authorised mark by a trader who has obtained those goods outside the trademark owner’s authorised distribution network raises complex legal questions about the exhaustion of trademark rights and the trademark owner’s ability to maintain control over the price and conditions of sale of their goods in the Indian market. The parallel importation question is examined in detail in a subsequent section of this article.
Grey market trade the sale of genuine goods obtained through irregular channels, often at prices below those of the authorised distribution network is a threat that is distinct from both counterfeiting and parallel importation. Grey market goods are genuine they bear the trademark owner’s authorised mark and are manufactured to the trademark owner’s standards. But they are sold outside the authorised distribution network, without the trademark owner’s authorisation, and at prices that undercut authorised retailers. Grey market trade undermines the brand owner’s control over distribution, pricing, and the consumer experience associated with their brand, and it may expose consumers to goods that have not been serviced or warranted in accordance with the brand’s standards.
The Statutory Framework – Trademark Infringement and Luxury Brands
The primary statutory instrument for the protection of luxury trademarks in India is the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which provides the registered trademark owner with the exclusive right to use the mark in relation to the registered goods or services and the right to restrain others from infringing that exclusive right. The infringement provisions of Section 29, the dilution provisions of Section 29(4), and the well-known trademark provisions of Sections 2(1)(zg) and 11(6) to (10) are of particular relevance to luxury brand protection.
Section 29(1) provides the foundation for infringement claims in the classic counterfeiting context where the infringing mark is identical to the registered luxury mark and is used in relation to identical goods. In the luxury brand counterfeiting context, the mark used by the counterfeiter is typically identical or virtually identical to the registered mark, the goods are identical to the registered goods, and the infringement is established without difficulty once the use is proven. The challenge in luxury counterfeiting enforcement is not the legal analysis but the practical identification of the infringers, the seizure of the counterfeit goods, and the enforcement of court orders across the geographically dispersed and often clandestine distribution networks through which counterfeit luxury goods reach consumers.
Section 29(4) extends infringement protection to the use of a sign identical or similar to a registered trademark in relation to goods or services that are dissimilar to those for which the mark is registered, where the registered trademark has a reputation in India and the use takes unfair advantage of or is detrimental to the distinctive character or repute of the registered trademark. This provision is of considerable importance for luxury brands it enables the trademark owner to restrain the use of their mark in relation to goods entirely unrelated to those for which the mark is registered, where that use would exploit the mark’s prestige or damage its reputation.
The well-known trademark provisions provide the broadest form of protection available to luxury brands under the Indian statutory framework. A mark that has been declared well-known by the Trade Marks Registry, or that the courts have found to be well-known in the context of enforcement proceedings, is protected against registration or use of identical or similar marks in any class of goods or services. For global luxury brands whose marks have achieved extraordinary recognition in India LOUIS VUITTON, CHANEL, GUCCI, ROLEX, CARTIER well-known trademark status provides the widest possible scope of statutory protection and the strongest basis for enforcement actions across the full range of infringing uses.
The Passing Off Action in the Luxury Context
The common law action of passing off preserved by Section 27(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 provides an important supplementary instrument for luxury brand protection in India, particularly where the brand owner’s registered trademark rights do not fully cover the infringing use, or where the brand owner wishes to protect aspects of their commercial identity get-up, trade dress, house style that may not be formally registered as trademarks.
In the luxury context, passing off claims frequently arise in relation to the overall commercial presentation of counterfeit goods the packaging, labelling, presentation, and merchandising of counterfeit goods that imitates the distinctive presentation of genuine luxury goods to create the impression that the counterfeit goods are authentic. The goodwill of a luxury brand attaches not only to its registered trademarks but to the entire commercial presentation of its goods, and the unauthorised reproduction of that commercial presentation even where it does not involve the exact reproduction of a registered mark may constitute the misrepresentation necessary for a passing off action.
The Supreme Court’s articulation of the passing off principles in Laxmikant V. Patel v. Chetanbhai Shah & Anr. ((2002) 3 SCC 65) and the Delhi High Court’s application of those principles in the luxury brand context confirm that the passing off action is available to luxury brand owners who can establish the necessary goodwill, misrepresentation, and damage. The goodwill requirement is typically easily satisfied in the luxury context luxury brands by definition have substantial and well-established goodwill in their commercial identities.
Counterfeiting Enforcement – Civil and Criminal Remedies
The enforcement of luxury trademark rights against counterfeiting in India involves both civil and criminal remedies, and an effective enforcement strategy typically employs both in a coordinated manner.
The civil remedies available against trademark counterfeiting are the standard remedies available in trademark infringement proceedings an injunction, damages or an account of profits, and delivery up or destruction of infringing materials. In the luxury brand context, the injunction is the primary civil remedy it restrains the continuation of the infringing activity and, if granted on an ex parte basis at the outset of proceedings, enables the brand owner to act before the infringer becomes aware of the litigation and takes steps to conceal or dispose of the counterfeit goods.
The Anton Piller order now known as a search and seizure order is one of the most powerful and most frequently used civil enforcement instruments in luxury brand counterfeiting cases in India. An Anton Piller order is granted by the court on an ex parte basis, without notice to the defendant, and authorises the plaintiff or the plaintiff’s representatives to enter the defendant’s premises, search for and inspect counterfeit goods and related materials, and seize those materials pending the determination of the substantive proceedings. The element of surprise is essential to the effectiveness of Anton Piller orders in counterfeiting cases a defendant who has advance notice of the search will typically remove or conceal the counterfeit goods before the search party arrives.
The Delhi High Court has been particularly active in granting Anton Piller orders in luxury brand counterfeiting cases, and the Court has developed a sophisticated practice for the conduct of such searches that balances the brand owner’s enforcement interest against the procedural rights of the defendant. The Court typically appoints a Local Commissioner an officer of the court to supervise the search and to ensure that it is conducted in accordance with the terms of the order and without abuse of the ex parte procedure.
The criminal remedies for trademark counterfeiting are found in Section 103 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which provides for imprisonment of up to three years and fines for the offence of applying a false trademark or trade description to goods or services, and Section 104, which provides for enhanced penalties in cases of repeat offending. The criminal prosecution of trademark counterfeiting is the responsibility of the police, and brand owners who wish to pursue criminal action against counterfeiters must typically work with law enforcement agencies to initiate raids, seizures, and prosecutions.
In practice, criminal enforcement of trademark rights against luxury brand counterfeiting has been more effective in some Indian jurisdictions than others. The Delhi Police’s Intellectual Property Cell and similar specialised enforcement units in other major cities have developed considerable expertise in trademark counterfeiting enforcement and have been effective partners for luxury brand owners in coordinated enforcement campaigns. The Customs authorities also play an important role in luxury brand enforcement through border protection measures the recording of trademark rights with Customs under the Intellectual Property Rights (Imported Goods) Enforcement Rules, 2007 enables Customs officers to detain and seize suspected counterfeit goods at the border.
The Intellectual Property Rights (Imported Goods) Enforcement Rules, 2007
The Intellectual Property Rights (Imported Goods) Enforcement Rules, 2007 promulgated under the Customs Act, 1962 provide a border protection mechanism that is of considerable importance for luxury brand enforcement in India. The Rules enable the proprietor of a registered trademark to record their rights with the Customs authorities, and upon such recording the Customs officers are empowered to detain imported goods that are suspected of infringing the recorded trademark rights.
The procedure for recording rights under the IPR Enforcement Rules requires the trademark owner to submit an application to the Commissioner of Customs accompanied by details of the registered trademark, samples of genuine goods, information about the typical appearance of counterfeit goods, and contact details for a representative who can be reached to verify the authenticity of detained goods. Once rights are recorded, Customs officers who encounter imported goods bearing marks that appear to infringe the recorded trademark rights may detain those goods and notify the trademark owner.
The effectiveness of the IPR Enforcement Rules regime depends critically on the quality of the information provided to Customs by the trademark owner and on the training of Customs officers in the identification of counterfeit luxury goods. Many luxury brand owners invest substantially in providing Customs officers with training materials, genuine samples, and authentication guides that enable officers to identify counterfeits quickly and accurately. This investment in Customs enforcement capability is one of the most cost-effective elements of a luxury brand enforcement strategy, because border seizure prevents counterfeit goods from entering the distribution chain rather than requiring enforcement against dispersed retail outlets after the goods are in circulation.
The Parallel Importation Problem – Exhaustion of Trademark Rights
The exhaustion of trademark rights the principle that once a trademark owner has placed goods bearing their mark on the market, their trademark rights in those specific goods are exhausted and cannot be used to prevent subsequent resale is one of the most commercially significant and legally contested issues in luxury brand protection in India. The exhaustion doctrine determines whether a luxury brand owner can use their trademark rights to prevent the importation and sale of genuine goods bearing their mark that have been purchased in one market and re-imported into India for sale at prices below those of the authorised distribution network.
The Trade Marks Act, 1999 does not expressly adopt either the national exhaustion principle under which trademark rights are exhausted only when the goods are placed on the Indian market by or with the consent of the Indian trademark owner or the international exhaustion principle under which trademark rights are exhausted when the goods are placed on any market anywhere in the world by or with the consent of the trademark owner or an authorised licensee. The absence of explicit statutory resolution of this question has generated considerable judicial uncertainty, with courts in different proceedings reaching somewhat different conclusions on the applicable principle.
The position that has emerged from Indian judicial decisions suggests that Indian trademark law applies a form of qualified international exhaustion genuine goods bearing a trademark may be imported into India without the Indian trademark owner’s consent, but the importer cannot use the trademark to mislead consumers about the goods’ origin, the warranty terms applicable to them, or their compliance with Indian regulatory requirements. Where parallel imports are materially different from goods authorised for the Indian market in warranty terms, after-sales service, compliance with Indian regulatory standards, or the support of the authorised distribution network the Indian trademark owner may be entitled to use their trademark rights to restrain those imports on the ground that their sale would constitute a misrepresentation to Indian consumers.
The Delhi High Court addressed parallel importation in the luxury automotive context in Kapil Wadhwa v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. ((2012) 49 PTC 520 (Del)), where it examined whether the parallel importation of Samsung products into India without Samsung’s authorisation constituted an infringement of Samsung’s registered trademarks. The Division Bench’s analysis of the exhaustion question holding that India applies international exhaustion subject to the qualification that parallel imports must not be materially different from goods authorised for the Indian market provides the most authoritative judicial statement of the applicable principle and is the starting point for any analysis of parallel importation in the luxury brand context.
For luxury brands, the material difference doctrine is particularly important. Genuine luxury goods sold outside India’s authorised distribution network may lack the after-sales service, warranty support, product registration, and authentication services that the authorised network provides and these services are typically a significant part of the luxury consumer experience and commercial proposition. Where the absence of these services means that parallel imported luxury goods are materially different from goods sold through the authorised network, the brand owner may be entitled to restrain their importation and sale on the ground that their sale without disclosure of the material difference constitutes a misrepresentation to Indian consumers.
The Role of the Anti-Counterfeiting Industry – Technology and Collaboration
The enforcement of luxury trademark rights in India is not solely a legal undertaking it requires substantial investment in the technology, intelligence, and industry collaboration that make effective enforcement possible. The most sophisticated luxury brand owners maintain dedicated intellectual property enforcement teams that work with law enforcement, Customs authorities, online platforms, and industry associations to identify and address counterfeiting across all channels.
Brand protection technology plays an increasingly important role in luxury trademark enforcement. Authentication technologies holographic labels, QR codes linked to blockchain-based authenticity records, RFID chips embedded in products or packaging, and sophisticated forensic markers enable consumers, retailers, and enforcement officers to verify the authenticity of luxury goods quickly and reliably. The deployment of authentication technology serves both a deterrent function making counterfeiting more difficult and an enforcement function providing the evidence needed to establish infringement in enforcement proceedings.
Online marketplace enforcement has become one of the most urgent priorities for luxury brand protection in India as e-commerce has grown. Major e-commerce platforms Amazon India, Flipkart, Myntra, and others are used as channels for the sale of counterfeit luxury goods, and the scale of online counterfeiting creates enforcement challenges that traditional in-person seizure operations cannot adequately address. Luxury brand owners have engaged with e-commerce platforms through notice-and-takedown mechanisms, brand registry programmes that give brand owners tools to identify and remove counterfeit listings, and enforcement agreements that commit platforms to proactive monitoring and removal of counterfeit goods.
The Bombay High Court’s decision in Christian Louboutin SAS v. Nakul Bajaj & Ors. ((2018) 253 DLT 728 (Del)) addressed the liability of online marketplaces for the sale of counterfeit luxury goods on their platforms. The Delhi High Court whose jurisdiction was engaged rather than the Bombay High Court examined the extent to which an online marketplace that hosts listings for counterfeit goods is liable for trademark infringement, and the conditions under which the marketplace’s safe harbour from liability is available. The Court’s analysis of the distinction between a passive hosting platform and an active participant in the sale of counterfeit goods has significant implications for the enforcement strategies of luxury brand owners in the online marketplace context.
The Indian Luxury Market – Emerging Challenges and Opportunities
The rapid growth of the Indian luxury goods market driven by the expansion of the high-net-worth individual population, the growth of aspirational luxury consumption among upper-middle-class consumers, and the increasing availability of luxury goods through both authorised retail channels and e-commerce creates both enforcement challenges and strategic opportunities for luxury brand owners.
The growth of domestic luxury retail with major luxury brands establishing flagship stores and authorised retail networks in Delhi, Mumbai, and other major cities has strengthened the enforcement infrastructure available to luxury brand owners by increasing the brand’s physical presence and the commercial relationships that support enforcement activities. At the same time, the growth of online luxury retail has expanded the geographic reach of luxury goods to consumers in cities and towns where no authorised retail presence exists, creating a larger potential market for parallel imports and counterfeit goods.
The increasing awareness among Indian consumers of intellectual property rights and the importance of authenticity driven by consumer education campaigns, media coverage of luxury counterfeiting enforcement actions, and the natural sophistication of the growing luxury consumer base is a positive development for luxury brand protection. Consumers who understand the harms of counterfeiting and who value the authenticity of genuine luxury goods are allies in the enforcement effort, and their awareness reduces the demand for counterfeit goods that drives the counterfeiting market.
Strategic Approaches to Luxury Brand Enforcement in India
Effective luxury brand enforcement in India requires a coordinated strategy that combines legal enforcement with commercial, technological, and reputational measures. The most effective enforcement strategies share several common features.
Proactive trademark registration and portfolio management is the foundation of effective enforcement. A luxury brand owner whose trademark portfolio in India is comprehensive covering all relevant classes of goods, all significant variations of the core marks, key brand elements such as distinctive colours, shapes, and slogans, and regional language transliterations is in a substantially stronger enforcement position than one whose portfolio has gaps that infringers can exploit. Regular portfolio audits, prompt registration of new marks and variations, and careful monitoring of the register for applications that might conflict with existing marks are essential elements of the proactive approach.
Intelligence gathering and monitoring the systematic surveillance of the marketplace for evidence of counterfeiting, parallel importation, and other infringing activities enables brand owners to identify enforcement priorities and to act before infringing activities become entrenched. Monitoring programmes may include online marketplace surveillance, physical market inspections, customs intelligence, social media monitoring, and the cultivation of informant networks among authorised distributors and retailers who have an interest in identifying and reporting grey market and counterfeit activity.
Coordinated civil and criminal enforcement using the civil courts for injunctions and asset preservation measures while simultaneously supporting criminal enforcement through cooperation with police and customs authorities provides the most comprehensive enforcement response and creates the strongest deterrent effect. A single coordinated enforcement action that combines an Anton Piller search and seizure with a police raid and customs detention sends a powerful signal to the counterfeiting market about the brand owner’s enforcement determination and capability.
Conclusion
Luxury brand protection and trademark enforcement in India is a complex, multi-dimensional undertaking that requires the coordinated application of statutory trademark rights, common law passing off remedies, dilution protection, border enforcement mechanisms, online platform enforcement tools, and the full range of civil and criminal remedies available under Indian law. The commercial stakes are substantial the trademark of a luxury brand is among the most valuable assets in commerce, and its protection against counterfeiting, dilution, and unauthorised exploitation requires sustained investment and strategic commitment.
The Indian legal framework centred on the Trade Marks Act, 1999, enriched by the developing judicial decisions of the Delhi and Bombay High Courts, and supplemented by the IPR Enforcement Rules, the criminal law provisions, and the expanding toolkit of online enforcement instruments provides a comprehensive and increasingly effective system for luxury brand protection. Its effectiveness in practice depends on the brand owner’s commitment to the full range of enforcement activities, the quality of the trademark portfolio it maintains, and the sophistication of the enforcement strategy it employs in a market that is simultaneously one of the most promising and one of the most challenging in the global luxury goods industry.
References
- The Trade Marks Act, 1999, Sections 29, 29(4), 30, 103 and 104 https://ipindia.gov.in/trade-mark.htm
- The Intellectual Property Rights (Imported Goods) Enforcement Rules, 2007 https://www.cbic.gov.in
- The Customs Act, 1962 https://www.cbic.gov.in
- The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 https://consumeraffairs.nic.in
- Laxmikant V. Patel v. Chetanbhai Shah & Anr., (2002) 3 SCC 65
- Tata Sons Ltd. v. Manoj Dodia & Ors., CS(OS) 264/2008 (Delhi High Court, 2011)
- Rolex SA v. Alex Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., (2009) 41 PTC 284 (Bom)
- Christian Louboutin SAS v. Abubaker & Ors., CS(OS) 1339/2011 (Delhi High Court)
- Christian Louboutin SAS v. Nakul Bajaj & Ors., (2018) 253 DLT 728 (Del)
- Kapil Wadhwa v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., (2012) 49 PTC 520 (Del)
- Daimler Benz Aktiegesellschaft & Anr. v. Hybo Hindustan, AIR 1994 Del 239
- TRIPS Agreement, Articles 16 and 41–60 https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/27-trips.pdf
- WIPO Counterfeiting and Piracy https://www.wipo.int/ip-outreach/en/ipday/2010/counterfeiting_piracy.html
- Manual of Trade Marks Practice and Procedure, Trade Marks Registry https://ipindia.gov.in/writereaddata/Portal/IPOGuidelinesManuals/1_72_1_TM_Manual.pdf
Compulsory Licensing Copyright Act Copyright Act 1957 Copyright Enforcement Copyright Infringement Copyright Law Copyright Protection India Copyright Registration Copyright Rules CRI Guidelines Deceptive Similarity Descriptive Marks India Goodwill Indian IP Framework Indian Patent Law Indian Patent Litigation Indian Trademark Law Intellectual Property Law IP infringement IP Law India Passing Off Patent Claims Patent Enforcement Patent Examination Patent Infringement Patent law Patent Revocation Patent Rule Patents Act 1970 Pharmaceutical Patents Secondary Meaning Trademark Section 3 Section 9 Trade Marks Act Section 29 The Patent Act 1970 Trademark Dilution Trademark Enforcement Trademark Examination Trademark Infringement Trademark Litigation Trademark Registration Trade Marks Act 1999 Trade Marks Rules 2017 TRIPS Compliance Well-Known Trademark