How Has Trademark Bullying Impacted Businesses?

Trademarking has become an important element in the running of a business. One needs to have their brands to be distinct from that of the market and build a reputation for themselves. Every business that comes up and does Trademark registration in India, tries to build their brand to stand apart from the crowd. Oftentimes one ends up with a TM that has slight resemblance to other brands. These brands may not be providing similar services.

What is Trademark Bullying?

The definition of Trademark bullying has been provided by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The USPTO defines it as “the act where the brand name owner uses its mark of identification rights to harass and intimidate another business beyond what the law might be reasonably interpreted to allow.”

As per the definition a larger corporation is often the ones who bully the smaller businesses for dominance in the market. It not only shows the power but also aims to remove the competition from the market. 

Is Trademark Bullying prevalent in India?

Trademark Bullying is a prevalent act in most markets around the world and is not limited to certain places. IT happens in places where a settled business threatens a smaller or new business to remove the competition in the market for similar goods and services.

The first case of Trademark Bullying in India was the Milmet Oftho Industries and Ors v. Allergan Inc [(2004)12 SCC 624]. It was a case where two pharmaceutical companies fought over a drug of similar name. The Indian company being the first in the market was given preference. The court’s judgement was that if a multinational company does not intend to enter an Indian market then it should not be allowed to throttle Indian companies. 

Conclusion

Trademark Bullying has been a big factor in closing down many small companies. It is often misused by the larger entities to use legal means to an illegal end. It shows the drawback of the law under which every business is to be protected. It points to the need for provisions for protecting the unlawful means of larger companies.