会社名は取引スタイル (商号：trading style) に通じるものだ。現存する登録商標と同一または極めて類似する、または騙す目的で類似させたブランド名は侵害行為となる。インド商標法第29条(5)では、「登録商標は当該登録商標を自己の商号若しくは商号の一部として又は指定商品若しくはサービスを取り扱う会社の社名若しくは社名の一部として使用する者によって，侵害される。」と規定している。デリー高等裁判所で争われた英国大手の製薬会社グラクソ・スミスクライン（原告）とSarath Kumar Reddy G（被告）との事件がまさにこの第29条(5)に該当するものであった。
グラクソ・スミスクライン社は被告が原告の登録商標 ‘GSK’ （5類：製薬）と同一の商号を使用したことは明らかに公衆に誤認又は混同を与えるとして提訴した。原告は被告の社名 ’GSK Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd.’ の使用差止めと使用により被った損害を賠償するように裁判所に請求した。裁判所は本件の商標権侵害を認定し、商号の使用差止めは認めた。しかしながら損害賠償については認めなかった。裁判所の見解は被告の使用による原告の損害に関する証拠はないとし損害の主張を退けた。裁判所の裁定は両社にとってもフェアなものだと思われるが、インドではこのように現存する商標に類似する名称を持つ企業を商標権利者でないものによって登録されることが散見される。このような不正な登録を防ぐためにも商標権者は企業登録を定期的に監視すべきだろう。
以下、本文；
Injunction without damages
The name of a company is referred to as its trading style i.e. the name which is known to the consumers while purchasing the goods or services. It is a common misconception that only if the brand name is identical/deceptively similar to an existing registered trademark then it will be an act of infringement. Section 29(5) of the trademark act, 1999 makes it an offence to adopt a trading style which is identical or deceptively similar to a registered trade mark. This section was invoked by GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals Ltd. against an entity that had registered itself with the Registrar of Companies under the name ‘GSK Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd.’ in the case of GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals Ltd & Anr (Plaintiff) v Sarath Kumar Reddy G (Defendant) before the Delhi High Court.
The Plaintiff submitted that it had noticed that the Defendant had adopted a trading style which was identical to the Plaintiff’s registered trademark ‘GSK’ in class 5 (for pharmaceuticals) which could clearly cause confusion in the minds of the public. Furthermore, the device adopted by the Defendant for his Company was deceptively similar to that of the Plaintiff’s; the following is a comparison of the marks:
The Plaintiff prayed before the Court that the Defendant and his representatives be injuncted from making use of its current trading style ‘‘GSK Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd.’ and the Plaintiff should be given damages for the losses suffered by it on account of the Defendant’s infringing use. The court observed that there was a case of trademark infirngement made out by the Plaintiff and gladly ordered an injunction in favor of the Plaintiff however, regarding the payment of damages the Court did not agree with the Plaintiff’s prayer. It was opined that there was no evidence of actual damages suffered by the Plaintiff because of Defendant’s use; the Plaintiff had not established the sales made by the Defendant therefore, no damages were payable.
This decision is quite fair for both sides considering that the primary prupose of injuncting the Defendant from using the deceiving trading style had been served. On the other hand since the Plaintiff had been unable to show the actual damages the Hon’ble Court rejected such prayer. There are several such registered companies in India that have names bearing similarity with existing trade mark(s) even though such trade mark is not owned by them. It is therefore, advisable to owners of trade marks, that a regular search is conducted with the Registrar of Companies to ensure that no miscreant succeeds in registering and carrying out business by making unauthorized use of another’s trade mark.