CASE ANALYSIS OF BIGTREE ENTERTAINMENT PRIVATE LIMITED V. D SHARMA

Abstract

With the rise in the number of corporations using the global internet platform to operate their enterprises and the growth in the number of start-ups in the current economic scenario, we are faced with several new problems that need to be dealt with in detail and must be resolved accordingly, keeping in mind the far-fetched impact it will have on the intellectual property right environment. India holds a high rank with its competitive business environment. In account of profitability of a business venture, brand value plays a pivotal role as an asset to develop its identity amongst customers. With a diverse market including local, national and international players, a unique trademark is a requirement to identify brand value and generate revenue.

Trademarks, like other assets of a company is capable of being exploited and in order to provide protection from infringement, apart from existing legislatures and international conventions, the judiciary has played an important role in evolving a series of tests to set a precedence on what amounts to infringement. The test of ‘likelihood of confusion’ has been often used as a basis to identify trademark infringement. This paper attempts to critically analyse the factors to be considered while using the test as given by J. Jayant Nath in the case of Bigtree Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. D Sharma and another. I have divided the ratio of the judgement to form a basis to recognize four specific factors in this regard – distinctiveness, secondary meaning or acquired meaning, invented mark and the whole mark as per Section 17(1) of the Trademark Act, 1999.