Mumbai University Solved Question Papers
Law of Trademarks
Previous Year Question Paper with Solution
LLM · Group 3 Law of Intellectual Property and Information Technology
2018 Examination
munotes.in
Mumbai
Mumbai University Solved Question Papers
Law of Trademarks
Previous Year Question Paper with Solution
LLM · Group 3 Law of Intellectual Property and Information Technology
2018 Examination
munotes.in
Mumbai
First published on munotes.in on 13 September 2026.
Published by munotes.in, Mumbai.
Model answers written and edited by the munotes.in editorial desk.
Passages from this volume may be quoted, in print, online or by an AI system, with credit: name munotes.in and link to this volume's page. The volume may not be reproduced as a whole. Full terms at munotes.in/content-license.
munotes.in is an independent study resource for students of the University of Mumbai. It is not affiliated with the University of Mumbai, and is not endorsed by it.
The University does not publish an official answer key for this paper. The answers in this volume are model answers, written to show how a full-mark answer is built. They are a study aid, not an authority on what an examiner marked.
The question paper reproduced here is the paper as set by the University of Mumbai at the 2018 examination.
The law in these answers is stated as at September 2026, and four changes date most textbooks on this subject. THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY APPELLATE BOARD NO LONGER EXISTS: section 21 of the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 omitted sections 83 to 90 with 89A, and sections 92, 93, 95, 96, 99 and 100, of the Trade Marks Act with effect from 4 April 2021, so an appeal from the Registrar under section 91 now goes to the High Court, and an application for removal or rectification under section 47 or 57 goes to the Registrar or the High Court. THE TEXTILE CHAPTER IS GONE: Chapter X, sections 79 to 82, was omitted by section 7 of the Trade Marks (Amendment) Act, 2010 with effect from 8 July 2013, the day Chapter IVA brought the Madrid Protocol into Indian law. THE OFFENCES WERE CUT DOWN ON 1 AUGUST 2024: the Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2023 omitted sections 106, 108 and 109, turned the false representation of a mark as registered under section 107 into a penalty of one half per cent of turnover or five lakh rupees, whichever is less, imposed by an adjudicating officer under the new section 112A with an appeal under section 112B, and left sections 103 to 105, on applying false trade marks and selling goods that bear them, as they were; the Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2026 does not amend the Trade Marks Act at all. AND INDIA JOINED THE NICE AGREEMENT with effect from 7 September 2019, and the thirteenth edition of the Nice Classification has applied since 1 January 2026.
The questions below are the paper as the University of Mumbai set it at the 2018 examination, in the order it was set.
MarksPage
MarksPage
The questions in this volume are the questions asked at the 2018 examination, reproduced as the University of Mumbai set them, in the order it set them. Nothing has been reworded, added or left out. Only the answers are ours. See the original question paper.
Duration 3 hours · Total marks 100 · 14 questions answered
Instructions printed on the paper
How to use this volume
Solve the paper first, under exam conditions and against the clock. Then read the answers here and mark your own. Reading a solution before attempting the question feels productive and teaches very little, because recognising an answer is not the same as being able to write one.
Q.P. Code 10865, the first paper on the scan, page 1, seven questions printed Q.1 to Q.7 100 Marks
Answer
For full marks, cover: two parts. The PROCEDURE is best shown as the journey of a single application, because the examiner wants to see not only the stages but what an applicant does at each: how an examination report is answered, what happens at a hearing, and how an opposition is fought. The ADVANTAGES are best tied to the contrast between an INFRINGEMENT suit and a PASSING OFF suit, which is where registration actually earns its keep.
Choosing and clearing the mark. An applicant should first choose a mark with inherent distinctiveness. SECTION 9(1) refuses marks DEVOID OF DISTINCTIVE CHARACTER, marks consisting EXCLUSIVELY of indications of kind, quality, quantity, purpose, value or origin, and marks that have become CUSTOMARY in the trade. Neon Laboratories Ltd. v. Medical Technologies Ltd., (2016) 2 SCC 672, observed that a mark claiming exclusivity should ordinarily be a new creation, and if an existing word, neither descriptive of the product nor laudatory. A search of the register for identical and similar marks in the same and related classes follows.
Filing. The application is made under SECTION 18(1) by the person CLAIMING TO BE THE PROPRIETOR of a mark USED OR PROPOSED TO BE USED, in FORM TM-A, in the office of the Registry for the applicant's principal place of business in India under section 18(3). The goods or services are specified and CLASSIFIED under SECTION 7, which follows the international classification, and one application may cover SEVERAL CLASSES under section 18(2), with a fee for each. The applicant states whether the mark is already in use and from what date, because a claim of use supports distinctiveness and priority. Filing fixes the DATE OF APPLICATION, which becomes the date of registration.
Formal check. Deficiencies notified under RULE 31 must be put right within ONE MONTH, failing which the application is treated as abandoned.
Examination. Under RULE 33 the Registry examines the application and searches the register. The EXAMINATION REPORT typically raises two kinds of objection: ABSOLUTE, that the mark is descriptive, laudatory or non distinctive under SECTION 9; and RELATIVE, that it conflicts with an earlier mark under SECTION 11. A reply must be filed within ONE MONTH, or the application may be treated as abandoned.
Answering the report. The reply is where applications are won. Against an absolute objection the applicant files EVIDENCE OF USE to show ACQUIRED DISTINCTIVENESS under the proviso to section 9(1). Against a relative objection he distinguishes the cited marks on the Supreme Court's tests of overall similarity, relies on the CONSENT of the earlier proprietor under section 11(4), or claims HONEST CONCURRENT USE under SECTION 12, which lets the Registrar register similar marks for more than one proprietor subject to conditions. If the reply does not persuade, a SHOW CAUSE HEARING is held under rule 115 and an order passed. An applicant who needs speed may request EXPEDITED PROCESSING in FORM TM-M under RULE 34, and examination then ordinarily follows within three months.
Acceptance and advertisement. The Registrar ACCEPTS the application, absolutely or with conditions or limitations, or refuses it with REASONS RECORDED IN WRITING under SECTION 18(4) and (5). The accepted application is ADVERTISED in the TRADE MARKS JOURNAL under SECTION 20, and occasionally advertised before acceptance where the Registrar thinks it expedient.
Opposition. Any person may oppose within FOUR MONTHS of advertisement under SECTION 21(1). The applicant must file a COUNTERSTATEMENT within TWO MONTHS or be deemed to have abandoned the application. The parties then exchange EVIDENCE BY AFFIDAVIT under RULES 45 TO 47, and the Registrar hears them under RULE 50 and decides.
Registration. Once the opposition period expires, or the opposition is decided in the applicant's favour, the Registrar REGISTERS the mark under SECTION 23, the section directing registration within EIGHTEEN MONTHS of filing. The mark is registered AS OF THE DATE OF APPLICATION and a CERTIFICATE issues.
After registration. Registration lasts TEN YEARS and is RENEWABLE indefinitely under SECTION 25. Changes of ownership are registered under SECTION 45 in FORM TM-P. The mark must be USED, because under SECTION 47(1)(b) a person aggrieved may seek its REMOVAL where, up to a date three months before his application, a CONTINUOUS PERIOD OF FIVE YEARS from the date the mark was actually entered on the register has passed without bona fide use. An appeal from any order of the Registrar lies to the HIGH COURT under SECTION 91 within three months. And the Indian application or registration may be used as the basis for an international application under the MADRID PROTOCOL through CHAPTER IVA.
Descriptive and laudatory words. Most examination reports object under SECTION 9(1)(b) that the mark describes the goods, or under section 9(1)(a) that it is devoid of distinctive character. Neon Laboratories Ltd. v. Medical Technologies Ltd., (2016) 2 SCC 672, is the warning: a word that is descriptive or laudatory will not easily found exclusivity. The cure is an invented or arbitrary word at the outset, or long use and evidence of ACQUIRED DISTINCTIVENESS under the proviso to section 9(1).
Common words. Skyline Education Institute (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. S.L. Vaswani, (2010) 2 SCC 142, refused exclusivity at the interlocutory stage in SKYLINE, a common English word used by many concerns. A mark built on such a word may be registered, but its protection will be narrow.
Conflicting marks. Relative objections under SECTION 11 are avoided by a proper search before filing, and answered by showing dissimilarity of the marks or goods, by the earlier proprietor's CONSENT under section 11(4), or by HONEST CONCURRENT USE under section 12.
Procedural default. A missed deadline is the commonest avoidable loss. The one month to reply to an examination report under rule 33(4), non appearance at a hearing under rule 33(7), and the two month counterstatement under section 21(2) each end in the application being treated or DEEMED ABANDONED.
Bad faith and want of intention. An applicant with no GENUINE INTENTION TO USE the mark risks refusal, opposition and later removal. American Home Products Corporation v. Mac Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., (1986) 1 SCC 465, requires the intention to be real at the date of application.
The statutory right itself. SECTION 28(1) gives the registered proprietor the EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO THE USE of the mark for the registered goods or services, and the right to relief for infringement.
Infringement is available only to him. SECTION 27(1) bars any action for infringement of an UNREGISTERED mark. The unregistered owner is left to passing off under section 27(2).
He need not prove deception. Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma v. Navaratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories, AIR 1965 SC 980, draws the distinction that makes registration valuable: in a passing off action the plaintiff must prove the defendant's get up is calculated to deceive, so added matter may save the defendant; in an infringement action, once the marks are identical or so similar that one is likely to be taken for the other, the plaintiff succeeds and what the defendant has added is irrelevant.
Added matter does not help the defendant. Ruston and Hornsby Ltd. v. Zamindara Engineering Co., AIR 1970 SC 1649, applied that principle: once RUSTAM was deceptively similar to the registered RUSTON, the word INDIA added by the defendant made no difference, and the proprietor succeeded in infringement.
Confusion may be presumed. For an IDENTICAL mark on IDENTICAL goods or services, SECTION 29(3) directs the court to PRESUME a likelihood of confusion.
Reputation carries the mark across classes. A registered mark with a REPUTATION IN INDIA is protected against use on DISSIMILAR goods under SECTION 29(4), provided the use takes unfair advantage of or is detrimental to its distinctive character or repute.
The certificate proves validity. SECTION 31(1) makes the registration PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF VALIDITY in all legal proceedings, and SECTION 32 saves a registration that has ACQUIRED DISTINCTIVENESS after registration and before any challenge.
The proprietor chooses the court. SECTION 134(2) lets him sue for infringement where HE resides or carries on business.
Licensing, assignment and borders. Registration opens the REGISTERED USER machinery, including the user's own right to sue under SECTION 52; registered title can be recorded under SECTION 45; and SECTION 140(1) lets the proprietor or licensee of a registered mark ask CUSTOMS to prohibit the import of infringing goods.
Deterrence on the register. Every later applicant is searched against the registered mark at examination under rule 33, so registration prevents conflicting marks from being registered in the first place, which is often worth more than any later lawsuit.
| Stage | Provision | Applicant's task |
|---|---|---|
| Filing | s.18, s.7, Form TM-A | Specify goods and classes; claim use |
| Examination report | Rule 33 | Reply within one month with evidence or argument |
| Stage | Provision | Applicant's task |
|---|---|---|
| Hearing | Rule 33(6), rule 115 | Appear and argue, or the application may be abandoned |
| Advertisement | s.20 | Watch the Journal |
| Opposition | s.21, rules 42 to 50 | Counterstatement in two months; affidavits |
| Registration | s.23 | Obtain certificate; registered from date of filing |
| Maintenance | s.25, s.47 | Renew every ten years; use the mark |
Conclusion. Registration proceeds through CLEARANCE of an inherently distinctive mark; an APPLICATION under SECTION 18 in Form TM-A, classified under SECTION 7; a formal check under RULE 31; EXAMINATION under RULE 33 against the absolute grounds in SECTION 9 and the relative grounds in SECTION 11, answered within ONE MONTH with evidence of acquired distinctiveness, consent or honest concurrent use under SECTION 12, and a show cause hearing where needed; ACCEPTANCE under SECTION 18(4); ADVERTISEMENT under SECTION 20; OPPOSITION within FOUR MONTHS under SECTION 21 with a counterstatement in TWO MONTHS; and REGISTRATION under SECTION 23 as of the date of filing, for TEN YEARS renewable under SECTION 25. The advantages of registration are the EXCLUSIVE RIGHT under SECTION 28; the INFRINGEMENT action reserved by SECTION 27(1), in which, as Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma v. Navaratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories and Ruston and Hornsby Ltd. v. Zamindara Engineering Co. hold, similarity of the marks suffices and added matter is no defence; the PRESUMPTION of confusion in SECTION 29(3); protection of a reputed mark across goods under SECTION 29(4); PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF VALIDITY under SECTION 31; the plaintiff's forum under SECTION 134(2); registered user licensing; CUSTOMS enforcement under SECTION 140; and the protection that comes from every later application being examined against the registered mark.
The rest of the answers
You have read the paper as it was set and the first model answer in full. The remaining answers come with the bundle, along with every other solved paper for this semester.
See the semester for ₹798 Already bought it? Sign in
Or just the solved papers: ₹499
The question paper itself stays free, as does the syllabus and module one of every subject.
Found an error in this volume? Report it and we will check it against the paper.