{"id":8003,"date":"2025-09-06T05:48:45","date_gmt":"2025-09-06T05:48:45","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?p=8003"},"modified":"2025-09-06T05:54:46","modified_gmt":"2025-09-06T05:54:46","slug":"section-29-4-trademarks-act-identical-vs-dissimilar-goods-services","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/section-29-4-trademarks-act-identical-vs-dissimilar-goods-services\/","title":{"rendered":"Section 29 (4) of Trademarks Act 1999 applies only to dissimilar goods and not relevant to identical services"},"content":{"rendered":"<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Renaissance_Hotel_Holdings_Inc_v_B_Vijaya_Sai_and_Others\"><\/span>Renaissance Hotel Holdings Inc. v. B. Vijaya Sai and Others<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>A concise case summary and analysis of the Supreme Court of India decision dated January 19, 2022.<\/p><div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_82_2 counter-hierarchy ez-toc-counter ez-toc-grey ez-toc-container-direction\">\n<div class=\"ez-toc-title-container\">\n<p class=\"ez-toc-title\" style=\"cursor:inherit\">Table of Contents<\/p>\n<span class=\"ez-toc-title-toggle\"><a href=\"#\" class=\"ez-toc-pull-right ez-toc-btn ez-toc-btn-xs ez-toc-btn-default ez-toc-toggle\" aria-label=\"Toggle Table of Content\"><span class=\"ez-toc-js-icon-con\"><span class=\"\"><span class=\"eztoc-hide\" style=\"display:none;\">Toggle<\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-icon-toggle-span\"><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" class=\"list-377408\" width=\"20px\" height=\"20px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\"><path d=\"M6 6H4v2h2V6zm14 0H8v2h12V6zM4 11h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2zM4 16h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2z\" fill=\"currentColor\"><\/path><\/svg><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" class=\"arrow-unsorted-368013\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" width=\"10px\" height=\"10px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" version=\"1.2\" baseProfile=\"tiny\"><path d=\"M18.2 9.3l-6.2-6.3-6.2 6.3c-.2.2-.3.4-.3.7s.1.5.3.7c.2.2.4.3.7.3h11c.3 0 .5-.1.7-.3.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7zM5.8 14.7l6.2 6.3 6.2-6.3c.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7c-.2-.2-.4-.3-.7-.3h-11c-.3 0-.5.1-.7.3-.2.2-.3.5-.3.7s.1.5.3.7z\"\/><\/svg><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n<nav><ul class='ez-toc-list ez-toc-list-level-1 ' ><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-1\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/section-29-4-trademarks-act-identical-vs-dissimilar-goods-services\/#Renaissance_Hotel_Holdings_Inc_v_B_Vijaya_Sai_and_Others\" >Renaissance Hotel Holdings Inc. v. B. Vijaya Sai and Others<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/section-29-4-trademarks-act-identical-vs-dissimilar-goods-services\/#Introduction\" >Introduction<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/section-29-4-trademarks-act-identical-vs-dissimilar-goods-services\/#Detailed_Factual_Background\" >Detailed Factual Background<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/section-29-4-trademarks-act-identical-vs-dissimilar-goods-services\/#Detailed_Procedural_Background\" >Detailed Procedural Background<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-5\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/section-29-4-trademarks-act-identical-vs-dissimilar-goods-services\/#Issues_Involved_in_the_Case\" >Issues Involved in the Case<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-6\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/section-29-4-trademarks-act-identical-vs-dissimilar-goods-services\/#Detailed_Submission_of_Parties\" >Detailed Submission of Parties<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-7\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/section-29-4-trademarks-act-identical-vs-dissimilar-goods-services\/#Appellant\" >Appellant<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-8\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/section-29-4-trademarks-act-identical-vs-dissimilar-goods-services\/#Respondents\" >Respondents<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-9\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/section-29-4-trademarks-act-identical-vs-dissimilar-goods-services\/#Detailed_Discussion_on_Judgments_Cited_by_Parties_and_Their_Context\" >Detailed Discussion on Judgments Cited by Parties and Their Context<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-10\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/section-29-4-trademarks-act-identical-vs-dissimilar-goods-services\/#Detailed_Reasoning_and_Analysis_of_Judge\" >Detailed Reasoning and Analysis of Judge<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-11\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/section-29-4-trademarks-act-identical-vs-dissimilar-goods-services\/#Final_Decision\" >Final Decision<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-12\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/section-29-4-trademarks-act-identical-vs-dissimilar-goods-services\/#Law_Settled_in_This_Case\" >Law Settled in This Case<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n\n<section>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Introduction\"><\/span>Introduction<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>In the realm of intellectual property, where brands battle for supremacy, <strong>Renaissance Hotel Holdings Inc. v. B. Vijaya Sai and Others<\/strong> emerges as a landmark showdown before the Supreme Court of India. Decided on January 19, 2022, this case pits a global hospitality giant against a local hotel operator over the use of the trademark &#8220;Renaissance.&#8221; The dispute encapsulates the tension between statutory trademark rights and claims of honest use, weaving a narrative of legal precision, commercial identity, and judicial interpretation. The Supreme Court\u2019s ruling not only resolves a contentious infringement claim but also illuminates the contours of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, offering a masterclass in statutory application and trademark protection in India\u2019s evolving commercial landscape.<\/p>\n<\/section>\n<section>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Detailed_Factual_Background\"><\/span>Detailed Factual Background<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>Renaissance Hotel Holdings Inc., a Delaware-based corporation, stands as a titan in the global hospitality industry, operating under the trademark &#8220;Renaissance&#8221; since 1981. This mark, registered in India under Class 16 (Registration No. 610567) for printed materials and Class 42 (Registration No. 1241271) for hotel and related services, has adorned its hotels, spas, and merchandise worldwide, including establishments in Mumbai and Goa since 1990. With an annual advertising budget of US$14 million and a domain name (www.renaissancehotels.com), the appellant asserts a formidable trans-border reputation, claiming &#8220;Renaissance&#8221; as a distinctive symbol of its luxury hospitality empire.<\/p>\n<p>The respondents, led by B. Vijaya Sai, operate two modest hotels in Bangalore (Kadugodi) and Puttaparthi under the name &#8220;Sai Renaissance.&#8221; Devotees of Sri Shirdi Sai Baba and Sri Puttaparthi Sai Baba, they adopted this name in 2001, believing the latter to be a reincarnation of the former\u2014thus, &#8220;renaissance&#8221; symbolizing rebirth. Their hotels cater primarily to Sai Baba devotees, offering vegetarian fare sans alcohol, a stark contrast to the appellant\u2019s five-star offerings. The respondents\u2019 use of &#8220;Sai Renaissance&#8221; came to the appellant\u2019s attention in 2008 via the website www.sairenaissance.com, prompting an investigation that revealed alleged copying of signage, business cards, and the &#8220;Renaissance&#8221; mark, suggesting an unauthorized affiliation.<\/p>\n<\/section>\n<section>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Detailed_Procedural_Background\"><\/span>Detailed Procedural Background<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The appellant initiated legal action in 2009, filing O.S. No. 3 of 2009 before the Principal District Judge, Bangalore Rural District, seeking a permanent injunction, delivery of infringing materials, and damages of Rs. 3,50,000. On June 21, 2012, the trial court partly decreed the suit, granting an injunction against the respondents\u2019 use of &#8220;Sai Renaissance&#8221; or any mark incorporating &#8220;Renaissance&#8221; in Classes 16 and 42, but denying damages and delivery-up claims.<\/p>\n<p>The respondents appealed to the High Court of Karnataka in Regular First Appeal No. 1462 of 2012. On April 12, 2019, a Single Judge reversed the trial court\u2019s decree, dismissing the suit on grounds of no trans-border reputation, honest use by the respondents, and no likelihood of confusion due to differing customer bases. Aggrieved, the appellant escalated the matter to the Supreme Court via Civil Appeal No. 404 of 2022, arising from SLP(C) No. 21428 of 2019, culminating in the January 19, 2022, judgment by a three-judge bench.<\/p>\n<\/section>\n<section>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Issues_Involved_in_the_Case\"><\/span>Issues Involved in the Case<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li>Whether the respondents\u2019 use of &#8220;Sai Renaissance&#8221; infringes the appellant\u2019s registered trademark &#8220;Renaissance&#8221; under Sections 29(2)(c), 29(3), 29(5), or 29(9) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.<\/li>\n<li>Whether the High Court erred in applying Section 29(4) (for dissimilar goods\/services) instead of provisions for identical marks and services.<\/li>\n<li>Whether the respondents\u2019 use qualifies as honest concurrent use under Section 30, shielding them from infringement.<\/li>\n<li>Whether the appellant\u2019s delay in filing the suit constitutes acquiescence, barring relief.<\/li>\n<li>Whether &#8220;Renaissance&#8221;\u2019s generic nature or the respondents\u2019 addition of &#8220;Sai&#8221; negates infringement.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/section>\n<section>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Detailed_Submission_of_Parties\"><\/span>Detailed Submission of Parties<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Appellant\"><\/span>Appellant<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>The appellant, represented by Senior Counsel K.V. Viswanathan, argued that the respondents\u2019 use of &#8220;Sai Renaissance&#8221; infringed its registered mark under multiple provisions of Section 29. Under Section 29(2)(c), the identical mark and services (hotels) triggered a statutory presumption of confusion per Section 29(3). Section 29(5) was invoked as the respondents used &#8220;Renaissance&#8221; in their trade name, a direct infringement. Section 29(9) applied due to phonetic and visual similarity. Viswanathan contended that the High Court misapplied Section 29(4), which requires reputation and detriment only for dissimilar goods, irrelevant here given the identical services. Citing precedents, he argued that in infringement cases, confusion need not be proven when marks are identical, and the prefix &#8220;Sai&#8221; did not mitigate the violation.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Respondents\"><\/span>Respondents<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>The respondents, represented by B.C. Sitarama Rao, countered that the suit was untenable due to delay and the appellant\u2019s lack of legal personhood. They portrayed &#8220;Renaissance&#8221; as a generic dictionary term, incapable of exclusive appropriation, and justified &#8220;Sai Renaissance&#8221; as an honest tribute to Sai Baba\u2019s reincarnation, used since 2001 without appellant awareness until 2009. They highlighted distinct customer bases\u2014devotees versus luxury travelers\u2014and differing services (vegetarian versus full-service), negating confusion. Claiming honest concurrent use under Section 12 and protection under Section 30, they relied on precedents to argue that their use neither exploited nor harmed the appellant\u2019s mark.<\/p>\n<\/section>\n<section>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Detailed_Discussion_on_Judgments_Cited_by_Parties_and_Their_Context\"><\/span>Detailed Discussion on Judgments Cited by Parties and Their Context<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The appellant cited <em>Laxmikant v. Patel v. Chetanbhai Shah<\/em> [(2002) 3 SCC 65], where the Supreme Court upheld an injunction against a similar mark in the same trade, emphasizing protection of goodwill. In <em>Ruston &amp; Hornsby Limited v. Zamindara Engineering Co.<\/em> [(1969) 2 SCC 727], the Court ruled that in infringement cases, identical mark use warrants an injunction without proving confusion, distinguishing it from passing off. <em>Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma v. Navaratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories<\/em> [[1965] 1 SCR 737] reinforced that close similarity in marks negates the need for further evidence in infringement actions. <em>Midas Hygiene Industries (P) Limited v. Sudhir Bhatia<\/em> [(2004) 3 SCC 90] underscored that injunctions typically follow infringement, irrespective of delay unless adoption is dishonest.<\/p>\n<p>The respondents relied on <em>Khoday Distilleries Limited v. Scotch Whisky Association<\/em> [(2008) 10 SCC 723], which addressed acquiescence in rectification proceedings, not infringement, rendering it inapposite. <em>Nandhini Deluxe v. Karnataka Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Limited<\/em> [(2018) 9 SCC 183] distinguished dissimilar marks and goods (milk versus restaurants), unlike the identical services here. <em>Corn Products Refining Co. v. Shangrila Food Products Limited<\/em> [[1960] 1 SCR 968] and <em>Neon Laboratories Limited v. Medical Technologies Limited<\/em> [(2016) 2 SCC 672] dealt with distinct contexts (opposition and interim injunctions), offering limited relevance.<\/p>\n<\/section>\n<section>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Detailed_Reasoning_and_Analysis_of_Judge\"><\/span>Detailed Reasoning and Analysis of Judge<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>Justice B.R. Gavai, authoring the Supreme Court\u2019s opinion, meticulously dissected the High Court\u2019s errors. The Court traced the evolution of trademark law from the 1940 Act to the 1999 Act, emphasizing the latter\u2019s intent to harmonize global trade practices and prohibit unauthorized use of registered marks in trade names. Under Section 29(2)(c), the identical mark &#8220;Renaissance&#8221; and identical services (hotels) triggered a presumption of confusion under Section 29(3), rendering further proof unnecessary. Section 29(5) applied as &#8220;Renaissance&#8221; formed part of the respondents\u2019 trade name, and Section 29(9) covered phonetic and visual similarity, amplifying the infringement.<\/p>\n<p>The High Court\u2019s reliance on Section 29(4) was deemed a misstep, as it pertains to dissimilar goods\/services and requires reputation and detriment\u2014irrelevant here given the identical services. The Court criticized the High Court\u2019s focus on customer classes and confusion, citing <em>Ruston &amp; Hornsby<\/em> to affirm that infringement hinges on mark use, not deception likelihood. The respondents\u2019 Section 30 defense failed, as honest use required both fair practice and no detriment, conditions unmet given the unauthorized adoption. Textual and contextual interpretation, per <em>Reserve Bank of India v. Peerless<\/em> [(1987) 1 SCC 424], and holistic statutory reading, per <em>Balasinor Nagrik Cooperative Bank<\/em> [(1987) 1 SCC 606], underscored the High Court\u2019s fragmented approach, ignoring legislative intent.<\/p>\n<\/section>\n<section>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Final_Decision\"><\/span>Final Decision<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashing the High Court\u2019s judgment of April 12, 2019, and reinstating the trial court\u2019s decree of June 21, 2012. The respondents were restrained from using &#8220;Sai Renaissance&#8221; or any mark incorporating &#8220;Renaissance&#8221; in Classes 16 and 42, affirming the appellant\u2019s exclusive rights.<\/p>\n<\/section>\n<section>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Law_Settled_in_This_Case\"><\/span>Law Settled in This Case<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The judgment clarifies that under Section 29(2)(c) and (3), identical marks and goods\/services presume confusion, mandating injunctions without further evidence. Section 29(5) prohibits use of a registered mark in trade names, and Section 29(9) extends protection to phonetic\/visual similarity. Section 29(4) applies only to dissimilar goods, requiring reputation and detriment, not relevant to identical services. Section 30\u2019s honest use defense demands both fair practice and no detriment, a conjunctive test. The ruling reinforces statutory primacy in infringement actions, distinguishing them from passing off\u2019s common law roots.<\/p>\n<\/section>\n<section class=\"meta\"><strong>Case Title:<\/strong> Renaissance Hotel Holdings Inc. Vs. B. Vijaya Sai and Others<\/p>\n<p><strong>Date of Order:<\/strong> January 19, 2022<\/p>\n<p><strong>Case No.:<\/strong> Civil Appeal No. 404 of 2022 [Arising out of SLP(C) No. 21428 of 2019]<\/p>\n<p><strong>Name of Court:<\/strong> Supreme Court of India<\/p>\n<p><strong>Name of Judges:<\/strong> Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice B.V. Nagarathna<\/p>\n<\/section>\n<section class=\"disclaimer\"><strong>Disclaimer:<\/strong> The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.<\/p>\n<\/section>\n<div class=\"byline\">\n<p><strong>Written By:<\/strong> Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Renaissance Hotel Holdings Inc. v. B. Vijaya Sai and Others A concise case summary and analysis of the Supreme Court of India decision dated January 19, 2022. Introduction In the realm of intellectual property, where brands battle for supremacy, Renaissance Hotel Holdings Inc. v. B. Vijaya Sai and Others emerges as a landmark showdown before<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":56,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"two_page_speed":[],"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"_joinchat":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[24],"class_list":{"0":"post-8003","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-intellectual-property","7":"tag-just-in"},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8003","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/56"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=8003"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8003\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8003"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8003"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8003"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}