What happens if a trademark is not utilized in connection with a tangible
good? E-commerce transactions emerged with the introduction of the internet.
Various meta links with allusions to trademark infringement may exist; however,
these meta links may not be utilized to specify the products that are
Such non-physical or invisible use through meta links, particularly on Google, is a common occurrence. Can a trademark owner take legal action against infringers who use a trademark invisibly or without physical contact?
To begin thinking about this issue, we must first comprehend what a meta tag or meta link is. In actuality, these are key phrases that describe a web page's content in an HTML document. Customers cannot see these Meta Links or Meta Tags. In actuality, these are employed by Google Ads programme to achieve the intended outcome.
In actuality, these Meta Tags, which are incorporated into HTML web pages, provide a summary of the information on that particular web page. With the use of these meta links or meta tags, the Google Ad programme offer comparable sponsored results when a customer searches for a specific word or trademark.
The question is whether the Trademarks Act 1999 permits such covert use of a trademark through Meta Tags or Meta Links, or if such usage also falls under the purview of passing off and trademark infringement.
Let's first examine what constitutes trademark use in order to comprehend this. The Trademarks Act of 1999 defines a trademark under section 2(1)(zb).
2 (1) (zb) "trade mark" means a mark capable of being represented graphically and which is capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one person from those of others and may include the shape of goods, their packaging, and combination of colours,
In relation to Chapter XII (other than section 107), a registered trade mark or mark used in relation to goods or services for the purpose of indicating or so as to indicate a connection in the course of trade between the goods or services, as the case may be, and some person having the right as proprietor to use the mark.
In relation to other provisions of this Act, a mark used or proposed to be used in relation to goods or services for the purpose of indicating or so to indicate a connection in the course of trade between the goods or services, as the case may be,
and some person having the right, either as proprietor or by way of permitted user, to use the mark, whether with or without any indication of the identity of that person, and includes a certification trade mark or collective mark. "
This definition of "trademark" assumes that a trademark is used in relation to goods or services for the purpose of indicating or implying a connection in the course of trade between the goods or services.
Thus, trademark use includes its application to goods or services. However, this definition does not specify whether non-physical or invisible use also constitutes trademark use.
One such case was heard by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi's decision dated 30.10.2021 in Suit bearing CS(COMM) No. 1 of 2017 titled Drs Logistics (P) Ltd & Another Vs Google India Pvt Ltd & Anr dealt with the infringement of the Plaintiff's trademark through meta links. This case was filed by the plaintiff on the ground that its trademark AGARWAL should not be allowed to be used by Google through Meta Tags.
In fact, none of the parties own the Meta Tags. Meta-tags are keywords that are used in the website's HTML Google Ad Words Program codes but are not visible to visitors. The use of meta-tags in relation to sponsored search results in the desired result based on Google's algorithm.
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi was pleased to note that Google's non-physical and invisible use of trademarks via Meta Links does constitute trademark use.
Another case was 260 (2019) DLT 690 titled as Amway India Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs. 1MG Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and Ors., in which the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held that use of Plaintiff's Trademark AMWAY by third party e-commerce platforms for promoting their own sales was considered use of a mark in meta-tags or advertising.
According to Section 29 (8) of the Trademarks Act of 1999, any advertisement that amounts to taking an unfair advantage constitutes an infringement. In the AMWAY case, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi invoked this provision and held that such use also amounts to trademark infringement.
Let us see what Section 29 (8) of the Trademarks Act says.
29(8) A registered trade mark is infringed by any advertising of that trade mark if such advertising:
It is hoped that the Prohibition of Child Marriage (Amendment) Bill, 2021, which intends to inc...
How To File For Mutual Divorce In Delhi Mutual Consent Divorce is the Simplest Way to Obtain a D...
The Inherent power under Section 482 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (37th Chapter of t...
One may very easily get absorbed in the lives of others as one scrolls through a Facebook news ...
Wednesday, Live Law reported that a Kerala court ruled that the Indian Penal Code Section 354, ...
Population control is a massive problem in our country therefore in view of this problem the Ut...
Please Drop Your Comments