I love being famous - it's phenomenal.-Dave Chappelle

We are living in a society which puts its faith on the one they know and trust the most, that conclusively, the most human psychology says and in the interpretation of that basis leads us to development of ourselves in order to sustain and above that, to be an extraordinary entity. Thus, eventually putting the wholesome concept to the modern era of Business. After WWII the world moved to the event of modernizing, liberalizing, globalization etc. and ultimately pushed the society to a welfare and developing state.

In order to sustain that society, the business had to make an impression in the eyes of the consumers and attract more of them, and thus creating a big image within the individuals of society and hence the it automatically creates a respective affirmative image in the minds of the consumers.

The increase in high reputation of particular business lend them to monopoly over other business and hence they are reported as ‘Well known Business', relating the very concept with the world of IPR, the main intension of any business firm is to protect its business from others using its pre-made fame and ceasing others to copy their goodwill and reputation, the very right on their trade name they obtained here is known to be the WELL-KNOWN MARKS, and here in this article we will be further talking about this in detail with international conventions and other Indian development moments.

Introduction
The innovative advertisements of famous trademarks we come across remind us of the image they have created in our minds and the quality of the respective products or services they reflect. Millions are spent by the owners of such marks to build their reputation and maintain their popularity in this competitive globalized world. Well-known Trademark plays an important role in global markets and in identifying symbols and sign that are widely known to the significant general public and enjoys a fairly high reputation.

At times, proprietors of such trademarks spend a large amount of money to prove that their marks are indeed well-known or famous before a competent court. The incentive to establish a mark as well-known is, but obviously, to strengthen the IP protection especially against malicious infringers. Primarily, what is expected by the owners of famous marks is that their marks are not copied, identically or similarly, in respect of their own goods and services of interest or in respect of other goods and services, by intentional and opportunist persons to derive illegal profits. The flip side from Indian perspective was that establishment of well-known trademark could be done only through adversarial proceedings before a court.

It is not the date of the application; it is the date from which, according to the applicant, the trademark/designation became widely known. Recognition of a given designation as a well-known trademark is confirmation of what has become widely known. On the other hand, one may argue that the possibility of recognition of a given designation as a well-known trademark may jeopardize the validity of any registered trademark. The law provides a safeguard, though. It sets forth that a trademark or a designation cannot be recognized as well-known if they have become widely known after the priority date of an identical or confusingly similar trademark of another person in respect of similar goods.

The provisions of protection of well-known trade marks in India were present in the previous avatars of the Trade Marks Rules, but the process of declaring marks as well-known was at the sole discretion of courts or tribunals, resulting out of a full-fledged contested litigation or legal proceeding. This implied that the proprietors of well-known trademarks had to approach courts for relief, once their marks were infringed by an infringer or passed off as their own by an unauthorized user.

While the existing process of determining a mark as well-known by courts and tribunals will continue, potential proprietors of well-known trademarks now have a potent option to apply directly to the Indian Trade Marks Registrar for determination and declaration of their mark as well-known.

Growth Of Well-Known Trademark

Paris Convention (Sec 6)

The answers to these questions first began to be addressed in the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property. The original version of the Paris Convention set forth in Article 6 the general principle of territoriality for the protection of trademarks, which is that a trademark has a separate existence in each country. In essence, the territoriality principle is the idea that ownership of a trademark in one country does not confer to the owner the right to the use and protection of the mark in another country.[1]

In 1925, the members of the convention agreed to an exception to the territoriality principle for trademarks. The members agreed to add Article 6 to the convention, which provided for member countries to cancel registrations and prohibit the use by third parties of marks that are already well-known in that country.
Article 6 provides an exception to the territoriality principle for well-known marks: if a trademark is well-known in a member country, it is entitled to protection even though the mark is not registered or used in that country. The protection of the well-known trademark results not from the registration or use in the country in question, but from the mere fact of its reputation.[2]

Trips Agreement

After the Paris Convention the imposition upon relating the similar principles to the very members of WTO members states was signified. And the WTO states concluded almost all the Nations which held the preliminary principle of Well-Know Trademarks. It established a principle for the determination of when a trademark has become well-known, and required members to provide further protection for well-known marks outside the class of goods for which the well-known mark is registered.

TRIPS created a set of global principles for the protection of well-known marks. Unlike previous international instruments for IP protection, TRIPS is linked to the global trading system. As a result, countries that might otherwise have chosen to continue with the general rule of territoriality for trademarks without the exception for well-known marks were coerced into accepting the rules for the protection of well-known marks or risked losing access to essential markets for goods and services that they export.

It forced all WTO members to comply with the Paris Convention, including Article 6 for the protection of trademarks and Article 6bis for the protection of well-known trademarks. TRIPS then went further and significantly expanded the protection of well-known trademarks under Article 16 of the Agreement[3], which reads as follows:

1. The owner of a registered trademark shall have the exclusive right to prevent all third parties not having the owner's consent from using in the course of trade identical or similar signs for goods or services which are identical or similar to those in respect of which the trademark is registered where such use would result in a likelihood of confusion. In case of the use of an identical sign for identical goods or services, a likelihood of confusion shall be presumed. The rights described above shall not prejudice any existing prior rights, nor shall they affect the possibility of Members making rights available on the basis of use.
    
2. Article 6 of the Paris Convention (1967) shall apply, mutatis mutandis, to services. In determining whether a trademark is well-known, Members shall take account of the knowledge of the trademark in the relevant sector of the public, including knowledge in the Member concerned which has been obtained as a result of the promotion of the trademark.
    
3. Article 6 of the Paris Convention (1967) shall apply, mutatis mutandis, to goods or services which are not similar to those in respect of which a trademark is registered, provided that use of that trademark in relation to those goods or services would indicate a connection between those goods or services and the owner of the registered trademark and provided that the interests of the owner of the registered trademark are likely to be damaged by such use.

Section 2 of Article 16 establishes a basic standard under which a Member States must determine a well-known mark. Section 3 of Article 16 expanded the Paris Convention rules on well-known marks to dissimilar goods.

Importantly, the mark is not required to be known by all members of the public in the member state, but only by the relevant sector of the public,' and Member States must consider the extent to which the mark has been promoted to such members of the public.

TRIPs now protect well-known trademarks from a third party's use of the well-known mark on other classes of goods if:

1. The third party's use of that trademark on dissimilar goods would indicate a connection between those goods or services, and
2. The interests of the owner of the well-known trademark are likely to be damaged by such use.

TRIPS had the effect of moving the protection of intellectual property, including the protection of well-known marks, out of the rarified atmosphere of normal treaty law and pushing it aggressively into the global trading system. Countries that want to join, or remain, as members of the WTO are required to recognize the intellectual property rules established by TRIPS. As a result, significant case law has developed around the world that has established protection of well-known trademarks.[4]

In 1996, the State Administration of Industry and Commerce of China (SAIC) published the Interim Rules on Recognition and Protection of Well-known Trademarks pursuant to the Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China ("Trademark Law"), and its implementation rules ("1996 Rule"), which was amended in 1998. Pursuant to the 1996 Rule, owners of certain trademarks could apply for recognition of well-known trademarks on a routine basis.

Nearly 200 Chinese trademarks were recognized as well-known trademarks under the 1996 Rule.

On April 25, 2003, SAIC promulgated a Rule on Recognition and Protection of Well-known Trademarks ("Recognition Rule") to standardize the procedure for the recognition of well-known trademarks. This Recognition Rule, effective June 1, 2003, repealed the 1996 Rule, and stipulated a recognition procedure initiated by an owner of well-known trademarks demonstrating the need for protection.

Levels Of Protection Of Well-Known Trademarks

1. First level of Protection (for unregistered Trademarks).
   To legally protect unregistered well-known trademarks with respect to identical and (or) similar goods and services, Member States in their national legislation are using the wording analogous or similar to the wording of Art. 6bis of the Paris Convention and (or) Art. 16(2) of the TRIPS Agreement as well as Art. 4(2)(d) of the TMD. As such, unregistered well-known trademarks can be protected with respect to identical and (or) similar goods and services if there is a likelihood of confusion.
   
   The implementation of the provisions of Art. 16(3) of the TRIPS Agreement and Arts. 4(3), 4(4)(a), 5(2) of the TMD is seen for the protection of rights of both well known trademarks and registered well known trademarks too.
   
   An unregistered well-known trademark as such can also be protected beyond the principle of specialty on the existence of the provided conditions. The same principle is applicable to the enforcement procedure. Art. 301 of the Polish Industrial Property Law provides that unless the trademark is the subject of a right of protection, any party using a well-known trademark on the territory of the Republic of Poland may demand the cessation of the use by another party of the identical or similar trademark in respect of identical or similar goods if such use is likely to mislead the public'. The provision of Art. 296(2)(iii) shall apply accordingly to well-known trademarks with a reputation.[5]
   
   Sec. 7(1)(d) of this Law provides protection of a reputation of an unregistered well-known trademark as well. The provision states that the sign applied for shall not be registered in the register upon opposition against the registration of the trade mark in the register filed with the Office by the proprietor of an earlier well-known trade mark, which is identical or similar to the sign applied for if this sign is to be registered for goods or services which are indeed not similar to those goods or services covered by the earlier well-known trade mark, but the earlier well-known trade mark has a good reputation in the Nation and the use of that sign would suggest a relationship between the goods or services and the proprietor of the earlier well-known trade mark.[6]
   
   Further member states of EU like Slovakian, Czech Republic, Polish, Estonia, Latvia, Denmark, Romania, France and many other countries has contributed a lot in the growth of well-known trademark registration.
    
2. Second level Protection. (For Registered Trademarks)
   The second level of protection is applicable to the legal protection of registered trademarks with a reputation beyond the principle of specialty. Member States use in their national legislation either the wording of Art. 16(3) of the TRIPS Agreement or the wording of Art. 4(3), 4(4)(a), 5(2) of the TMD.
   
   The possibility, however, to enforce the rights of a well-known trademark depends on the condition that the well-known trademark is registered in the Register. If yes, the rights can be enforced regardless of the identity or similarity of the goods or services, provided that the use of that trademark in relation to other goods or services indicated a connection between thus marked goods or services and the owner of the registered well-known trademark, and provided that the interests of the owner are likely to be damaged by such a use.[7]
   
   As previously mentioned, Article 16(3) of the TRIPS Agreement provides for protection of well-known marks on dissimilar goods if the well-known mark has been registered.
   
   The owner of a registered well-known trademark that wishes to prevent its use on dissimilar goods must prove that use of that trademark in relation to such goods would indicate a connection between those goods or services and the owner of the registered trademark and that the interests of the owner of the registered trademark are likely to be damaged by such use. The implementation of Article 16(3) coincides with a number of principles that already exist in each individual countries' domestic trademark law that are intended to protect registered trademarks in one class from newcomers who may be attempting to trade off the goodwill of the established mark by applying for a registration for the same name in a different class of goods.
   
   These principles include likelihood of confusion, passing off, parasitism, and dilution. As a result, the implementation of Article 16(3), which deals with trademarks that are already registered in the country, has been less controversial than the implementation of Article 16(2), which had significant implications on the sovereignty of each country because it contained an exception to the sovereign principle of the territoriality of trademarks. Therefore, an in-depth review of cases involving Article 16(3) will not be undertaken in this paper. However, provided below are some brief examples of successful actions brought by the holders of well-known trademarks against third parties attempting to use or register the trademark in a different class of goods.
    
3. Third level Protection (Protection against Well-Known Trademarks)
   Several of the Member States offer protection for registered trademarks beyond the principle of specialty in line with Art. 16(3) of the TRIPS Agreement or Arts. 4(3), 4(4)(a), 5(2) of the TMD, at the same time enabling the protection of unregistered well-known trademarks beyond the principle of specialty.
   
   The conditions for this type of protection are the same (or similar in their legal content) as specified in the above-mentioned provisions of the TRIPS Agreement or the TMD. (a connection (a relationship, a link, etc. between the goods or services and the owner of the registered trademark) provided that the interests of the owner of the registered trademark are likely to be damaged by such a use; or the earlier trademark has a reputation and the use of a later trademark without due cause would take unfair advantage of, or be detrimental to, the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trademark). It was mentioned above, that this kind of protection of a well-known trademark beyond the principle of specialty does not depend on the registration. This is defined as the third level of protection.

Question Of Application Date:

In Ireland, it is prescribed by the law that an earlier trademark means a trade mark, which at the date of application for registration of the trade mark in question or (where appropriate) of the priority claimed in respect of the application, was entitled to protection under the Paris Convention as a well-known trade mark.[8] Analogous or similar provisions are provided in the United Kingdom, Germany, Greece, Spain, Bulgaria, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Malta.

The United Kingdom and Ireland, in their regulation of well-known trademarks, also state that nothing affects the continuation of any bona fide use of another (later) trade mark before the trademark became well-known (United Kingdom Trade Marks Act, Sec. 56(3)[9]; Irish Trade Marks Act, Sec. 61(3)[10]. The same provision is also effective in Malta (Maltese Trademarks Act, Art. 50(3)[11]).

Concerning trademarks having a reputation, in Austria, the Trademark Law inter alia provides that the reputation of the trade mark filed earlier shall be required to have existed at the latest on the day of the application for registration of the subsequent trade mark, or the date of priority or seniority claimed for the registration of the subsequent trade mark or at the time of creation of the other sign.'[12]

In the majority of the Member States, however, protection of a well-known trademark is based on a case-by-case principle (the same applies to trademarks with a reputation).

Reorganization Of Well-Known Trademarks

The WIPO Recommendation for the Protection of Well Known Marks is a soft-law', i.e., a non-binding instrument, three Member States - Estonia, Bulgaria and Romania - have provided in their national legislation particular criteria for recognising a trademark as well-known similar to those established in the WIPO Recommendation.[13]

Summarising all the three members tests, it is resembled that in order for a trademark to get recognized as well-known trade:
(1) The following shall be taken into account when determining whether the mark is a well-known mark or a mark with a reputation:

1. the extent to which the mark is known or recognized among the part of the community which covers the real or would-be users of the goods or services or the persons engaged in the respective distribution network or the business circles dealing with the goods or services in question;
2. duration, extent and geographical area of use of the mark;
3. duration, extent and geographical area of public representation of the mark, including advertising, making public and displaying at fairs and/or exhibitions of the goods and/or services in relation to which the mark is used;
4. information about the successful enforcement of the rights in the mark, if registered;
5. value of the mark;
6. other circumstances[14]

Other reforms were also made in member countries like Estonia, Romania, and Lithuania that followed the prescription of TRIPS and successfully enacted well-known trademark concepts.

Doctrine Of Dilution

Doctrine of dilution is a trademark law concept that permits the owner of a famous trademark to forbid others from using that mark in a way of that would lessen its uniqueness.4 The doctrine of dilution is different from other types of infringement in the sense that it gives a right to the owner of trademark to stop any person from using his trademark even in noncompetitive markets or in dissimilar goods or which has no competition with the goods of owner of trademark.

For example, a famous trademark used by one company to refer to hair-care products might be diluted if another company began using a similar mark to refer to breakfast cereals or spark plugs.

A trademark is diluted when the use of similar or identical trademarks in other non-competing markets, means that the trademark in and of itself will lose its capacity to signify a single source. In other words, unlike ordinary trademark law, dilution protection extends to trademark uses that do not confuse consumers regarding who has made a product. Instead, dilution protection law aims to protect sufficiently strong trademarks from losing their singular association in the public mind with a particular product, perhaps imagined if the trademark were to be encountered independently of any product (i.e., just the word Pepsi spoken, or on a billboard). Trademark dilution is defined as:
the impairment of a trademark ‘s strength or effectiveness caused by the use of the mark on an unrelated product, usually blurring the trademark ‘s distinctive character or tarnishing it with an unsavory association.

Dilution, in fact, was defined in section 45 of the Lanham Act, 1946 of USA as the -lessening of the capacity of a famous mark to identify and distinguish goods or services, regardless of the presence or absence of [competition] or [likelihood of confusion].[15]

Indian Ambit

The Indian Trade Marks Act, 1999 has defined well-known trade mark as a mark which has become so in relation to any goods or services, to the substantial segment of the public which uses such goods or receives such services that the use of such mark in relation to other goods or services would be likely to be taken as indicating a connection in the course of trade or rendering of services between those goods or services and a person using the mark in relation to the first-mentioned goods or services.

In Sec. 2(1)(zg) the well known trademark is defined as : in relation to any goods or services, means a mark which has become so to the substantial segment of the public which uses such goods or receives such services that the use of such mark in relation to other goods or services would be likely to be taken as indicating a connection in the course of trade or rendering of services between those goods or services and a person using the mark in relation to the first-mentioned goods or services.

Thus, a well-known trade mark is capable of distinguishing itself from an ordinary trade mark. While any established trade mark may be known in its limited category of goods and services in which it has built its goodwill, a well-known trade mark is known well to the substantial segment of the public, i.e., beyond the category of goods or services it deals with. The degree of reputation of a well-known trade mark is so vast that its knowledge and reputation has crossed the limitation of its actual goods or services to other unrelated goods and services. Therefore, declaration of a mark as well-known trade mark is of considerable importance to any business entity. More so when we consider the fact that India follows the NICE Classification of goods and services, which has as broad as forty-five classes. Classes 1 to 34 apply to varieties of goods while Classes 35 to 45 relate to diverse services.

Well known Trademarks are well prescribed under Sec 11 subsection (6-8) of Trade Mark Act 1999.
If we move lights towards the Sec 11(6), it prescribes the registrar for providence of the well-known trademark title to the marks, which are taken into account any fact which he considers relevant for determining a trade mark as a well-known trade mark including:

1. the knowledge or recognition of that trade mark in the relevant section of the public including knowledge in India obtained as a result of promotion of the trade mark;
2. the duration, extent and geographical area of any use of that trade mark;
3. the duration, extent and geographical area of any promotion of the trade mark, including advertising or publicity and presentation, at fairs or exhibition of the goods or services to which the trade mark applies;
4. the duration and geographical area of any registration of or any application for registration of that trade mark under this Act to the extent they reflect the use or recognition of the trade mark;
5. the record of successful enforcement of the rights in that trade mark; in particular, the extent to which the trade mark has been recognized as a well-known trade mark by any court or Registrar under that record.

A well-known trademark is a mark which is widely known to the relevant general public and enjoys a comparatively high reputation amongst them. On account of advancement of technology, fast access to information, manifold increase in international business, international travel and advertising/publicity on internet, television, magazines and periodicals, which now are widely available throughout the world, of goods and services during fairs/exhibitions, , more and more persons are coming to know of the trademarks, which are well known in other countries and which on account of the quality of the products being sold under those names and extensive promotional and marketing efforts have come to enjoy trans-border reputation. It is, therefore, being increasingly felt that such trademark needs to be protected not only in the countries in which they are registered but also in the countries where they are otherwise widely known in the relevant circles so that the owners of well-known trademarks are encouraged to expand their business activities under those marks to other jurisdictions as well.[16]

Further, Sec. 11(7) it is signified that, While determining the relevant section of the public, the Registrar has to take into account:

1. the number of actual or potential consumers of the goods or services;
2. the number of persons involved in the distribution of the goods or services; and
3. the business circles dealing with the goods or services, to which that trade mark applies.

Therefore, the law is clear that if a trade mark has already been determined as well-known in at least one relevant section of the public in India by any court or the Tribunal, the Registrar of Trade Marks has to consider the mark as well-known for its registration in India.

In Sec. 11(8), discretionary power of court is seen and it is applied that, Where a trade mark has been determined to be well-known in at least one relevant section of the public in India by any court or Registrar, the Registrar shall consider that trade mark as a well-known trade mark for registration under this Act.

It is important to note that for determining whether a trade mark is well-known, the Registrar shall not require as a condition that the trade mark has been used or is a registered trade mark or even been applied for registration in India. Also, it is not necessary for the mark to be a well-known or a registered mark or a subject of a pending application in any country, other than India. Moreover, it is also not required for the mark to be well-known to the public at large in India.

The coming into effect of the recent Trade Marks Rules 2017 has eased the process of registering a mark as well-known, without going through the rigors of time-consuming and costly litigation proceedings, primarily in a court of law in India. Rule 124 provides that any person may apply to the Registrar on the prescribed Form TM - M along with the prescribed fees of Indian rupees 100,000, i.e., approximately US $ 1550, for determination of a mark as well-known. The request has to be accompanied by a statement of case along with relevant evidence and documents relied upon by the applicant in support of their claim.

The Registrar will consider the eligibility of the applicant's request on the basis of the provisions contained in sub-sections 6 to 9 of Section 11 of the Indian Trade Marks Act, 1999. Further, the Registrar is free to ask an applicant any other documents or evidence as he thinks fit while processing such request. Before determining a trade mark as well-known, the Registrar may invite objections from the general public.

Any person who has any objection to the mark to be declared as well-known has to file his written objection to the Registrar within thirty days of the date of the Registrar's invitation. Assuming that there is no objection from the public or unsustainable objection being rejected, the mark will be determined and declared as well-known by the Registrar. To inform the public of the inclusion of the mark as well-known, the mark will be published in the Trade Marks Journal. Also, the mark will be included in the database of well-known trademarks, maintained by the Registrar.

Filing Of A Well-Known Trademark (procedures)

According to Rule 124 of the Trademark Rules, any person can apply for Registration of Well- Know Trademark. But there are certain steps which need to be followed for filing a mark as Well-Known Trademark:

1. Form TM M: For getting mark registered as Well- Known Trademark one need to file Form an application on the form TM-M.
2. The prescribed fee as per the first schedule of the rules in Form TM- M is Rs. 1,00,000/-.
3. That the Application will be filed online through the e-filing services of the trademark made available at official website i.e. www.ipindia.nic.in
4. Furthermore, there are certain documents which need to be filed along with the form
5. Statement of case describing the applicant's rights in the trademark and describing the applicant's claim that the trademark is a well-known trademark,
6. Evidence in support of the applicant's rights and claim viz. evidence as to use of trademark, any applications for registration made or registration obtained, annual sales turnover of the applicant's business based on the subject trademark duly corroborated, evidence as to the number of actual or potential customers of goods or services under the said trademark, evidence regarding publicity and advertisement of the said trademark and the expenses incurred therefore, evidence as to knowledge or recognition of the trademark in the relevant section of the public in India and abroad.
7. Details of successful enforcement of rights, if any, relating to the said trademark in particular extent to which trademark is recognized as well-known trademark by any Court in India or Registrar of Trademarks,
8. Copy of the Judgment of any court in India or Registrar of Trademarks, if any, wherein the trademark is determined as well-known trademark,
9. The size of the document submitted along with statement of case as evidence / supporting document should be in PDF format with resolution of 200 X 100 dpi on A4 size papers and total file size shall not exceed the limit of 10 MB.
10. After the submission of the form, the office will consider on the basis of the documents submitted. It may or may not be considered by the Registry.
11. If accepted, then said mark will be added in the list of Well- Known Trademark.
12. If one objects for inclusion of a particular Trademark in the list of Well- Known Trademark then they can file objection to the Registry of Trademark by stating its reasons for objection.
13. Copy of such objection will be given to the Applicant and they can file counter statement for such objections within stipulated time.
14. That after seeing both the side of the parties the final decisions will be given.
15. If the Applicant mark is included in the list of well- known trademark the same shall be informed to the Applicant.
16. Same shall also be informed to the Trade mark Journal and the mark shall be included in the list of well- known Trademark, will also be available on the website.

The first ever Well-known trademark registered in India was of 7 O' CLOCK representing shaving razors and was descripted by Bombay High court's Contention[17]. After that total now, 97 well-known trademarks are noted and registered, they are provided below:[18]

 

Serial No.	Trademark	Proprietor	Determining Authority	Report	Observation
1	7 O'CLOCK for shaving razors	Gillette U.K. Ltd., England	Bombay High Court	1998 PTC 288 DB	It is recognized that trade mark 70'Clock is well known. As such the use of the mark in respect of tooth brush will lead to   passing-off.
2	AIWA	Sony Corpn., Japan	TMR, Chennai	Decision dated 26-09-2007	AIWA is a well-known trade mark in India in respect of electronic goods. Use of this mark without due cause for any other products would be likely to deceive or cause confusion, unfair advantage and be detrimental to the distinctive character and repute of mark.
3	BAJAJ	Bajaj Electrical Limited	High Court, Bombay	AIR 1988 BOM-167	The use of a family name Bajaj by defendants was held to be an act of passing-off. The goodwill and reputation of Plaintiff company was recognized.
4	BATA & BATA FOAM for footwear	Bata India Ltd.	Allahabad High Court	AIR 1985 ALLAHABAD 242	The plaintiff company Enjoy a reputation for its products.
5	BENZ	Daimler Benz	High Court Delhi	1994 PTC 287	Reputation extends worldwide.
6	BISLERI	Acqua Minerals Ltd.,	High Court of Delhi	2001 PTC 619	BISLERI is well-known in the Indian market and one of the first marks introduced for bottled mineral water. The defendant who was held to have adopted the domain name Bisleri with the intention to trade on the plaintiffs reputation and goodwill, was restrained.
7	CARREFOUR	Carrefour Society Anonyme, organized under the laws of France	High Court of Madras	2007 (35) PTC 225	The trade mark /name used by the applicant for 47 years throughout the world has to be protected, in order to promote commercial morality and discourage unethical.trade practices. Plea of well-known trade mark is accepted.
8	CARTIER for wide variety of goods including jewellery,watches, perfumes etc.	Cartier International, B.V, Netherlands	High Court, Delhi.	2003(26) PTC 160(Del)	Trade Mark Cartier in respect of various consumer goods have acquired a reputation for quality not only in India, but throughout the world. Plaintiff company has acquired brand image and personality in respect of their products. Permanent injunction granted.
9	CATERPILLAR	Caterpillar Inc., USA	Madras High Court (DB)	1998IPLR 326	Name Caterpillar in respect of heavy vehicles and the name has earned reputation & goodwill world wide.
10	CHARLIE	Revlon Inc.	High Court of Delhi	1997 PTC 394	Defendants intention was fraudulent and dishonest to encash upon reputation and goodwill of products of plaintiff. Injunction granted.
11	DR.REDDY In respect of pharmaceutical products.	Dr.Reddy Laboratories	High Court, Delhi.	2004 (29) PTC 435	Trade Mark PR.REDDY, in spite of not being registered, has acquired considerable trade reputation and goodwill in the community dealing with drugs and pharmaceuticals not only in India, but abroad also.
12	DUNHILL	Alfred Dunhill Limited, U.K.	High Court of Delhi.	1999 PTC 294	Plaintiff has prima-facie established a distinctive reputation, image and goodwill in the trade mark and trade name DUNHILL. Plaintiff has acquired global reputation.
13	ENFIELD BULLET	Enfield India Ltd.	IPAB	2006(32) PTC 397	BULLET is a well known trade mark. It cannot be permitted to be copied even in respect of different goods. Appeals against Registrar's decision allowed.
14	EVIAN Mineral Water	Society Anonyme Des Eavx Minerals 'D' Evian	Delhi High Court	1993 PTC 103	Evian acquired excellent reputation and goodwill world over. Said reputation and goodwill extended to India. Mark acquired high degree of distinctiveness. Para 3 & 4 exparte order.
15	FEDDERS For air conditioners	Fedders North America	High Court, Delhi	2006(32) PTC 573	Defendants cannot be permitted to cash in on the international reputation of the plaintiffs. Injunction granted.
16	Whirlpool	Whirlpool Corporation,USA	High Court, Delhi	1996 PTC 476	A product and its trade name transcends the physical boundaries of a geographical region and acquires a trans-border or overseas or extra-territorial reputation not only through import of goods but also by its advertisement. The knowledge or the awareness of the goods of a foreign trader and its trade mark can be available at a place where goods are not being marketed Injunction granted.
17	GLAXO	Glaxo India Ltd.	High Court, Delhi	2002 (25) PTC 105	GLAXO is an invented word. By original adoption, registration, long and continuous user, plaintiff alone is entitled for the exclusive use of the trade mark GLAXO and no one else.
18	HAYWARDS 5000 For alcoholic	Shaw Wallace & Co. Ltd.	High Court, Delhi	2003 (27) PTC 63	The defendants used.numeral 5000 in respect o$3e*r to cash in on vide reputation and goodwill butf. ovet the years by the plaintiffs. Interim injunction confirmed.
19	HOLIDAY INN	Holiday Inn Inc.	High Court, Delhi.	2002(25) PTC 308 (DB)	Words HOLIDAY INN have been adopted by appellant to ride on global reputation of the respondent Commercial goodwill and global reputation should W be allowed to be exploited in a clandestine marine -. Appeals dismissed.
20	HONDA	Honda Motor Co. Ltd.	WIPO Arbritation& Mediation Centre	2004(28) PTC 332	Trade Mark HONDA is famous around the globe.
21	HONDA For motor cycles, motor cars etc.	Honda Motors Company Ltd.	High Court, Delhi.	2003 (26) PTC1	Plaintiffs business is of international character and reputation .Trade mark Honda has a global reputation.
22	HORLICKS For food products, malted biscuits, toffees.See also similar case	Horlicks Limited.	High Court, Delhi	2003(26) PTC 241(Del) 2002(25) PTC 504 2003 (26)   PTC 241	Suits for injunction filed against various companies by the plaintiffs, injunction orders have beer passed and most of the suits have been decreed in"0VQur of the plaintiffs. (Under Section 11(6) record of the successful enforcement of the rights in that traifinwks is a relevant consideration) Use of mark by the defendant 'is a flagrant and blatant attempt to imitate plaintiffs r.itfrk.
23	Hamdard	Hamdard National Foundation (Hamdard Davakhana)	High Court of Delhi	2008 (38) PTC 109	The defendant took a calculated risk in using the HAMDARD word and eye mark; indeed its use of the eye mark points to an attempt to "free ride" on the plaintiffs reputation.
24	INTIMATE	Revlon Inc.	High Court of Delhi	1997 PTC 394	Defendants intention was fraudulent and dishonest to encash upon reputation and goodwill of products of plaintiff. Injunction granted.
25	Infosys	Infosys Technologies Ltd.	High Court of Delhi	2007 (34) PTC 178	The owners has established expenditure of 392 crores towards sales promotion marketing expenses and brand building during 2004-05 alone. It has established an enviable reputation and goodwill in the market nationally and international level.
26	Intel	Intel Corporation	High Court of Delhi	2007 (34) PTC 492	Famous and well-known trademarks especially those that embody a reputation of pre-eminent excellence and quality, as plaintiffs Intel trademark, are required to be given a broad protection.
27	KANGARO	Kangaroo Industries	District Court of Central Jakarta	2004 (29) PTC 175	Mark declared as well known mark.
28	KIT KAT	Societe Des Produits Nestle,S.A.,1800 Vevey,Canton of Vaud,Switzerland.	IPAB	Judgement in TA/1/2007/TM/DEL/(C.M.(M)) No. 148 of 2002) dt. 11/12/2009	KIT KAT is a Well-known having trans-border reputation.
29	LETTER*T IN A CIRCLE House mark	Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co. Ltd.	IPAB	2006 (32) PTC 296	Respondents who have established their reputation and goodwill in automobiles and several other goods are entitled to have the trade mark safeguarded. BENZ case applied.
30	Logo *M' in the distinctive style and design of the famous golden arches	McDonald's Corporation, U.S.A.	High Court of Karnataka.	1999 PTC 9	The Logo 'M' is a well-known and famous logo and courts have recognized the existence of trans-border reputation.
31	MAHINDRA; MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA; M & M	Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.	Supreme Court	2002 (24) PTC 121; CS (OS) 921/2013; Suit No. 2061 of 2012	Mark is in use for five decades. The name has acquired a distinctive secondary meaning in the business or trade circles
32	MARS for chocolates, confectionery etc.	Mars Incorporate,USA	High Court, Delhi	2003(26) PTC 241(Del) 2002(25) PTC 504 2003 (26)   PTC 241	Use of mark by the defendant 'is a flagrant and blatant attempt to imitate plaintiffs r.itfrk.
33	NIRMA See also Sl.No.32	Shantaben 1 Karasanbhai Patel and Others	High Court of Delhi	2001 PTC 427	NIRMA is an invented word. It has acquired great reputation. The owners have been spending huge amount on advertisement for their trade mark. Their sales in relation to various goods are mounting every year.
34	NIRMA for washing & cleaning preparations	S.K.Patel	IPAB	2004(29) PTC 634	The principle laid down by various courts was applied namely where a regd. Trade mark has got reputation & goodwill they cannot be permitted to be used by another person even in respect of different goods.
35	NIVEA	Beiersdorf A.G.	High Court Delhi	2009 (39)PTC 38	Nivea is a recognized product of high quality and has international reputation and recognization. These are marks where the line between the goods and the name is blurred. The mark starts to represent the source or the person than merely a particular are specific type of goods or services. .
36	ODONIL & ODOMOS For mosquito repellants	Balsara Hygiene Products.	High Court, Madras (DB)	2004(29) PTC 226	Plaintiff has built up reputation in the mark, goodwill & huge sales turnover.
37	OMEGA	Omega S.A.,Bienne,Switzerland	High Court, Madras	2003 27 PTC 327	The Plaintiff company has been using the trade name OMEGA for more than 50 years and has enjoyed reputation for its products.
38	PANADOL & PANADOL EXTRA	SmithKline Beecham Pic.	High Court of Delhi	2001 PTC 321	Defendants deliberately used Plaintiffs well known mark.
39	PEPSI	Pepsi Inc.	RTM, Kolkata	2006(32) PTC 225	Pepsi enjoys a huge reputation and goodwill not only in India but also internationally .
40	PHILIPS	Philips NV Netherlands	Punjab & Haryana High Court	AIR 1983 P&H418	Is a household mark and has acquired enviable reputation in India and throughout the world.
41	PIZZA HUT Logo in respect business relating to restaurants	Pizza Hut International LLC, USA	High Court, Bombay	2003(26) PTC 208(Bom)	Plaintiffs enjoy a worldwide reputation, including in India. It is settled law that if the marks/logos enjoy a trans border reputation, they are entitled to be protected against infringement and passing off in India.
42	PLAYBOY for magazine and several other goods	Playboy Enterprises Inc.,	High Court of Delhi	2001 PTC 328	Plaintiff has demonstrated its strength due to the degree of distinctiveness, fame and reputation of the trade mark Playboy. The trade mark acquired world wide circulation and publication in as many as 16 foreign countries.
43	RED BULL	Red Bull GmbH	WIPO	2003(27) PTC 164	Trade Mark RED BULL is one of the best known trade marks not only in Austria but all over the world. Registration of domain name by the respondents was held to be in bad faith.
44	REVLON	Revlon Inc.	High Court of Delhi	1997 PTC 394	Defendants intention was fraudulent and dishonest to encash upon reputation and goodwill of products of plaintiff. Injunction granted.
45	TACO BELL for Restaurant business	Taco Bell Corporation,USA	High Court, Bombay	2000 PTC (20) 554	Plaintiff operated over 6000 restaurant worldwide using name taco bell as logo. Mark registered in more than 70 countries including India in classes 29 & 30. Defendants intention was to trade upon the famous mark of the plaintiffs.'
46	TATA SEE also TATA CASE	Tata Chemicals Limited	High Court, Delhi WIPO	2003 (27) PTC 422 2004 (29) PTC 522 (Delhi) 2001(21) PTC 129 2009 (40) PTC 54	The trade mark TATA is a household name in respect of various products all over India.TATA is a household word in India and solely and exclusively associated with the House of Tata.TATA is a well knownmark.In the decision list of cases where enforcement of rights have succeeded is given.
47	TELCO	Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd.,	TMR Chennai	2001 PTC 562	TELCO mark has gained transborder reputation and goodwill. The mark is identified with the owners and their products throughout India as well as various countries in the world.
48	TOSHIBA	Toshiba Corporation,Japan.	TMR, Ahmedabad	2005 (30) PTC 188	TOSHIBA held as a well known mark and registration cannot be rectified for non-use.
49	USHA For sewing machines, electric fans etc.	Not given	IPAB	2004(29) PTC 647	The respondent had built up long reputation and goodwill in India as well as abroad. The same cannot be permitted to be   benefited by the appellant in respect of different goods or by different architecture or design.
50	VICKS VAPO RUB	Richardson Vicks Inc.	High Court, Delhi	1990 PTC 16	Prima facie the mark as well as bottles distinctive labels and metal containers have become well known and acquired a great reputation (para 32).
51	VOLVO for automobiles	Aktiebolaget Volvo	High Court (DB) Bombay	1998 PTC (18) 47	Trans-border reputation is recognized by Indian courts and that actual sale in India is not necessary for a Plaintiff to establish its goodwill and reputation in India.
52	KIRLOSKAR	Kirloskar Proprietory Limited	High Court, Bombay	AIR 1996 BOM-149	The mark KIRLOSKAR used by the plaintiff had acquired a secondary meaning and had become a household word.
53	WOOLWORTH In respect of clothing etc	F.W.Woolworth Company	IPAB	2004 (29) PTC 477	Trans-border reputation enjoyed by the mark WOOLWORTH is not something to be not taken account of. The world wide reputation of the mark was recognized.
54	Yahoo	Yahoo, Inc.	High Court of Delhi	1999 PTC 201	The services of the Plaintiff under the Trade Mark/Domain name 'Yahoo' have been widely publicized and written about globally.
55	Polo (label with device of polo player)	POLO/LAUREN COMPANY IP (USA)	High Court of Delhi	Decision dated 19.12.2011 in CS(OS) 1763/2005	Having regard to the evidence placed on record the plaintiff has established that the registered trademark of the plaintiff is a well-known mark as defined in Section 2 (z) (g) of the Trade Marks Act
56	GE Monogram	General Electric Company (USA)	High Court of Delhi	Decision dated 21.12.2011 in CS(OS) 1284/2006	It can hardly be disputed that GENERAL ELECTRIC as well as GE whether written in plain letters or in a stylized form such as monogram are well known marks of the plaintiff within the meaning of Section 2 (z) (g) of the Trade Marks Act
57	KALPATARU	Kalpataru Properties Private Limited, Santacruz Mumbai	Bombay High Court	Suit No 2976 of 2010 decided on 29th July 2011	"The Plaintiffs have thus established that .'Kalpataru' is a well known mark " ."I have held above the plaintiff's mark "KALPATARU" to be a well known mark"
58	Castrol	Castrol Limited	Delhi High Court	Judgement in Suit No. CS(OS) 1369/2006 Decision   dated 18/08/2011	High court observed CASTROL is a well known Trade Mark within the meaning of Sec. 2(1) (zg) read with Sec. 11(6) of TM Act 1999.
59	Lupin	Lupin Limited	Bombay High Court	Judgement in Suit (L) No. 3137/2011 Decision dated 05/12/2011	The High Court observed Lupin, a Well Known Trade mark.
60	Canon	Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, Japan	IPAB	Order in OA/43/2005	The Appellate Board Concluded that CANON mark is a well known term under Sec. 11(10) of TM Act 1999.
61	Microsoft	Microsoft Corp.	Delhi High Court	Judgement in Suit No. CS(OS) 2163/2010 order dated 03/02/2014	Court has specifically determined that Microsoft is a well-known trademarks and it is known to the most of the people.
62	Nestle	Societe des produits Nestle S.A.	Delhi High Court	Judgement in Suit No. CS(OS) 551/2010 dated 08/03/2013	Court has specifically determined that Nestle is a well-known trademarks
63	BBC	British Broadcasting Corporation	High Court, Delhi	CS (OS) 1171/2007	Hon’ble Court has determined the mark as a well-known in Indian Territory in its observation
64	Dupont	E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company	High Court, Delhi	CS (OS) 2998/2012	Hon’ble Court has determined the mark as a well-known in its observation
65	Candid	Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd.	High Court, Mumbai	Suit No. 182/2013	Hon’ble Court has determined the mark as a well-known in its observation
66	AMUL	Kaira District Co-Operative Milk Producers Union Lld.	IPAB	OA/56/2011/TM/KOL	The IPAB Emphasised AMUL as a well-Known Trademark.
67	Rajnigandha	Dharmpal Satyapal Ltd.	High Court, Delhi	CS (OS) 381/2012	Hon’ble court observed that Plaintiff has established the mark as a well known trademark.
68	Louis Vuitton	Louis Vuitton Malletier	High Court, Delhi	CS (OS) 270/2014 and CS (OS) 90/2006	Hon’ble Court has determined the mark known in Indian Territory in its observation
69	GOOGLE	Google Inc.	High Court, Delhi	CS(OS) 317/2011 ; CS(OS) 2907/2011	The Court has observed Google worldwide reputation and provided the relief on this basis only.
70	HAVELLS	Havells India Limited	High Court of Delhi	CS(OS) 3770/2014	The Court accepted Havells a well known TM
71	BLOOMBERG	Bloomberg Finance, LP	High Court of Delhi	CS(OS) No. 2963/2012	Interim Order was passed in favour and same was confined vide order dated 12/02/2014 in which HC Observed Bloomberg as well-known.
72	JOHN DEERE	M/s Deere & Co. Ltd.	High Court of Delhi,	CS (OS) 3760/2014	The Court observed John Deere a well known TM (para 13 of order dated 05/03/2015).
73	RAYMOND	M/s Raymond Ltd.	IPAB	OA/16-17/2010/TM/CH	The IPAB observed this mark as Well-known TM.
74	FERRERO ROCHER	M/s Ferrero Spa	High Court of Delhi	CS (OS) 404/2012	The Court observed this mark as Well-known TM.
75	FORD	M/s Ford Motors Co.	High Court of Delhi	CS (OS) 1710/2015	The Court observed this mark as Well-known TM.
76	TOYOTA	M/s Toyota Motors Corporation	High Court of Delhi	CS (OS) No. 62/2007	The Court observed this mark as Well-known TM.
77	TIMBERLAND	M/s TBL Licensing LLC,	High Court of Delhi	CS (OS) No. 2158/2007	The Court observed this mark as Well-known TM.
78	SONY	M/s Sony Corporation	IPAB	OA/49/2007/TM/KOL	The High Court and tribunal has observed this mark as Well-known TM.
79	ULTRATECH	M/s UltraTech Cement Limited,	High Court of Bombay	Suit No. of 2288/1986	The Court observed this mark as Well-known TM.
80	VOGUE	M/s Advance Magazine Publishers INC	Court of XVIII Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangaluru	Suit No. 3079/2003	Suit No. 2860/2011
81	VIRGIN	Virgin Enterprises Ltd	High Court of Delhi	Order No.73/2005 (IPAB)	Suit No. 2860/2011
82	SIEMENS	Ms. Siemens Aktiengesellschaft	High Court of Delhi	CS (OS) No. 3785/2014	The Hon’ble Court has determined the subject mark as a well-Known TM
83	LAVASA	Lavasa Corporation Ltd.	High Court of Mumbai	Suit No. 562 of 2013	The Hon’ble court in its order dated 19/07/2013 has observed that subject mark is a well-Known Trademark
84	MOTHER DAIRY	Mother Dairy Fruit & Vegetable Pvt. Ltd.	High Court of Delhi	CS (OS) 2399/2010	High Court of Delhi, observed “MOTHER DAIRY (Blue Logo)” is a well known TM
85	MONGINIS for cakes, pastries and other bakery products	Monginis Foods Private Limited at B-60, Off Link   Road, Andheri West, Mumbai 400053.	Registrar of Trade Marks	N/A	The Registrar observed that the Mark is well-known in reference to cakes, pastries and other bakery products.
86	MARUTI For Industrial Oil, Automobile, Business administration and retail outlet, Research & Development.	Maruti Suzuki India Limited, At Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070	Registrar of Trade Marks	N/A	The Registrar observed that the Mark is well-known in reference Automobile, Business administration and retail outlet, Research & Development
87	GODREJ	Godrej &boyce MFG. Co. Ltd., at Firojshanagar, Vikhroli, Mumbai-400079	Registrar of Trade Marks	N/A	The Registrar observed that the Mark is well-known trademark in view of its wide presence in the market
88	BIOCON For Pharmaceutical preparation, Business administration & retail outlet and Research & Development.	Biocon Limited 20th K.M. Hosur Road, Electronic City, Bangalore-560100	Registrar of Trade Marks	N/A	The Registrar observed that the Mark is well-known in reference Pharmaceutical preparation, Business administration & retail outlet and Research & Development
89	BrahMos	BrahMos Aerospace Private Limited at 16 Cariappa Marg, Kirby Place Delhi Cantt. - 110010	High Court, Delhi	(CS (OS) No. 2655/2013	Hon’ble Justice in the matter observed that “I have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the trademark Brahmos is a well-Known trademark.”
90	TCS For Software development and allied serviced	TATA SONS LIMITED, Bombay House, 24 HomiMody Street, Mumbai-400001	Registrar of Trade Marks	N/A	The Registrar observed that the Mark is well-known in reference Software development and allied serviced.
91	LuLu for Fast Moving Consumer Goods, Hospitality,   Retail services / Malls, Financial Services and Fashion Stores	LuLu International Shopping Mall Private Limited, 34-1000, NH: 47, Edapally, Kochi, Kerala - 682024	Registrar of Trade Marks	N/A	The Registrar observed that the Mark is well-known in reference to Fast Moving Consumer Goods, Hospitality, Retail services / Malls, Financial Services and Fashion Stores.
92	INDIA GATE For Food grains and allied Products.	KRBL Limited, 5190, Lahory Gate, Delhi. 110006	Registrar of Trade Marks	N/A	The Registrar observed that the Mark is well-known in reference to Food grains and allied Products.
93	ZEE With reference to Services i.e. Media, Entertainment, Packaging, Infrastructure, Education etc.	ZEE Entertainment Enterprises Limited, B-10, Essel House, Lawrence Industrial Area, New Delhi, 110035.	Registrar of Trade Marks	N/A	The Registrar observed that the Mark is well-known with reference to Services i.e. Media, Entertainment, Packaging, Infrastructure, Education, Processing of Precious Metals, Finance, Technology, Health care and Allied Services.
94	GARNIER Relating to ‘toiletry and cosmetic products.	L'OREAL S.A. At 14, Rue Royale Paris 75008 France.	Registrar of Trade Marks	N/A	The Registrar observed that the Mark is well-known with reference to ‘toiletry and cosmetic products’.
95	7 ELEVEN Relating to ‘retail chain, allied products and services	7-ELEVEN, INC. At 3200 Hackberry Road, Irving, Texas 75063, USA	Registrar of Trade Marks	N/A	The Registrar observed that the Mark is well-known with reference to ‘retail chain, allied products and services’.
96	ORAL-B Relating to oral care products	Procter & Gamble Business Services, At 1959 Upper Water Street, Suite 800, Halifax, Nova Scotia, B3J 2X2, Canada.	Registrar of Trade Marks	N/A	The Registrar observed that the Mark is well-known with reference to oral care products.
97	KESARI In respect of travel and tourism Services	Kesari Trust, Kesari Trust, At B/5, Silver Queen CHS, SoonawalaAgiary Marg, Mahim, Mumbai-400 016, Maharashtra, India	Registrar of Trade Marks	N/A	The Registrar observed that the Mark is well-known with reference to travel and tourism Services.

Conclusion
The TRIPS Agreement became effective on January 1, 1995. It is considered the most comprehensive global agreement on intellectual property ever implemented and covers, among others, the areas of copyright, patent, industrial design, trade secret, and trademark law. One small part of that agreement incorporated the Paris Convention rules on well-known trademarks and then expanded those rules to provided further protection for such marks. As a result, the protection of famous global brands is relatively assured.

Some criticism of the TRIPS Agreement may be warranted, particularly in the heavy handed way in which the industrialized nations used the global trading system to force developing countries to accept the loss of sovereignty over determining domestic intellectual property rights, such as the extent to which they would provide exceptions to the trademark territoriality principle. However, the TRIPS Agreement has been a powerful force in protecting well-known trademarks and, as a result, in protecting consumers from the confusion and deceit of purchasing low quality goods bearing the unauthorized brand of a well-known trademark.

As seen above, a number of Member States already provide in their national legislation a possibility to protect the reputation of unregistered well-known trademarks with respect to unrelated goods and (or) services thus exceeding the standards of the TRIPS Agreement and the EU law (Trade Mark Directive and Regulation on the Community Trade Mark). At the same time, it could be pointed out that the approach taken by a number of Member States coincides with the spirit of the WIPO Recommendation.

However, it is clear that the legal dilemma remains unsolved with regard to the standards of the protection of Community trademarks with a reputation provided by the EU Regulation on the Community Trade Mark and the national legislation in a number of Member States. Protection of the reputation beyond the principle of specialty at the Community level unambiguously depends on the condition of registration. Thus, national and Community levels of the protection of the reputation depend on different (in many cases) standards.

The Courts ought to be pragmatic while giving credence to the international character of trademarks and recognizing their well-known status. The renowned brands need to be enlisted under the well-known marks to explore the emerging market destinations but the practical ramification underline that brand is required to wait for the Courts' decision where an infringement case is involved.

While deciding upon the cases of well-known mark, the Courts are seen favoring the local brands without even considering the evidence on record and the material facts and issues. The role of Courts in shaping the path of IPR law is of significant importance which ought not to be tainted for reason of preferential treatment while protecting interests of local trademark holders as protection is based on innovation and not solely on prior usage, whereas the international companies are also expected to come forward and register their well marks with the Indian Trademark Registry not only for the protection of the best commercial interests of the Indian consumers or the end users as also to take over the most lucrative markets of India, restricting further the markets to be taken over by the manufacturer of the counterfeit or the genuine fake products.

End-Notes:

1. Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property.
2. WIPO Intellectual Property Handbook
3. TRIPS
4. WIPO (Paris Convention Relation)
5. The Industrial Property Act of the Republic of Poland (2000)
6. The Trademark Act of the Czech Republic (2003)
7. Invalidation and Revocation of a Trademark from the Slovakian Trademark Act.
8. Irish Trade Marks Ac
9. United Kingdom Trade Marks Act
10. Irish Trade Marks Act
11. Maltese Trademarks Act
12. The Trademark Law of the Republic of Austria
13. The WIPO Recommendation
14. Bulgarian Law on Marks and GI
15. Lanham Act
16. Ihhr Hospitality Pvt Ltd vs Bestech India Pvt Ltd on 31 May, 2011
17. 1998 PTC 288 DB
18. https://ipindiaonline.gov.in/tmrpublicsearch/wellknownmarks.aspx

Written By: Javvad Shaikh

Authentication No: JL30522279301-19-720