Most trademark disputes end with the first letter. A properly drafted cease and desist notice, sent to a party that has copied a registered mark, resolves the matter far more often than it escalates. The letter only works if it is credible - a notice that overstates the rights, or is sent by a proprietor whose own registration is vulnerable, invites a reply that makes the position worse.
Starting at
₹14,999 onwards
TM enforcement
Proprietors facing copycats, counterfeits or domain squatting
Timeline
Notice drafted in days; litigation varies
Section 29 covers use by a person who is not the registered proprietor or a permitted user, of a mark identical or deceptively similar to the registered mark, in relation to goods or services for which it is registered, in a manner likely to be taken as use as a trademark. It extends to an identical mark for similar goods, a similar mark for identical goods where confusion is likely, use of a mark identical or similar to a well-known mark for dissimilar goods where that takes unfair advantage of or is detrimental to its distinctive character or repute, use in advertising contrary to honest practices, and use of the mark as part of a trade name or business name.
TL;DR
Infringement is the statutory action, available only to the proprietor of a registered mark. Passing off is the common law action preserved by Section 27(2), available to an unregistered mark, requiring proof of goodwill and reputation, misrepresentation and damage. Both can be pleaded together, but passing off is the harder case because everything the register would have proved has to be proved from scratch.
Section 29
The statutory infringement provision, available only to the proprietor of a registered mark.
Section 27(2)
Preserves the common law action of passing off for unregistered marks - goodwill, misrepresentation and damage must all be proved.
Section 134
Lets a suit be instituted in a court where the plaintiff resides or carries on business, a meaningful advantage over the ordinary rule.
Section 135
Provides for injunction, and at the plaintiff's option either damages or an account of profits, together with delivery up of infringing labels and marks.
The last item is the one people skip, and it is the one that decides whether the notice is safe to send.
A workable notice identifies the registration, sets out the infringing use with specifics, states the statutory basis, and demands defined action within a defined period.
Where the notice does not resolve it, Section 135 sets out what a court can grant.
01
Registration status, renewal position, and your own exposure. A notice sent by a proprietor who has not used the mark for five years frequently comes back as a rectification petition.
02
Dated evidence of your use and of the infringing use, plus the other side's GST, MCA and trademark records.
03
Specific, credible and with defined demands and a defined period. Where the other side has a pending application, we pair the notice with an opposition or rectification - a letter alone does not stop the Registry.
04
Suit for injunction, damages or account of profits under Section 135, instituted under Section 134 where you carry on business.
Upload via our secure portal. We pre-check every scan before filing - cuts portal rejections by ~90%.
Still unsure if TM enforcement is right for your case? Book a free 20-minute consult - a senior CA / CS will walk you through your specifics.
Still have questions?
Book a free 20-minute consult with a senior partner - we'll walk through your case and outline next steps.
Talk to a partner →A senior CA / CS will get on a call with you, confirm scope and start the work - usually within 24 hours.
