Intellectual property rights (IPR) are the ideas, inventions, and creative expressions for which there is a public willingness to bestow it with the status of property. These are the rights given to individuals for the creations of their minds. Ordinarily they vest the creator with an exclusive right for the use of his/her creation for a specified period. IPR provide certain exclusive rights to the inventors or creators of that property, to enable them to reap commercial benefits from their creative efforts or reputation.

It is also to be noted that the exclusive rights given are generally subject to several limitations and exceptions, aimed at fine-tuning the balance that must be found between the legitimate interests of right holders and of users. There are several types of intellectual property protection like patent, copyright, trademark, etc.[1]

A word, phrase, symbol, design, or a combination of these things that identifies a person's goods or services can be a trademark. It is how customers recognize the person in the marketplace and distinguish him from his competitors[2]. The Trade Marks Registry was established in India in 1940. At the present time the Trade Mark Registry is operating with the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and the rules thereunder. It carry outs the function of a resource and information Centre and acts as a facilitator in matters relating to trade marks in the country.

The registration of Trademarks which are applied for and providing better protection to the Trademarks and also to prevent fraudulent use of the mark is the main objective of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Registration of the trademarks which are properly qualified for registration under the Act and Rules is the main function of the Trademark Registry. A registered trade mark can be protected in perpetuity if the conditions that it is used and renewed on time and the owner of the registered mark takes haste action against infringers.

An unregistered trade mark, called a common law trade mark can be kept alive and protected for as long as it continuous to be used provided the owner of the mark takes appropriate action against infringers by a passing off action or by criminal proceeding[3].

The statute law of trade marks in India is governed by the Trade Marks Act 1999. The Trade Marks Rules 2017 deals with the various proceedings require to implement the provisions of the Act.

Meaning Of Trademark And Infringement Of Trademarks

According to Oxford dictionary trademark means a symbol, word, or words legally registered or established by use as representing a company or product[4].

According to Merriam Webster trademark is a device (such as a word) pointing distinctly to the origin or ownership of merchandise to which it is applied and legally reserved to the exclusive use of the owner as maker or seller or a distinguishing characteristic or feature firmly associated with a person or thing[5].

A trademark is a visual symbol in the form of a word, a device, or a label applied to articles of commerce with a view to indicate to the purchasing public that they are the goods manufactured or otherwise dealt in by a particular person as distinguished from similar goods manufactured or dealt in by other persons[6].

According to the statutory definition of trademark under Section 2(1)(zb) of the 1999 Act, trademark must be a mark which includes a device, brand, heading, label, ticket, name, signature, word, letter, numeral, shape of goods, packaging or combination of colours or any combination thereof[7].

There are four kinds of functions a Trademark carries out in the contemporary business conditions:

1. helps customers in identifying the product and its origin,
2. guarantees customers unchanged quality of the product,
3. helps in the advertisement of the product,
4. helps in image creation of the product.

A trademark can be stated as infringed when a person in the persuance of trade, in relation to the same goods for which the mark is registered, uses without authority the same mark or a deceptively similar mark. It is essential that the mark must have been used as a trademark. It is sufficient if integral feature of the mark has been used for considering violation of the mark. The identification of an integral feature depends partly on court's discretion and partly on the evidence. What is an integral feature may vary from case to case.

When a good bearing the registered mark have been known by a word then the use of that word by any other trader also may constitute infringement. If the whole registered mark has been used the any kind of addition of other matter will not affect the issue. Fraudulent intention is not required to prove infringement, but if intention is established it will be very helpful to prove infringement particularly in doubtful cases.

In order to constitute infringement, the mark must be used in the course of trade as a trade mark and use must be of a printed or other visual representation of the mark. Where the mark registered consists of a descriptive word, surname or geographical name, any bona fide use of that word or name by others for descriptive purpose is protected and will not be an infringement.[8]

Under section 29(2) & (3) marks identical and similar goods or services, similar marks and goods and services identical or similar, identical marks and identical goods and services which are likely to cause confusion or likely to have an association with the registered mark also constitute infringement of the registered trademark.

Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999[9] provides that a registered trademark is infringed when a person not being a registered proprietor or licensee, uses in course of trade;

1. Identity with Registered Mark and Similarity of Goods / Services
   A Mark which is identical to the registered trademark and there is similarity of the goods or services covered by the trade mark in a manner causing confusion to the general public; or
2. Similarity with Registered Mark and Identity of Goods / Services
   A Mark which is similar to the registered trade mark and there is an identity or similarity of the goods or services covered by the trade mark in a manner causing confusion to the general public; or
3. Identity with Registered Mark and Identity of Goods / Services -Presumption of Confusion
   A Mark which is identical to the registered trademark and there is similarity of the goods or services covered by the trade mark. It is pertinent to note that in such cases the Courts will presume that such use will cause confusion on part of public; or
4. Identity with Registered Mark having Reputation
   A Mark which is identical or similar to the registered trademark having reputation in India, even if such mark is used in relation to goods or services which are not similar to those for which the trademark is registered.
5. Similarity of Trade Name with Registered Trade Mark
   A trade name or part of trade name and such concern is dealing in the goods or services in respect of which the trade mark is registered.
6. Application of Registered Mark on Labelling or Packaging etc. with knowledge that such application is without authorisation
   Applies registered trademark to material intended to be used for labeling, packaging, business paper or advertisement provided such person when he applied the mark knew or had reasons to believe that the application of the mark was not duly authorised by the Registered User or Licensee thereof.
7. Use of Registered Trademark in Advertising, when such use takes unfair advantage, is detrimental or against the reputation of registered Trademark:
   
   • An advertising using a registered trademark and such advertising;
   • takes unfair advantage of and is contrary to honest practices in industrial or commercial matters; or
   • is detrimental to its distinctive character; or
   • is against the reputation of the trade mark.

One of the most important and beneficial provision given under Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 is that a suit for infringement can also be instituted before a District Court / High Court (enjoying Ordinary Original Civil jurisdiction), within the local limits of whose jurisdiction, at the time of the institution of the suit, the person instituting the suit, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally work for gain. The person includes the registered proprietor and the registered user.

Meaning Of Passing Off

Passing off is a form of tort. The law of passing off, based on common law, has remained substantially the same over more than a century though its formulation has changed over the time[10].

'No man is entitled to represent his goods as being the goods of another man, and no man is permitted to use any mark, sign or symbol, device, or other means, whereby, without making a direct false representation himself to a purchaser who purchases from him, he enables such purchaser to tell a lie or to make a false representation to somebody else who is the ultimate customer'[11]. The Simple interpretation of the judgment is, to pass off his goods or business as and for the goods or business of another person by whatever means that result may be achieved is an actionable wrong for any person.

The action of passing off can be done by using the trade name, trade mark or other way of organizing of the plaintiff as to generate in potential purchasers the belief that his goods or business were those of plaintiff. The tort lies in misrepresentation by the defendant. The misrepresentation is aimed at the potential buyers of the goods or services, who are invited to buy the goods believing that the goods are of the plaintiff. This might be done through confusing or deceitful use of the trade names, marks or other indications used by the plaintiff in respect of such goods or services[12].

There are three basic elements of passing off which are also known as the Classical Trinity, as described by the House of Lords in the case of Reckitt & Colman Ltd v Borden Inc.[13] The three elements are:

Misrepresentation

It is when the defendant tries to make the public believe that the goods and services which he is providing are of the plaintiff.

Goodwill
It must be proved that the person or the goods and services own some kind of reputation in the market with which the public identify themselves.

In the case of Trego v. Hunt[14] it was observed that, "often it happens that the goodwill is the very sap and life of the business, without which the business would yield very little or no profits. It is the whole advantage whatever it may be, of the reputation and connection of the firm, which may have been made up by years of honest work or gained by the bountiful expenditure of money".

Damage
At last, to succeed in taking action to stop the infringing party, the offended party must prove that it has suffered an actual or reasonable loss of business due to the alleged misrepresentation. This is generally difficult to prove and involves the inspection of books of account of both parties on practical grounds. This is sufficient to prove the possibility of loss. It must be proved that the misrepresentation must have harmed the goodwill or cause loss to the reputation.

Object Of The Trademark Law

The object of trademark law is to deal with the precise nature of the rights which a person can acquire in respect of trademarks, the mode of acquisition of such rights, the method of transfer of those rights to others, the precise nature of infringement of such rights, and the remedies available in respect thereof. This branch of commercial law has undergone changes from time to time in tune with the changing pattern of business methods and practices. Even the very concept of a trademark and its functions have changed[15].

The object of trademark law on infringement is to give the registered or unregistered proprietor the exclusive right to use the trademark in relation to the goods for which it is registered. Even if the trademark is not registered the law bestows the right to enable the proprietor to file a suit for infringement of this right and obtain injunction, damages and other reliefs against the infringer.

The object of law of passing of is to protect the goodwill and reputation of a business from encroachment by dishonest competitors.

An action for Infringement for registered trademark or tort of Passing off for both registered as well as unregistered trademark are essentially two ways of achieving the same objective of protection of goodwill attached with the mark by which the interest of the owner can be protected.

Laws Dealing With Passing Off

The development of economy has caused increase in trades at a faster rate. To make their product distinct from others for the products to be recognized by the public the traders associate themselves with a name and that is called as the Trade Mark. Trade Mark Act, 1999 along with the Trade Mark Rules 2002 gives rights related to the Trade Mark. These legislatures give plenty of rights to the registered trade mark holder. Those who have not registered trade mark can also stop the other person to use the identical or similar trade mark by the Doctrine of Passing Off.

To get the remedy of passing off the plaintiff has to proof that he is the owner of the mark, and the same has gained reputation and goodwill and misrepresentation has been done by the defendant due to which the plaintiff has suffered huge damages. Though the person who has not registered the trade mark get the rights but these rights are very limited. As to prove the passing off one has to show reputation and goodwill attached to passing off. As there is no other criteria it becomes very difficult for the plaintiff to proof the same and even judiciary takes different approach in different case in relation to passing off.

In the case of Perry v Truefitt (1842)[16] the fundamental principle of passing off, i.e. "Nobody has the right to represent his goods as the goods of somebody else" was decided. Over time the law respecting to passing off has transformed as and when required. The law which was previously restricted only to depicting to a person's goods as another later, it was extended to trades and services also. The reformed version of the law applies to many forms of unfair trades and competitions where a person's activities harm the goodwill associated with the activities of another.

An action for passing off arises when an unregistered trademark is being used by a person other than the proprietor of that trademark in relation to the goods or services of the trademark owner. Passing off in India is a tort which is actionable under common law. It is mainly used to protect the good will of the unregistered trademarks. It is founded on the basic principle of law that no one should benefit from the labour of another. Section 27 of the Trade Marks Act,1999 provides that no infringement action will lie in respect of an unregistered trade mark but recognizes the common law rights of the trade mark owner to take action against any person for passing off their goods/services as the goods of another person or as services provided by another person.

The rules regarding jurisdiction provided under section 20 of Code of Civil Procedure is also applicable for filing suit for passing off. The suit can only be instituted[17] before a District Court, within the local limits of whose jurisdiction;

1. The Defendant is residing, working for gain or carrying on its business; or
2. Cause of action has arisen.

Need Of Passing Off

The Trademark is providing protection to registered goods and services, but the passing off action is providing a protection to unregistered goods and services. The remedy is same in both the cases but the Trademark is available to only the registered goods and services whereas passing off is available to unregistered goods and services. The case of Durga Dutt vs. Navaratna Pharmaceutical[18] gives more insight about the difference between Trademark and Passing off. In the above case the Honorable Supreme Court has set the distinction between infringement and passing off. The Court held that, action for infringement is a statutory remedy conferred on the registered owner of a registered Trade mark and has an exclusive right to the use of the trade mark in relation to those goods but passing off is available to the unregistered goods and services of the owner.

The law is providing sufficient protection to a registered Trademark. If there is violation of unregistered Trademark it would be similarly injustice towards the owner of it and nonregistration cannot be an excuse for such mischief. Only because someone has not registered his property does not make it available to be misused or used for the benefit of the violator. The right of an unregistered Trademark is no less important than that of a registered one. No doubt to prove the violation is very difficult in case of unregistered Trademark but at least there is a chance a genuine owner can safeguard his product and services.

In the cases of infringement, the burden is always lies on the plaintiff. In the case of S.M. Dyechem Ltd. v. Cadbury (India) Ltd.[19] the Court held that an infringement action is failed where plaintiff cannot prove registration or that its registration extends to the goods or to all the goods in question or because the registration is invalid and yet the plaintiff may show that by imitating the mark otherwise, the defendant has done what is calculated to pass off his goods as those plaintiff.

Remedies Under Passing Off Action

Under Section 135(1) the reliefs, which may be granted to the plaintiff who established his case in case of infringement and passing off are:

1. An injunction restraining further use of trade mark;
2. Damages or an account of profits.
   
   However, in the case of innocent infringement or passing off, if the conditions laid down in Section 135(3)[20] are satisfied, the court will not grant relief by way of damages other than the nominal damages, or an account of profits; but
3. An order for delivery-up of the infringing labels and the marks for destruction or erasure[21].

Remedies Available for Trademark Infringement:

• Section 29 and Section 30 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 lays down remedies for infringement of trademarks.
• Injunction by the court is a common civil remedy. The two kinds of injunction that can be granted are perpetual and temporary injunction.
• Damages can be claimed by the aggrieved party on the grounds that the his exclusive right of using his trademark has been interfered and because of that, his enterprise suffering losses.
• A civil remedy that is often claimed is handling of the profit accounts along with a command for delivery or removal of the products that have been infringed.

Under the Trade Marks Act,1999, several provisions are there as criminal remedy for the infringement of trademark. Section 103 of the Act provides criminal remedy in the shape of imprisonment for a period of six months which can be extended till three years for infringing trademark rights by the breach of the trademark of any person.

Section 104 of the Act mentions a fine of fifty thousand rupees which can be increased till an extent of two lakhs in case someone is found to violate the trademark rights. Subject to reasonable grounds of proving the infringement a seizure of powers of the person liable for violating the rights can be carried out as a criminal remedy for an efficient exercise of the above provisions by the police.

There are also administrative remedies available as a remedy for the infringement of the trademark. Under Section 9(1) or (11) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 by opposing a mark that is similar to the original mark, can be carried out. If such a situation arises, interrogations are carried out by the examiner upon the trademark registration.

Below are the three ways of carrying out administrative remedy which is often useful in preventing trademark infringement:

1. A trademark opposition is always filed by a third party, that opposes the existing trademark in the trademark journal after the completion of its registration procedure.
2. By correcting the trademark which is already registered in a way eliminates confusion of trademarks.
3. As the remedy is administrative in nature, it is carried out by keeping a check in the trade activity of the goods that bear an infringed trademark. Thus, import as well as export of goods that are labelled with a trademark that is fraudulent by nature is restricted.

To succeed in a passing off case, the plaintiff must show the misrepresentation made by the defendant, which has damaged the goodwill.

In a passing-off action, the plaintiff can claim any of the following remedies:

• Apply for an injunction prohibiting the business from using your trademark or goodwill: An injunction to prevent further use of the trademark by the defendant till the final orders of the case is made to prevent the goodwill of the claimant from further harm during the period when matter is under sub-judice. The injunction is an effective remedy for the prevention of Infringement of both registered trademark and unregistered trademarks. Section 135 of the Trademark Act, 1999 provides the relief of injunction. An injunction can be given in various types:
• Anton Piller Order: The court may order the plaintiff where the defendant is likely to destroy or dispose of materials which contain the trademark of the plaintiff to inspect the defendant's premises.
• Mareva injunction: In such order, the court has the power to freeze the assets of the defendant where the property is likely to be dissolved or cancelled.
• Interlocutory Injunction: It acts to take action against the defendant based on previous violation. It is an order by the Court to prevent the defendant from continuing use of the trademark, which is leading to infringement of the unregistered trademark. It prevents one from further infringement.
• Perpetual injunction: Perpetual injunction is usually granted when the case is finally settled. It is an injunction that prevents the defendant completely from performing any act that violates the right of the owner of the trademark.
• Infringing goods to be destroyed: The court can direct the return of the goods which infringes trademark right of plaintiff and also destroy all such goods.
• Sue for damages or seek to account for loss of profits: Damages are compensation for the loss which can be recovered by the real owner of the trademark from the defendant. The monetary value of financial loss or loss for the reputation of the brand is recovered under damages. The amount of the damages and the account of loss of profits will be awarded by the court after taking into consideration the actual loss of the owner because of the passing off.

Judgments:
Cadila Healthcare Ltd v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd[22]:
In this case the Supreme Court has defined passing-off action as "the species of unfair trade competition or of actionable unfair trading by which one person, through deception, attempts to obtain an economic benefit of the reputation, which the other has established for himself in a particular trade or business"

N.R. Dongre v. Whirlpool Corporation[23] :
In this case the Honorable Court held that Passing Off is based on a principle that "A man may not sell his own goods under the pretense that they are the goods of another man".

Consumer Distributing Co. v. Seiko Time Canada Ltd[24]:
The law of passing off thus not only protects the interest of the owner of the trademark but of the consumers also against misrepresentation. In this case the honorable Court held that "the simple wrong of selling one's goods deceitfully as those of another is not now the core of the action. It is the protection of the community from the consequential damage of unfair competition and unfair trading."

Wander Ltd. v. Antox India (P) Ltd[25] :
The Supreme Court has laid down that in no uncertain terms in a passing off action, the plaintiff's right is independent of a statutory right to trade mark and it is against the conduct of the defendant which leads to or is intended or calculated to lead to 'deception'. It was held by the honorable Court that passing off is a species of unfair trade competition or of unfair actionable unfair trading by which one person through deception attempts to obtain economic benefit of the reputation which another has established for himself in a particular trade or business. The passing off action is regarded as an action against deceit.

Knoll v. Knoll international Limited[26] :
The passing off action is to correct an actionable wrong, based on the broader common law principle that nobody has any right to represent his goods or business as the goods or business of somebody else. The principle is that "trading must not only be honest but must not even unintentionally be dishonest"

Sri Shadi lal Enterprises v. Kesar Enterprises Ltd. [27]:
The purpose of passing off action is to protect commercial goodwill and to ensure the purchasers are not exploited and dishonest trading is prevented. For that, the plaintiff must establish that his business or goods have acquired the reputation. Where the defendants' goods are marked with the trademark of plaintiff or made-up or described as calculated to mislead the ordinary purchaser, it is this tendency to mislead or confuse which forms the gist of passing off action. There is no need to establish fraud or actual deception or actual damages in such cases.

Perry v Truefitt[28]:
It is a famous English case where the tort of passing off was first articulated. Leathart made a hair treatment product. He had shown the mixing process to Perry, a perfumer and hair-dresser, who decided to call the mixture "Medicated Mexican Balm". Perry marketed the mixture under the title "Perry's Medicated Mexican Balm". Truefitt, one of Perry's competitors, made a product that was very similar to Perry's mixture, which he marketed under the name "Truefitt's Medicated Mexican Balm", using bottles and labels that looked like Perry's product. Perry filed a bill against Truefitt, arguing that the name "Medicated Mexican Balm" was valuable to his business and that he should have exclusive right to prevent others from using it. The Court denied Perry the right to the name. However, Lord Longdale held that misrepresentation can be grounds for an injunction, stating that "a man is not to sell his own goods under the pretense that they are the goods of another man".

Colgate Palmolive Company v. Anchor Health and Beauty Care [29]:
In this case Both the plaintiffs and the defendants manufacture well known toothpaste brands. The plaintiffs sued the defendants for passing off. The contention of the plaintiffs was that the defendants' use of colour and pattern of colours in their dental products was dangerously similar to the plaintiffs'. According to the plaintiffs the proportion of colours (red and white) used by the defendants was almost identical to that of the plaintiffs (1/3:2/3). The reason for bringing in such an action was that the plaintiffs were established in the Indian market since 1951, and had a tremendous goodwill in the country, while the defendants had entered the market only in 1996.

It was held by the court that though there cannot be any monopoly over colour, in a country with a huge number of illiterate and semi-literate people, by marketing a new product with a design closely resembling that of the older product, it is easy to create confusion in the minds of the public, especially when a similar product has been prevailing in the market for close to half a century. It was adjudged that the defendants were using the trade dress of the plaintiffs. The court ordered an injunction, restraining the defendants from using the red/white combination in the disputed order.

Conclusion
Registration of the trademark has become vital with the growth in the competition, growth in the economy. To protect one from harm in reputation and goodwill one needs to register its name by which he sold his good, which is its trademark. But those who even do not register their trademark, it does not mean they cannot protect their rights, their interest, they can very well protect the right by the concept called Passing off.

The protection of the trademark is necessary for the business point of view as well as for the protection of customers from fraud and cheating. The passing-off action is applicable in case of unregistered goods and services. The scope of passing off is wide as compared to infringement of the trademark.

An action for passing off registered or unregistered products / services when coupled with the use of a deceptively infringing trademark has the same remedy as that of an infringement of trademark. However, under a suit for passing off an unregistered trademark, the burden of proof to establish loss of reputation and goodwill is more often difficult from a practical point of view. In this regard, it may be noted that many principles relating to trademark law have evolved and are still developing.

Passing Off is a common law tort which protects the goodwill and reputation of trade mark holder against damage caused by misrepresentation by defendant. The action of passing off can be done by using the trade name, trade mark or other get up of the plaintiff as to induce in potential purchasers the belief that his goods or business were those of plaintiff. The tort lies in misrepresentation by the defendant. The misrepresentation is aimed at the potential buyers of the goods or services, who are invited to buy the goods believing that the goods are of the plaintiff.

If the authorized person finds that the defendant is using his mark, he can file the suit in the court and the jurisdiction of the court is where the person resides or where the person carries his business and got loss thereof. If he is able to prove harm to reputation or goodwill or misrepresentation, then the person can get damages of the loss occurred.

Even he can stop the person to use the mark further by taking injunction against him. In order to protect the right one has to prove reputation and goodwill in the market. As no precise definition or criteria is specified in law to prove goodwill and reputation, many people fail to prove the same and thereby is not subject to such remedies.

This creates huge loss to the honest person. Even now with the growth of economy and large area one cannot find out that the same mark in respect of same goods is being used by some other person. When the person gets to know about the same it becomes too late. So it is better to get registered your trade mark as soon as you start using the same. It ensures your rights and interest in better way.

In India, there is a growing need for registration of trademarks day by day, clearly indicating the awareness developing among people to safeguard their own products. Trademark infringement is a common sight nowadays. Although there exist several remedies to cope up with the same, not many are implemented the way they should be. Loopholes in every procedure being carried out to eliminate infringement ultimately hinders the law in hand. Violation of any kind of trademark leads to a negative impact on the individual or the entity thereby reducing the brand value.

Along with direct infringement, there arises indirect infringement as well. Although there are no provisions related to indirect infringement, liabilities exist abiding by the principle of universal law. Hence, what is required is a little bit of awareness among individuals in order to avoid facing any kind of infringement on their own product and overcome the same swiftly with legal help and guidance.

End-Notes:

1. https://www.wipo.int/trademarks/en
2. https://www.uspto.gov
3. Intellectual Property Law by P. Narayanan
4. https://www.oed.com
5. https://www.merriam-webster.com
6. Intellectual Property Law by P. Narayanan
7. Trade Mark Act, 1999
8. Law of Trade Marks and Passing off by P. Narayanan
9. Trade Marks Act, 1999
10. Intellectual Property Law by P. Narayanan
11. Singer Vs Loog (1881)18 Ch D 395 at 412
12. Bansal Ashwini Kr., Law of Trade Marks in India, Center of Law, Intellectual Property and Trade, 2006
13. [1990] 1 All E.R. 873
14. [1896] AC 7
15. Intellectual Property Law by P. Narayanan
16. https://www.wipo.int
17. Section 20 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
18. Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma v. Navaratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories, AIR 1965 SC 980
19. [(2000) 5 SCC 573]
20. Section 135(1) of Trade Mark Act, 1999
21. Section 135 read with Section 134 of Trade Mark Act, 1999
22. (2001) 5 SCC 73
23. AIR 1995 Del 300
24. [1984] 1 S.C.R. 583
25. 1990 (Suppl.) SCC 727
26. (1962) RPC 265 at 278.
27. 1998 PTC (18) 309.
28. (1842) 6 Beav. 66
29. 2003 (27) PTC 478

References:

1. Intellectual Property Law by P. Narayanan
2. Law of Trade Marks and Passing off by P. Narayanan
3. Trade Mark Act, 1999
4. Trade Marks (Amendment) Act, 2010
5. Trade Mark Rules 2002
6. Trade Mark Rules 2017