Abstract
The Trade Marks Act, 1999, constitutes the principal legislative framework for the registration, protection, and enforcement of trademarks in India, and aligns with international agreements such as the TRIPS Agreement. Despite its comprehensive nature, the Act’s efficacy is constrained by enduring structural and operational challenges, including protracted adjudication due to docket congestion following the transfer of IP appeals to High Courts, inconsistent recognition of well-known marks, and insufficient accommodation of digital-era issues such as domain-name misuse and online counterfeiting. This article critically examines these limitations across substantive (registrability, distinctiveness, dilution), institutional (adjudication delays, administrative backlog), and procedural (opposition, enforcement) dimensions. It further explores the treatment of dilution, non-traditional marks, and parallel imports in practice, alongside a review of key Indian case law on confusion, passing off and punitive damages. This article identifies gaps, such as low awareness among SMEs and artisans, a lack of clear evidentiary standards for the likelihood of confusion, and the absence of a dedicated mechanism for cybersquatting disputes. Drawing on statutory provisions, judicial precedents, and comparative perspectives—including the Madrid Protocol, TRIPS, and EU/US approaches— targeted reforms are proposed: codified and transparent criteria for well-known mark determination, expedited procedures for IP disputes, explicit and TRIPS-consistent rules for domain names and dilution, and sustained capacity building for small enterprises. Strengthening statutory provisions and institutional capacity would enhance the timeliness of remedies, reduce legal uncertainty, and better equip Indian trademark law to address the realities of a digital and global marketplace.
Keywords: Cybersquatting, Dilution, Enforcement, India, Trade Marks Act 1999, Well-Known Trademarks.