Trade Marks Act, 1999
135. Relief in suits for infringement or for
passing off.-
(1) The relief which a court may grant in any
suit for infringement or for passing off referred on in section 134 includes
injunction (subject to such terms, if any, as the court thinks fit) and at the
option of the plaintiff, either damages or an account of profits, together with
or without any order of the plaintiff, either damages or an account of profits,
together with or without any order for the delivery-up the infringing labels
and marks for destruction or erasure.
(2) The order of injunction under sub-section
(1) may include an ex parte injunction or any interlocutory order for any off
the following matters, namely :-
(a) for discovery of
documents.
(b) preserving of
infringing goods, documents or other evidence which are related to the
subject-matter of the suit.
(c) restraining the
defendant from disposing of or dealing with his assets in a manner which may
adversely affect plaintiff’s ability to recover damages, costs or other
pecuniary remedies which may be finally awarded to the plaintiff.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in
sub-section (1), the court shall not grant relief by way of damages (other than
nominal damages) or on account of profits in any case -
(a) where in a suit
for infringement of a trade mark, the infringement complained of is in relation
to a certification trade mark or collective mark, or
(b) where in a suit
for infringement the defendant satisfies the court-
(i) that at the time
he commenced to use the trade mark complained of in the suit, he was unaware
and had no reasonable ground for believing that the trade mark of the plaintiff
was on the register or that the plaintiff was a registered user using by way of
permitted use, and
(ii) that when he
becomes aware of the existence and nature of the plaintiff’s right in the trade
mark, he forthwith ceased to use the trade mark in relation to good or services
in respect of which it was registered, or
(c) where in suit for
passing off, the defendant satisfies the court-
(i) that at the time
he commenced to sue the trade mark complained of in the suit he was unaware and
had no reasonable ground for believing that the trade mark of the plaintiff was
in use, and
(ii) that when he
became aware of the existence and nature of the plaintiff’s right in the trade
mark, he forthwith ceased to use the trade mark complained of.