Trademark Licensing in India

One of the drastic turnarounds caused by the introduction of the new Trade Marks Act, 1999, repealing the old Trade Marks Act, 1958 was broadening the definition of the phrase ‘permitted use’. In the new Act, the use of a registered Trade Mark is now permitted not only by the registered user, but also by a third person who is permitted to use the captioned registered Trade Mark with the consent of the registered user. A license agreement would be signed between the registered user and the third party. The clauses would mainly include granting of rights, royalty payment, duties and obligations of both the parties, arbitration/mediation clauses, termination and its consequences, to name a few. This practice is called Licensing which is treated as a part and parcel of any business these days.

The Trademarks Act does not mention the term ‘License’ but the concept under the Act is mentioned as that of a ‘Registered User’.

The advantage of Licensing is that it widens the scope of the product that the Trade Mark covers and extends its growth in terms of value and reputation. It is a win-win situation for both the proprietor of the Trade Mark who has already established himself in the business arena (the licenser) and for the person who might be just a start-up company (licensee).

But the main flaw in licensing would be that the licensee may end up exploiting the Trade Mark more successfully and effectively than the licensor and may receive better returns. It would be a huge backlash on the licensor if he ends up losing his customers too. Also, there is a huge risk of unauthorized usage of the Trade Mark once it is licensed.

The main difference between patent licensing and Trade Mark licensing is that a patent holder can solely license his invention as a patent whereas under the Trade Mark law, a Trade Mark cannot be used solely for the purpose of licensing.

In Gujarat Bottling Co. v Coca-Cola Co. (1996) PTC 89, it was held that so far as a connection in the course of trade with the Trade Mark continues to exist between the goods and the proprietor of the mark, licensing of Trade Marks, registered or unregistered may be permitted.

When it comes to goodwill of the Trade Mark, it would always belong to the licensor since he is the original proprietor of the Trade Mark. The trade connection between the licensor and the goods of the Mark and the accruing goodwill attached to it, can be maintained by him (the licensor) by measures such as quality control. In the case of Barcamerica International USA Trust v. Ty-field Importers Inc., (289 F.3d 589 (9th Cir. 2002) the licensor failed to exercise quality adequate control over the licensee. This means that the licensor used the Trade Mark as a commodity without established a direct trade connection between the goods and himself. In such scenarios, the licensee may be able to challenge the rights of the licensor. In the above mentioned case, the Court held that uncontrolled or ‘naked’ licensing may result in the Trade Mark ceasing to function as a symbol of quality and controlled source whereby it may appear that the Trade Mark owner has abandoned the Mark and he may be stopped from asserting his rights to the Trade Mark.

When it comes to determining what exactly constitutes ‘quality control’, McCarthy in his book ‘Trademark and Unfair Competition’ has observed that under the understanding of the quality theory, the consumer assumes that products sold under the same trademark will be of equal quantity regardless of the actual physical source or producer of the goods. This means, as per the expectations of the potential consumer, the legal form of ownership and control of a Trade Mark should not affect the final produced goods or service. Hence, whatever be the form of quality control exercised by the registered proprietor over the use of the Mark by the registered user, the provision of the quality control and the expectations to provide the same, must be written in an agreement (which is between the licensor and the licensee) as one of the stipulated conditions.

Further, a plethora of judicial decisions have laid down certain findings on how to diligently conclude whether quality control has been exercised or not. Various factors such as an effective audit mechanism, training of personnel, right to inspection, financial and managerial controls, provisions of samples, and most importantly, the nature of the relationship between the licensor and licensee have been marked out.

However, the Act is unclear on several issues. In a case where the Registrar cancels the registration of a Trade Mark which has already been licensed, the licensee would bear the brunt of it too. This loophole can be avoided if the clauses in the License Agreement are drafted accordingly.

Coming to the difference between assignment and license, assignment essentially means selling the complete ownership of the Trade Mark, whereas licensing would merely mean renting of the Trade Mark. In ordinary parlance, assignment is a form of permanent transfer, while license is a temporary transfer. Assignment can be made wholly or partly; license gives right for a specific period of time. Assignments are not revocable in nature, while licenses can be revoked.

One would think that when it comes to regulation of Trade Mark license agreements and keep a check and control over them, competition law would play a major role in it. But Section 3(5) of the Competition Act excludes ‘licensing agreements’ with respect to IPRs from the purview of regulating anti-competitive agreements. This exception is only with respect to IPRs because it is solely said to be a creative and innovative field.

It would mean that the provisions in the Act relevant to anti-competition agreements will not restrict the right of any person to impose such reasonable conditions as may be necessary for protecting his rights granted to him under any IPR statute. Although, licensing agreements that are unreasonable i.e. if they affect the prices, production and manufacture of goods adversely in the market, they are protected under the Competition Act. This stipulation deems to be very ambiguous since it would mean that agreements which are only appear unreasonable per SE would be under scrutiny by the Competition Commission of India, and not all the agreements.

Instead of banking on competition law to provide legal recourse for Trade Mark licensing agreements, there is a need for certain amendments in the Trade Mark Law itself to first acknowledge the existence of a license and then elaborate on it deeply. Only then, can a Trade Mark be economically exploited for the betterment of the corporate society.

About the Author: Ms. Madhuri Iyer, Trade Mark Attorney at Khurana & Khurana and can be reached at:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

2 × 5 =


  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • September 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010