Anti Dilution Protection of Trade Mark: Bloomberg Case

The era of globalisation and internationalisation of trade and commerce has developed certain complex socio legal issues with regard to well known Trade Marks. Trade Marks are territorial in nature, but in the light of globalisation and internationalisation there is need to protect well known trade marks against their dilution beyond geographical limits. A trade mark is said to have diluted when by the use of similar or identical trade mark in another non competing markets, it loses its capacity to signify a single source vis-a-vis its distinctiveness. Thus trade mark dilution is a wrong committed against the owner of a famous trade mark which decreases or tarnishes the uniqueness of the impugned mark owing to its unauthorised use in relation to the goods or services that are not similar or identical to the goods or services of the owner of the trade mark.

In India, protection against dilution of trademark is available not only to the well known trade mark but also to the ‘marks with reputation’. Section 29 (4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 provides for the protection against the dilution of ‘trademarks with a reputation’. The Supreme Court of India in the case T.V Venugopal v. Ushodaya Enterprises[1] laid down the test of likelihood of confusion in relation to lesser known but identifiable marks i.e. marks with reputation. However there was ambiguity regarding the meaning of the term ‘mark with a reputation’ as against ‘well known mark’. This concept is clarified recently by the Delhi High Court in the Case of Bloomberg Finance LP v Prafull Saklecha which has widened the scope of anti dilution protection of trademarks in India. Justice Muralidhar has rendered this judgment allowing the marks which are not well known marks to also enjoy the anti dilution protection.

Critical Analysis of the Bloomberg Finance Lp v. Prafull Saklecha[2]:

Facts of the case:-

The plaintiff filed the present suit in the High Court of Delhi seeking for injunction against the defendants from using the mark ‘Bloomberg’ as part of their Corporate name. The plaintiff has been running 24/7 financial news channel since 2008 in India and claims to be using the mark Bloomberg in India, and claims to be using the mark Bloomberg in India since 1996. The defendants are companies incorporated in India using the name ‘Bloomberg’ as part name of their corporate. The immediate provocation for filing the present suit is that Defendant No. 1 through Defendant No. 5, Bloomberg Entertainment Private Limited, associated himself with a Hindi film ‘Deewana Mein Deewana’ on 28th September 2012. It is stated that the association of the Defendants with cinema and digital media would be detrimental to the Plaintiff’s reputation and goodwill and a film released under the banner of a ‘Bloomberg’ company is bound to mislead the public, giving the false impression that the Plaintiff is involved in the said film. The plaintiffs contended that the use of the mark by the defendants constituted infringement and passing-off, thereby diluting the brand Bloomberg. The defendants were using the word Bloomberg in their company’s names, operating in the fields of construction and realty, food, entertainment, etc.

Arguments Advanced:

The plaintiff argued that the plaintiff’s mark ‘Bloomberg’ was a well known mark in India and the defendants had taken unfair advantage of the mark by using it as a part name of their Corporate. It was further argued that the Defendants continuing the use the word ‘BLOOMBERG’ for their real estate business would adversely affect the reputation and the distinctive character of the registered mark of the Plaintiff.  The plaintiffs contended that the use of the mark by the defendants constituted infringement and passing-off, thereby diluting the brand Bloomberg.

The defendants on the other hand argued that the present dispute was essentially about the adoption of the mark BLOOMBERG as part of the corporate name of the Defendants group of companies. According to him, Section 29 (5) of the TM Act, 1999 was exhaustive of the issue and if the Plaintiff was not able to make out a case under Section 29 (5) of TM Act, 1999 then clearly it was not entitled to any interim injunction. It was further contended that the case fell neither under section 29(4) nor under section 29(5), therefore, the act did not constitute infringement. Further many more arguments were advanced by the defendants, but here it does not seem to be important to discuss in order to confine it to the anti dilution perspective only.


The Court held that the essential elements for dilution were prima facie established. The Plaintiff has been able to prima facie show that the mark BLOOMBERG is a well-known mark and enjoys both a trans-border reputation as well as a reputation in India. The court disregarded the defendant’s argument stating that the section 29(5) could not be held exhaustive of all situations of uses of the registered mark as part of the corporate name. Section 29(5) cannot be said to render section 29(4). Thus the court held that the legislature may not be said to have intended not to provide any remedy if a registered mark is used as a part name of the Corporate. Hence the court granted injunction against the defendant from using the mark ‘Bloomberg’ absolutely.


The judgment in this case is in consonance with the Supreme Court ruling in T. Venugopal v. Ushodaya Enterprises and Delhi High Court ruling in the case Ford Motor Co. V. C.R. Borman to the extent that non-application of the likelihood of confusion test to the case of trade marks dilution. However Justice Muralidhar stated that the element of having to demonstrate the likelihood of confusion is absent in Section 29 (4) as against 29 (1) to (3). The Supreme Court and High Court periodically in the precedents have exempted the test of likelihood of confusion and held that the section 29 (4) applies only to those trademarks which have earned a reputation in India. However, until this case the term ‘mark with reputation’ remained shrouded and was under ambiguity. Prior land mark precedents including Ford Motor Co. Case were not clear with respect of specifying the legal test for determining as to when and how mark can be said to have acquired ‘reputation’ in India. The court in this case went further and clarified that it may not necessary to prove that the impugned registered mark is a well known mark, even in fact if it is. This makes easier to suffice the requirement as to the ‘reputation of the mark’ under section 29(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

Lastly, while comparing the phenomenon of dilution of trade mark with US and Europe, the US Trade Dilution Revision Act demands the mark to be a well known mark to enjoy protection whereas in Europe the Courts are left with the discretionary powers in order to determine the criteria or element of reputation as Community Trade Mark regulation does not provide meaning for reputation.

Thus the ruling as laid down in the case of Bloomberg case by Justice Muralidhar is laudable which has widened the scope of Section 29 (4) by allowing the anti dilution protection to trademarks with reputation in India and making it easier to suffice the ‘reputation’ requirement under section 29 (4)  of Trade Marks Act, 1999.

About the Author: Mr. Abhijeet Deshmukh, Trade Mark Attorney, Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorneys and can be reached at:

[1] 2001 (2) ALT 42

[2] IA No. 17968 of 2012 in CS (OS) No. 2963 of 2012

Leave a Reply


  • 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
  • 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