top of page

Acquiescence in Trademarks: Understanding the Legal Implications

Acquiescence is a legal principle often invoked in trademark disputes. It refers to a situation where the owner of a trademark, knowing that another party is infringing upon their rights, takes no action to assert those rights for an extended period. In the context of trademark law in India, several court judgments have shed light on the concept of acquiescence and its application.

  1. Understanding Acquiescence: Acquiescence, considered a form of delay, arises when the trademark owner silently allows another party to infringe upon their rights while also investing in and developing the infringing mark. It represents a course of conduct inconsistent with claiming exclusive rights to a trade name or trademark. It is important to note that acquiescence implies positive acts rather than mere silence or inaction, which falls under the concept of laches.

  2. Exclusions and Limitations: Fraudulent actions or the defendant's knowledge of the plaintiff's rights nullify the application of acquiescence. Mere inaction by the plaintiff against the infringement does not automatically imply acquiescence. Even if the defendant has been using both trademarks since the breakdown of the parties' relationship, the principle of acquiescence may still be invoked. It is crucial to establish that the plaintiff's conduct created a reasonable belief in the defendant that they had a license or right to use the mark.

  3. Distinctions: "Laches" and "inordinate delay" should not be confused with acquiescence. Acquiescence arises when the proprietor, aware of their rights and the infringer's ignorance, takes actions that encourage the infringer's misunderstanding, thereby worsening their position. However, a defense of acquiescence or laches may be invoked whenever it is unconscionable for the plaintiff to deny what they allowed or encouraged the defendant to believe. Mere failure to sue without positive encouragement is generally insufficient for a defense.

  4. Fraud and Relief: In cases involving fraud or the defendant's knowledge of the plaintiff's rights, injunctions may still be granted, even if damages or profits are barred due to laches or acquiescence. Courts are reluctant to deny injunctive relief if the defendant deliberately infringes upon the plaintiff's mark. The interest of the general public, as a third party, must be considered. In cases of inordinate delay, if the general public may be misled into purchasing the defendant's goods under the belief that they belong to the plaintiff, injunctions should not be denied.

  5. Plaintiffs' Conduct: Acquiescence involves more than mere silence from the plaintiffs. It requires positive encouragement by the plaintiff towards the defendant. Inaction by the plaintiff after becoming aware of the infringement, knowing that taking action may perpetuate the infringement, can be considered acquiescence.

  6. Clean Hands: The defense of laches or inordinate delay is an equitable defense. Both parties must approach the court with clean hands. A party that violates the law or infringes on someone else's rights cannot rely on the continued misuse of the usurped right.

Conclusion: Acquiescence in trademark disputes plays a significant role in determining the rights and remedies available to the parties involved. Understanding the key principles outlined in various Indian court judgments is essential for a comprehensive grasp of the concept. By recognizing the importance of timely action, encouraging fairness, and protecting the interests of the general public, the courts have attempted to strike a balance between safeguarding trademark owners' rights and preventing undue harm to defendants.

Recent Posts

See All

Understanding Distinctiveness in Trademark Law

Distinctiveness is a cornerstone concept in trademark law, determining whether a mark can be registered and protected. A trademark can be distinctive in two fundamental ways: inherent distinctiveness


bottom of page