Limits on effect of registered trade mark
Section 30 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 deals with limits on effect of registered trade mark. Nothing in section 29 shall be construed as preventing the use of a registered trade mark by any person for the purposes of identifying goods or services as those of the proprietor provided the use-- (a) is in accordance with honest practices in industrial or commercial matters, and (b) is not such The Act came into force on 15 Sep 2003.
(1) Nothing in section 29 shall be construed as preventing the use of a registered trade mark by any person for the purposes of identifying goods or services as those of the proprietor provided the use--
(a) is in accordance with honest practices in industrial or commercial matters, and
(b) is not such as to take unfair advantage of or be detrimental to the distinctive character or repute of the trade mark.
(2) A registered trade mark is not infringed where--
(a) the use in relation to goods or services indicates the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical origin, the time of production of goods or of rendering of services or other characteristics of goods or services;
(b) a trade mark is registered subject to any conditions or limitations, the use of the trade mark in any manner in relation to goods to be sold or otherwise traded in, in any place, or in relation to goods to be exported to any market or in relation to services for use or available for acceptance in any place or country outside India or in any other circumstances, to which, having regard to those conditions or limitations, the registration does not extend;
(c) the use by a person of a trade mark--
(i) in relation to goods connected in the course of trade with the proprietor or a registered user of the trade mark if, as to those goods or a bulk of which they form part, the registered proprietor or the registered user conforming to the permitted use has applied the trade mark and has not subsequently removed or obliterated it, or has at any time expressly or impliedly consented to the use of the trade mark; or
(ii) in relation to services to which the proprietor of such mark or of a registered user conforming to the permitted use has applied the mark, where the purpose and effect of the use of the mark is to indicate, in accordance with the fact, that those services have been performed by the proprietor or a registered user of the mark;
(d) the use of a trade mark by a person in relation to goods adapted to form part of, or to be accessory to, other goods or services in relation to which the trade mark has been used without infringement of the right given by registration under this Act or might for the time being be so used, if the use of the trade mark is reasonably necessary in order to indicate that the goods or services are so adapted, and neither the purpose nor the effect of the use of the trade mark is to indicate, otherwise than in accordance with the fact, a connection in the course of trade between any person and the goods or services, as the case may be;
(e) the use of a registered trade mark, being one of two or more trade marks registered under this Act which are identical or nearly resemble each other, in exercise of the right to the use of that trade mark given by registration under this Act.
(3) Where the goods bearing a registered trade mark are lawfully acquired by a person, the sale of the goods in the market or otherwise dealing in those goods by that person or by a person claiming under or through him is not infringement of a trade mark by reason only of--
(a) the registered trade mark having been assigned by the registered proprietor to some other person, after the acquisition of those goods; or
(b) the goods having been put on the market under the registered trade mark by the proprietor or with his consent.
(4) Sub-section (3) shall not apply where there exists legitimate reasons for the proprietor to oppose further dealings in the goods in particular, where the condition of the goods, has been changed or impaired after they have been put on the market.
Section 30, The Trade Marks Act, 1999 (Act 47 of 1999).
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
This section refers to
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
IndiaMART Intermesh Limited v. PUMA SE
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Trade Marks Act s.30(1) limits s.29 where use of a registered mark to identify goods as those of the proprietor is in accordance with honest practices and not unfairly detrimental — for a B2B listing portal, merely offering sellers a drop-down option to describe goods by a brand/trademark (to ensure consistent spelling/search) is not per se a dishonest practice under s.30(1); single-judge injunction restraining IndiaMART from providing PUMA as a seller search/description option set aside to that extent, while takedown-on-knowledge and anti-relisting duties for counterfeit listings remain (IT Act s.79 safe-harbour analysis engaged but not mapped here).
On this section: True
-
Devans Modern Breweries Limited v. Jagpin Breweries Limited
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Reusing third-party branded/embossed glass bottles for one's own beer is trade-mark infringement under s.29 and is not saved by the s.30(1) honest-practices limit on effect — claims that recycled bottles entered the line via kabadiwalas / inadvertent human error do not establish honest industrial or commercial practices (following Allied Blenders, Anheuser-Busch, Som Distilleries / SABMiller Bombay DB reading of s.30(1)); permanent injunction restraining Jagpin from packaging COX beer in DEVANS-embossed bottles, with notice/remedial protocol for stray stock and costs of Rs 2 lakh.
On this section: True
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… as provisional store has been named after Sudali Aachi, who is the grandmother of one of their partners and that the word 'Aachi', which means grandmother in Tamil Language is a publici juris and has a separate distinct character prior to the registration of the trademark itself and entitled the protection under Section 30 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. It is further pointed out that while the Appellants primarily dealt with masala and spices, the Respondent is the retailer and wholesalers of provisions, and though the Appellants claim to have obtained the trademark for 'Aachi Super Stores', they are not carrying any such wholesale or …
-
… Modicare and Oriflame ―are the owners of their respective trademarks.‖ The Defendants were found guilty of infringing the above trademarks and diluting it and passing off as their own misrepresenting their association with Amway, Oriflame and Modicare. It was concluded that the principles of exhaustion in terms of Section 30 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (‗TM Act') did not exempt the Defendants from liability thereunder and the manner of sale on the ecommerce platforms also constituted passing off, misrepresentation and dilution/tarnishment of the products and business of the Plaintiffs. 44. It was held by learned Single Judge that …
Questions about Section 30
What have the courts held on Section 30 of the Trade Marks Act?
IndiaMART Intermesh Limited v. PUMA SE (02 Jun 2025) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: True. Another 1 judgment on this section is set out below. They run from 2023 to 2025.
How do I find court cases under Section 30 of the Trade Marks Act?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: Trade Marks Act 30, section 30 Trade Marks Act, section 30 of the Trade Marks Act. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 2 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with IndiaMART Intermesh Limited v. PUMA SE (02 Jun 2025).
What should I read with Section 30 of the Trade Marks Act, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on section 29 (Infringement of registered trade marks), so none of them can safely be read on its own. 3 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it.
When did Section 30 of the Trade Marks Act come into force?
Section 30 of the Trade Marks Act, cited as Trade Marks Act 30, came into force on 15 Sep 2003, having been enacted on 30 Dec 1999. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 2. Definitions and interpretation1911 words
- 157. Power to make rules1216 words
- 11. Relative grounds for refusal of registration985 words
- 47. Removal from register and imposition of limitations on ground of non-use716 words
- 29. Infringement of registered trade marks651 words
- 36E. International registrations where India has been designated532 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 15 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.