Trade mark used in a company name is tested under the special trade-name rule, not general infringement provisions.

Use of a registered trade mark as part of a company's trade name is governed by the special rule in Section 29(5) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, not by the general infringement provisions in Section 29(4). The court noted that Section 29(5) applies only where the defendant deals in the goods or services for which the mark is registered, and reading the trade mark and company-name provisions together supports this distinct treatment. Because the defendants were not dealing in the registered goods, the statutory condition for infringement was not met, and interim relief was refused.

---

---

Issues: Whether use of a registered trade mark as part of a company's trade name, where the company deals in dissimilar goods, amounts to infringement under Section 29(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, or whether such use is governed exclusively by Section 29(5).

Analysis: Section 28 confers the exclusive right to use the registered trade mark and to seek relief for infringement, while Section 29 specifies the various forms of infringement. Sub-sections (1), (2), and (4) deal with use of a mark in relation to goods or services, including cases involving identical, similar, or dissimilar goods. Section 29(5), by contrast, specifically addresses the use of a registered trade mark as a trade name or part of a trade name and makes infringement contingent on the defendant dealing in the goods or services in respect of which the mark is registered. The scheme of Section 29 shows that the special provision in sub-section (5) governs this situation and excludes resort to the more general provisions in sub-section (4). Reading the trade mark and company-name provisions together also supports that the legislature intended a distinct treatment for trade-name use. Since the defendants were not dealing in the goods for which the plaintiffs' mark was registered, the statutory condition in Section 29(5) was not satisfied.

Conclusion: The use of the registered mark as part of the defendants' corporate name, in relation to dissimilar goods, did not constitute infringement under Section 29(4), and the plaintiffs were not entitled to interim relief.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the statutory conditions for restraining use of the mark in the defendants' trade name were not established.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a registered trade mark is used only as part of a trade name, infringement is determined by the special rule in Section 29(5) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and not by the general provisions relating to use of a mark in relation to goods or services; if the defendant does not deal in the goods or services for which the mark is registered, no infringement is made out on that basis.

---