Back
Affirms Injunction Against ACC Steel Over Well-Known 'ACC' Mark
The has delivered a significant judgment reinforcing the expansive protection afforded to well-known trademarks, upholding a commercial court decree that restrains ACC Steel Pvt. Ltd. from using the mark “ACC” in any form. The Division Bench, comprising Justice D.K. Singh and Justice H. Shanthi Bhushan, dismissed the appeal filed by ACC Steel, holding that the of “ACC” as a prevents the defendant from limiting the dispute to a comparison of trademark classes.
The decision clarifies that even when goods are classified differently under the Trademark Rules, the proprietor of a well-known mark can still enforce rights against use on dissimilar products if there is a , especially in overlapping trade channels. This ruling has far-reaching implications for trademark enforcement in India, particularly for marks that have achieved widespread recognition across multiple industries.
A Well-Known Mark Transcends Classification Boundaries
ACC Limited, a major cement and ready-mix concrete manufacturer, has used the “ACC” trademark since . In , the company discovered that ACC Steel was selling TMT bars under the same mark and had incorporated “ACC” into its corporate name. ACC Limited filed a suit before the , alleging , , and . The commercial court granted a , directed ACC Steel to amend its trade name, and ordered the delivery of infringing material for destruction, though it declined to award the claimed ₹10 lakh in damages due to insufficient evidence.
On appeal, ACC Steel argued that its steel products fall under Class 6 of the trademark classification, while ACC Limited's cement and allied products are classified under Class 19. The company contended that the difference in classification alone should defeat the claim of infringement. However, the High Court firmly rejected this narrow approach.
The Bench observed: “Once those circumstances are considered along with the of 'ACC' as a well-known trade mark, the defendant cannot reduce the controversy to a comparison of Class 6 and Class 19 alone.” The court emphasized that the , under Sections 11(2) and 29(4), extends protection to well-known marks even against use on dissimilar goods, provided there is a or association.
The Danger of Partial
The court noted that “ACC” had been included by the in the list of well-known trademarks under . This recognition was based on factors such as long use, extensive publicity, wide sales and distribution, registrations across several classes, and a strong reputation in the construction industry. The Bench further found a clear overlap in trade channels: both cement and steel are used in construction, move through similar distribution networks, and are directed toward the same class of consumers—contractors, builders, and construction firms.
Significantly, the commercial court had recorded that actual inquiries were made by people who believed that ACC Steel's products had some association with ACC Limited. The High Court considered this as strong evidence of potential confusion. The Bench observed that ACC Steel had adopted the entirety of “ACC” and used it both as a product mark and in its corporate name. The addition of “TMT 500” after “ACC” did not mitigate the of the distinctive feature that identifies the plaintiff.
The court stated: “The use of 'TMT 500' after 'ACC' does not remove the of the distinctive feature which identifies the plaintiff.” This underscores the principle that a well-known mark's cannot be diluted by merely adding descriptive or generic terms.
Registration Alone Not a Shield
ACC Steel also attempted to rely on its own trademark registration for the mark “ACC” in Class 6. However, the High Court noted that begins with the words “subject to the other provisions of this Act,” and Section 31 gives registration only evidentiary value. The Bench pointed out that ACC Steel's registration had been stayed by the in initiated by ACC Limited as early as . Therefore, the registration could not be treated as determinative of the right to continue using the mark.
The court further held that Sections 51 and 122 of the Act do not create a for a registered proprietor to use another proprietor's registered trademark. The injunction was also justified under Section 29(5), which specifically addresses the use of a mark in a corporate name—a critical factor given that ACC Steel carried on business as “ACC Steel Private Limited.”
No Ground for Interference
The Division Bench concluded that ACC Steel had failed to identify any misapplication of law, procedural irregularity, violation of natural justice, or specific error in appreciation of evidence that would warrant interference with the commercial court's decree. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs, and all pending applications were disposed of.
This judgment reinforces the robust legal framework protecting well-known trademarks in India. Legal practitioners should note that the decision affirms that the statutory listing of a mark as well-known significantly broadens the scope of protection, enabling the proprietor to challenge use even on non-competing goods when there is a real risk of association. The ruling also serves as a caution to companies that adopting a well-known mark—even with a different product line and a separate registration—does not insulate them from liability.
Implications for Trademark Practice
For intellectual property lawyers, the 's reasoning provides clear guidance on how to approach cases involving well-known marks. The decision highlights the importance of proving overlap in trade channels, consumer perception, and the extent of the mark's reputation. It also underscores that a defendant's own registration is not an absolute defense, particularly when are pending.
The case is a timely reminder of the need for thorough due diligence before adopting a mark that may conflict with a , regardless of the product category. As the line between distinct industries blurs, especially in the construction sector, this judgment sets a precedent that will likely be cited in future infringement disputes.
