Trap Purchases and Manufactured Jurisdiction in Indian IP Litigation A study of SML Ltd. v. M/s Happy Agro Chemicals and the doctrine of trap transactions Introduction In intellectual property disputes, few procedural issues matter as much as deciding where a case can be filed. The choice of court often shapes the entire journey of the case — from how quickly interim orders are granted, to the attitude of the local lawyers, to the practical burden placed on a defendant who must fight far from home. Because the forum is so important, plaintiffs sometimes try to influence it. The most common method is the trap purchase : a test buy arranged by the plaintiff, where an investigator pretends to be a regular customer, purchases the allegedly infringing product, and keeps the invoice and packaging. Later, this evidence is used not only to show infringement but — more controversially — to argue that the cause of action arose within the territory of the chosen court. Tra...
Statutory Basis Section 33(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 provides that where the proprietor of an earlier registered trademark has acquiesced for a continuous period of five years in the use of a later registered trademark, with knowledge of that use, the earlier proprietor loses the right either to seek invalidation of the later mark or to oppose its use in relation to the goods or services for which it has been so used — unless the later mark was registered in bad faith. The essential elements of the defense may be summarized as follows: (a) The later mark must be registered. (b) The earlier registered proprietor must have been aware of the use of the later registered mark for a continuous period of five years or more. (c) The subsequent applicant or registered proprietor must have used the mark continuously throughout that five-year period. (d) The later mark, once registered, cannot be cancelled unless its registration was applied for in bad faith. (e) Use of the later mar...