For over twenty years, The Financial Times Ltd and Times Publishing House Ltd have fought over “FINANCIAL TIMES” and “FT” — across a City Civil Court, the IPAB and the Delhi High Court. It’s a case study in the hurdles foreign brands face entering India.
Note: The IPAB was abolished in 2021 (Tribunals Reforms Act); matters of the kind described here now lie with the High Courts. This piece captures the dispute as at 2016.
The tangled timeline
- 1987 — FTL applies to register “Financial Times” in Class 16.
- 1990 — TPHL obtains a PRB Act title certificate for “Financial Times” (in India, no newspaper can publish without a title from the Registrar of Newspapers).
- 1991 — FTL registers “Financial Times” in Class 9.
- 1993 — TPHL applies for “Financial Times” in Class 16; later that year, the mark is registered for FTL.
- TPHL then seeks cancellation of FTL’s mark before the Delhi HC; FTL retaliates with an infringement/passing-off suit in the Bangalore City Civil Court.
- 1994 — FTL registers “FT” in Class 16; Bangalore grants FTL an interim injunction, later vacated on appeal; on FTL’s SLP, the Supreme Court lets TPHL use the mark subject to conditions.
- On the 1999 Act taking effect, TPHL’s cancellation moved to the IPAB; the Bangalore suit was dismissed (2002), with a first appeal still pending in the Karnataka HC.
- 2005 — TPHL’s “Financial Times” (Class 16) is registered, then suo motu cancelled by the Registrar; both parties file rectifications at the IPAB.
The IPAB order and its aftermath
In 2012, the IPAB:
- removed FTL’s “Financial Times” (Class 16) — FTL couldn’t prove claimed use from 1948;
- allowed FTL’s rectification against TPHL’s “Financial Times” (Class 16) — TPHL knew of FTL’s mark given its publicity; and
- dismissed TPHL’s rectification against “FT” (Class 9).
Both sides appealed to the Delhi HC, which stayed the IPAB order and began hearing the matter.
The October 2016 order
The Delhi HC (Justice Endlaw) had to decide whether to remand to the IPAB for not letting TPHL cross-examine FTL’s witness. The Bangalore court and the IPAB had reached conflicting conclusions on FTL’s goodwill: Bangalore held “Financial Times” hadn’t acquired distinctiveness exclusive to FTL in India; the IPAB held it had.
The judge held that allowing cross-examination merely because of parallel proceedings would frustrate Sections 92, 93 and 100 of the Trade Marks Act. The evidence before both fora was the same — only its appreciation differed, which is no ground for cross-examination. Finding no error in the IPAB’s refusal, he dismissed TPHL’s challenge, leaving the parties to argue at the hearing which parts of the affidavits count as evidence — and noting that once the IPAB heard the matter de novo, its own procedure applied.
The takeaway
The saga illustrates how layered fora (civil courts, the tribunal, the High Court) and conflicting findings can stretch a dispute across decades — a real obstacle for foreign brands entering India. It also shows courts guarding against tactics (like duplicative cross-examination) that would frustrate the statutory scheme.
The takeaways
- Parallel fora breed conflict — the same evidence yielded opposite findings on distinctiveness.
- Use claims must be provable — FTL’s unproven 1948 use cost it a registration.
- Courts resist tactics that frustrate the Act — no cross-examination merely to relitigate appreciation of evidence.
- Foreign entrants face long, layered battles — plan enforcement and evidence for the long haul.
Frequently asked questions
What was the Financial Times trademark dispute about? A two-decade fight between The Financial Times Ltd and Times Publishing House Ltd over the marks “FINANCIAL TIMES” and “FT” in India, spanning the City Civil Court, IPAB and Delhi High Court.
Why did FTL lose one of its registrations at the IPAB? It couldn’t prove its claimed use of “Financial Times” from 1948, so the IPAB removed that Class 16 registration.
Why did the Delhi HC refuse cross-examination? Allowing it merely because of parallel proceedings would frustrate Sections 92, 93 and 100 of the Trade Marks Act; the same evidence was before both fora, and differing appreciation is no ground for cross-examination.
What does the case show about entering the Indian market? That layered fora and conflicting findings can stretch a trademark dispute across decades — a significant hurdle for foreign brands.
Legislation referred to
- The Trade Marks Act, 1999