A provisional refusal arrives: an identical mark, same goods, already registered. On investigation the registrant holds around fifteen marks — all belonging to well-known foreign brands that have not yet entered India. That is not a coincidence, and it is a business model.
The problem
Brand protection has grown harder in the digital era, and discovering an identical mark already on the register creates two problems at once: unauthorised third-party use of your mark, and your inability to register your own brand.
Trademark squatting has become an actual business practice — registering marks the applicant has no rightful claim to, with mala fide intention, obstructing the true owner. Section 11 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 prohibits registration of marks identical or confusingly similar to earlier ones, and that provision — designed to protect brand owners — is what the squatter’s prior registration turns against them.
The example above is characteristic. A single party holding fifteen registrations for unrelated foreign brands is not operating a business under any of them.
Four routes
1. Investigate actual use on the ground. Establish whether the mark is genuinely being used in India. This matters because of territoriality: India protects the prior user, so if the squatter is using the mark, the position is materially different from a registration sitting idle. Where the mark has established trans-border reputation, the analysis shifts again — though since Toyota v. Prius that requires proof of goodwill among Indian consumers, not global fame alone.
2. Send a cease and desist notice. Requiring the party to stop using the mark and to assign or withdraw it, ideally securing a written undertaking. This is the most cost-effective and time-conscious route, and against a squatter with no business behind the registration it often works — the mark has no value to them except as leverage.
3. Cancellation proceedings. Under Sections 47 and 57, on grounds including non-use and mala fide registration, requiring you to prove your bona fide rights and the other party’s bad faith. Be realistic about the timeline: these proceedings typically take two to three years in India.
4. Platform takedowns. Infringing use on social media and e-commerce needs addressing separately and often more urgently, since digital use can affect your rights more adversely than a dormant registration.
Prevention is the real answer
Monitor the Global Brand Database and the Indian register regularly, so an infringing application is caught during prosecution — when an opposition costs a fraction of a cancellation and takes a fraction of the time.
For a brand with international reach, this is the single highest-value piece of housekeeping available. The squatter’s entire model depends on filing unnoticed.
The systemic gap
There is a real weakness in examination. Examiners search only the Indian database, which by definition excludes brands with no Indian presence — precisely the brands squatters target. Enhanced due diligence would help: internet searches, Global Brand Database checks, and requesting proof of ownership where an application looks suspicious.
Current legislation also lacks any mechanism for dealing with a systematic squatter operating across many registrations. Each mark must be challenged individually, at individual cost, even where the pattern across a portfolio is the clearest possible evidence of bad faith. Without amendment, the purpose of protecting IP rights is itself put at risk.
The takeaways
- Investigate whether the mark is actually used — territoriality makes this decisive.
- A cease and desist notice is the cheapest route and often works against squatters.
- Cancellation under Sections 47 and 57 takes two to three years.
- Monitor and oppose — prevention costs a fraction of cancellation.
Frequently asked questions
What if an identical mark is already registered in India? Investigate whether it is genuinely in use, then consider a cease and desist notice, cancellation proceedings under Sections 47 and 57, and platform takedowns for any online use.
How long do cancellation proceedings take in India? Typically two to three years, which is why a negotiated assignment or withdrawal is often the preferable route.
Why don’t examiners catch squatted applications? Because they search only the Indian database, which excludes foreign brands with no Indian presence — exactly the marks squatters target.
How can squatting be prevented? By monitoring the Indian register and the Global Brand Database, so infringing applications can be opposed during prosecution rather than cancelled after registration.