Introduction 

The doctrine of acquiescence in trademark law embodies the fundamental principle that "whoever sleeps over their rights slips their rights altogether." Under Section 33 of the Trademarks Act, 1999, this doctrine serves as a crucial defense mechanism for alleged infringers, establishing a statutory framework that balances the rights of trademark proprietors against the legitimate expectations of users who have operated in good faith. 

Acquiescence, in its legal context, represents passive consent granted through conduct rather than express agreement. It occurs when a trademark owner, despite having knowledge of unauthorized use of their mark, fails to take remedial action within the prescribed statutory period, thereby creating circumstances where judicial intervention may be denied on equitable grounds. 

Policy Rationale 

The inclusion of Section 33 in the Trademarks Act, 1999, reflects several key policy considerations: 

• Equity and Fairness: Prevention of unjust outcomes where trademark owners attempt to enforce rights after prolonged periods of inaction 
• Commercial Certainty: Protection of legitimate business interests developed in good faith 
• Resource Optimization: Encouragement of prompt action to resolve trademark disputes 
• Market Stability: Prevention of disruptive enforcement actions against established business practices 

Statutory Provision 

• Section 33 (1)  
  • Section 33(1) of the Trademarks Act, 1999, establishes the foundational framework for the acquiescence defense: 
  • Sub section (1): Where the proprietor of an earlier trademark has acquiesced for a continuous period of five years in the use of a registered trademark, being aware of such use, he shall not be entitled to: 
    • Apply for a declaration that the registration of the later trademark is invalid; or  
    • Oppose the use of the later trademark in relation to goods or services in relation to which it has been so used, unless the registration of the later trademark was applied for in bad faith. 
• Section 33 (2) 
  • Where subsection (1) applies, the proprietor of the later trademark shall not be entitled to oppose the use of the earlier trademark in relation to goods or services in relation to which the earlier trademark has been used, notwithstanding that such earlier trademark may not have been registered. 

Key Statutory Elements 

• Five-Year Limitation Period: The statute establishes a specific timeframe for acquiescence 
• Knowledge Requirement: The proprietor must be aware of the infringing use 
• Good Faith Exception: Bad faith applications remain unprotected 
• Mutual Limitation: Both parties face restrictions on opposing each other's use

Essential Elements of Acquiescence

• Knowledge of Infringement 
  • The trademark proprietor must have actual or constructive knowledge of the unauthorized use. This element requires: 
    • Actual Notice: Direct communication or observation of infringing use 
    • Constructive Notice: Circumstances where reasonable diligence would reveal the infringement 
    • Continuous Awareness: Knowledge must persist throughout the five-year period 
• Positive act of encouragement 
  • As established in Emcure Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. Corona Remedies Pvt. Ltd. (2014), mere inaction does not constitute acquiescence. The doctrine requires: 
    • Affirmative Conduct: Positive actions indicating consent 
    • Express or Implied Consent: Clear manifestation of approval 
    • Encouragement to Continue: Actions that reasonably suggest permission 
• Good faith Usage 
  • The alleged infringer must demonstrate: 
    • Bona Fide Adoption: Honest intention in adopting the mark 
    • Lack of Knowledge: Absence of awareness regarding prior rights 
    • Investment and Development: Substantial commitment to business development 
• Detriment and Reliance 
  • The defense requires proof of: 
    • Reasonable Reliance: Justified belief in the right to use the mark 
    • Financial Investment: Substantial resources committed to business development 
    • Established Goodwill: Development of reputation and customer base

Judicial Interpretation

• Emcure Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. Corona Remedies Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 
  • Key Holdings: 
    • Mere failure to sue without positive encouragement does not constitute acquiescence 
    • Passive inaction insufficient to establish the defense 
    • Affirmative conduct required to demonstrate consent 
  • Legal Significance: This decision clarified the distinction between mere delay (laches) and acquiescence, establishing higher standards for the defence. 
• M/s. Power Control Appliances and others v. Sumeet Research and Holdings (1992) 
  • Key Holdings: 
    • Acquiescence involves remaining silent while another violates rights and invests money 
    • Pattern of behavior inconsistent with assertion of exclusive rights 
    • Requires positive acts, not mere inaction 
• Ramdev Food Products (P) Ltd. v. Arvindbhai Rambhai Patel and Others (2006) 
  • Supreme Court Observations: 
    • Acquiescence is an aspect of delay 
    • Applies when permitting others to infringe while spending money 
    • Actions must be inconsistent with exclusive rights claims 
    • Delay alone may not justify refusing injunction

Conclusion

The principle of acquiescence under Section 33 of the Trademarks Act, 1999, represents a sophisticated attempt to balance competing interests in trademark law. By codifying this equitable doctrine, the legislature has provided certainty while maintaining flexibility for judicial application.