The proposed reforms are a step in the right direction, but the report does not contain a draft law and it remains to be seen how quickly new laws will be enacted to implement the reforms. In the longer term, it is possible that the provisions could simply be removed and replaced by a new means based on unfair competition law, which would bring English law into line with European law (if this means already exists). For now, however, the law remains unchanged. To curb the problem of baseless threats, intellectual property laws have included provisions prohibiting intellectual property rights holders from making such indiscriminate threats against individuals and companies. Section 106 of the Patents Act 1970 provides a mechanism to protect the interests of individuals and businesses against such gratuitous threats. Any aggrieved person threatened may bring an action for legal protection against such a threat. The scope of protection under the Trademark Act includes protection against the unfounded threat of prosecution for alleged infringement. The legislation also extends to the protection against threats of those who do not claim to be the owner, licensee, assignee or registered user of the registered trademark. 1. Where a person threatens, by circular, advertisement or otherwise, to bring an action or proceeding for infringement of a registered trade mark or applies for registration by himself or by any other analogous procedure, an injured party, whether or not he is the registered owner or registered user of the mark: bring an action against the first person and obtain a statement that the threats are not justified, as well as an injunction against the continuation of threats and may (if necessary) compensate for the damage it has suffered, unless the first person believes the court that the trademark is registered and that the facts for which the proceedings have been threatened: constitute an infringement of the trademark or if it should occur. In India, intellectual property laws are designed to protect against the unfounded threat of counterfeiting and also to prevent intellectual property rights holders from illegally threatening infringement lawsuits against other parties.
With particular reference to the Trade Marks Act 1999, Section 142 of the Trade Marks Act deals with the unfounded threat of legal action. The article provides that if a person threatens, by circular, advertising or otherwise, another person to bring a legal action or a proceeding for infringement of a registered trademark or a trademark purportedly registered, an aggrieved person may bring an action against that former person and obtain a statement to the extent that such threats are unjustified. The use of such threats is that the aggrieved party can obtain an injunction in his favour to deter the other person from pursuing these threats and also to obtain damages. Similar provisions are also contained in other intellectual property laws such as the Copyright Law, the Patent Law, the Design Law and the Geographical Indications (Registration and Protection) Act. Section 142 of the Trade Marks Act exempts from liability any act performed by lawyers and representatives on behalf of the client in a professional capacity. While the law provides protection to those who are victims of such threats, it does not define what constitutes an unfounded or unfounded legal threat. The term baseless legal threat has been coined by the judiciary in several cases, while several cases have been considered, but this is not enough to fill the gap in the definition of an unfounded legal threat. The judiciary has extended its protection to unjustified threats of injury.
In rendering its decision, the Honourable Supreme Court considered the following factors: whether TVS violated Bajaj Auto`s patented technology and whether Bajaj Auto unfounded threatened to acquire a monopoly in the automotive market? This is a case of baseless threats by Vitaflex against Bata, and the plaintiff drew the attention of the Delhi High Court to the fact that the threats were unjustified and that no intellectual property rights of the defendant had been violated. Bata also sought damages for Vitaflex`s baseless threats. The final report of the Legal Commission on its reform proposals in the area of unfounded threats concludes that protection against unfounded threats to patents, trademarks and design rights should be maintained, but reformed. In Bata India Limited v. Vitaflex Mauch GmbH, the plaintiff brought an action against the defendant to prevent it from prohibiting the plaintiff from making unfounded threats of legal action.