Author name: Vishnupriya Agrawal

Abstract India’s startup ecosystem faces brand protection challenges despite unprecedented growth. This article examines the critical role of trademark registration for startups and SMEs through recent case law, the SIPP scheme, and judicial precedents, including Toshiba v. Tosiba and Amazon’s ₹339 crore damages, demonstrating that trademark protection is essential business infrastructure Introduction There’s no secret that Indian businesses are no less than a mystery in 2025. According to the DPIIT, more than 16,150 registered entrepreneurs are developing innovative solutions and driving incredible economic growth. Due to inadequate trademark protection, the majority of these businesses stand to lose their brands, and customers become enraged, and their policies become anticompetitive. 2024 saw 540,000 trademark applications—a gain of 9.3%. It is apparent that Indian businesses are coming to appreciate the value of protective legislation around IP. Entrepreneurs and Owners of SMEs are granted the sole and exclusive right to utilize their business identifiers as protected by the Trade Marks Act 1999: the name, the logo, the slogan, the jingle, the colour, and even the sound. The reputation of a business, and more so a brand, can be destroyed in a nanosecond in today’s digital world. As such, trademark protection is no longer a compliance issue but a business imperative. This article addresses the infrastructure of law, the jurisprudence, the political incentives, and the economic outcomes that accrue to a business from national registration of a trademark. The Legal Framework and Recent Developments 1. Statutory Protection Under the Trade Marks Act, 1999:  All trademark issues are covered under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 in India, which also gives protection from infringement, passing off, dilution, etc, and, under Section 28, gives registered owners exclusive rights to the use of the trademarks. Section 29 also states that there is infringement of trademark rights for the unpermitted use of the identical or similar marks.  The 2025 amendments introduced the first set of procedural changes, which were beneficial to the startups and the SMEs. There were process digitization, compliance simplification, and AI scanning to reduce conflict. All of these helped in shortening the registration time for trademarks which helped for better integration of India’s trademark law to the ever-changing business environment. 2. Government Initiatives: SIPP Scheme and Fee Concessions Startups operating up to FY 2025–26 can still avail themselves of the Startup Intellectual Property Protection (SIPP ) program benefits. Recognized start-ups receive 80% off trademark registration costs and professional assistance with patent filings, and the costs to the government are now ₹4,500 per class (down from ₹9,000 for other entities). Registered Micro, Small, and Medium-sized Enterprises (MSMEs) receive half the costs due to their limited resources and are therefore eligible for these policies.  This is in fact, addressing fundamental market failure i.e. the uneven costs of protecting patents. There is also evidence from 2024 showing that the rate of patent filing by start-up applicants is up 131%, indicating the policy’s success in reducing the costs of accessing IP protection mechanisms. Judicial Precedents: Lessons from Landmark Cases 1. Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba v. Tosiba Appliances (2024):Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba v. Tosiba Appliances Co., 2024:DHC:6178 (Delhi H.C. Aug. 16, 2024). This landmark Delhi High Court decision concluded a five-decade trademark dispute, establishing critical precedents for mark similarity and seniority rights. The Court affirmed that TOSIBA was very similar to TOSHIBA and therefore was awarded permanent injunctive relief. Justice Shankar Narula remarked that loss or damage should be based on a reasoned analysis of the evidence that warrants the amount of the loss or damage being claimed. This has established three things. One is the seniority of a trademark, which is the most important. The first to register a trademark has a priority right, and that right becomes more difficult to contest as time goes on. The second is that the triple-identity test is the most effective and uncomplicated way to prove that infringement has occurred. The last is that sufficient proof of use of a particular brand, its reputation, and the goodwill of its customers is essential to establishing a right to loss or damage. 2. Lifestyle Equities C.V. v. Amazon Technologies Inc. (2025)Lifestyle Equities C.V. & Anr. v. Amazon Techs. Inc., CS (COMM) 295/2020 (Delhi H.C. Feb. 25,2025). In a watershed ruling addressing e-commerce platform liability, the Delhi High Court ordered Amazon Technologies to pay ₹339.25 crores (approximately $39 million) in damages for trademark infringement of the Beverly Hills Polo Club (BHPC) brand. The Court said that Amazon’s private-label “Symbol”featured a logo that was “hardly distinguishable” from BHPC’s registered mark, which was “deliberate and willful infringement.”  As per Justice C. Hari Shankar’s decision, he clearly turned down Amazon’s attempts to claim intermediary immunity. That statement involved how platforms can’t avoid responsibility through a “strategy of obfuscation” when they act as middlemen, retailers, and brand owners simultaneously. For startups and SMEs, this decision sets the sub-text that even dominant e-commerce platforms face substantial damages for trademark violations, strengthening brand owners’ enforcement capabilities against online infringement Strategic Imperatives for Startups and SMEs 1. Brand Identity as Competitive DifferentiationHow trademarks work in overly saturated markets. Registered trademarks allow the trademark holder to build a reputation for a particular quality, charge premium prices, and garner customer loyalty. For companies in the highly competitive marketplace that don’t have much capital, brand loyalty and reputation become the most valuable intangible asset, and need to be protected legally. 2. Investor Confidence and Valuation Enhancement:  Sustainable trademarks lead to at least a potential for strong positive due diligence and building a reputation of being a commercially viable, strategically advanced, low legal risk, and well-managed business. All of which should lead to high multiple valuations and access to capital. Not having a trademark poses a risk of damaging brand equity and, in many cases, leads to a lack of meaningful investment in the business.  3. Enforcement Rights Against Infringement: Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act gives registered owners the right to sue for infringement, whereas unregistered mark users do not have this right. Common law remedies for passing