The Court rejected this defence as misconceived, holding that the provision is a limited savings clause that protected only a “particular use” which was not an infringement under the 1958 Act but later became infringing because of changes introduced in 1999.
Justice Chagla observed that the 1999 Act for the first time treated certain acts, such as the use of a mark on business papers or its use in advertising, and use leading to dilution, import and export, as well as oral use, as infringement. Section 159(5) merely permits those specific uses to continue if they pre‑dated 1999, the Court noted
