Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2022 (11) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (11) TMI 213 - HC - Indian LawsSeeking permanent injunction against respondent no. 1 from infringement, passing off, its relevant trademarks - exclusive right to use a trademark - case set up by the appellant is that it is the prior and registered proprietor of the VASUNDHRA Trademarks, registered for goods falling under Class 14 and thus, the impugned marks used by respondent no.1, dealing in allied goods, is deceptively similar to its marks - HELD THAT:- The VASUNDHRA Trademarks are device marks and the registration of the said trademarks does not automatically grant the appellant exclusive right in respect of the word ‘Vasundhra’. It is well settled that a composite trademark or label trademark is not required to be dissected to determine whether there is any deceptive similarity with another trademark. The question whether there is any deceptive similarity between two trademarks has to be ascertained by examining the marks in question as a whole. In M/S. SOUTH INDIA BEVERAGES PVT. LTD. VERSUS GENERAL MILLS MARKETING INC. & ANR. [2014 (10) TMI 1060 - DELHI HIGH COURT], the Division Bench of this Court had explained the ‘anti-dissection rule’ in some detail. The Court reiterated that “conflicting composite marks are to be compared by looking at them as a whole, rather than breaking the marks up into their components parts for comparison”. However, the Court had also observed that “while a mark is to be considered in entirety, yet it is impermissible to accord more or less importance or ‘dominance’ to a particular portion or element of a mark in cases of composite marks”. In the facts of the present case, the learned Single Judge had found that the appellant held registration of the device marks/composite marks that contain the word ‘Vasundhra’ but it did not have any registration of the word mark ‘VASUNDHRA’. It is material to note that the appellant had applied for registration of the word mark but the same has not been granted to it as yet. The Court had, thus, found that the appellant did not have an exclusive right to use the word ‘Vasundhra’ except as part of its device trademarks. This Court finds no infirmity with the said view. This Court concurs with the view that a proprietor of a trademark cannot expand the area or protection granted to the mark. Indisputably, the appellant does not enjoy the monopoly for use of the word ‘Vasundhra’ - this Court is unable to accept that the appellant can now, by indirect means, secure the benefit of the registration for the word mark ‘VASUNDHRA’ after having secured the registration of its mark by claiming that it was not similar to other cited marks, which contain the word ‘Vasundhra’. This Court does not find any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment - Appeal dismissed.
|