No actual proof of confusion is required to assess confusion between Trademarks
Background of the Case:
The case before us is L'Oreal vs. Sarvodaya Overseas Pvt. Ltd., which was heard by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board, Chennai Circuit Bench at Mumbai. The case involves a dispute over the trademark rights between L'Oreal, the appellant, and Sarvodaya Overseas Pvt. Ltd., the respondent. L'Oreal is a well-established company with a global presence, engaged in the manufacture and sale of a wide range of hair care, skin care, toiletries, and beauty products. Sarvodaya Overseas Pvt. Ltd. is also involved in the manufacturing and trading of cosmetics, toiletries, hair care products, and other related goods.
Issue of the Case:
The central issue in this case is whether the trademark "L'ORNELL," registered by Sarvodaya Overseas Pvt. Ltd., is deceptively similar to L'Oreal's trademark "L'OREAL," leading to potential confusion among consumers. L'Oreal contends that the similarity in the marks could deceive the public into believing that the products of Sarvodaya Overseas Pvt. Ltd. are associated with or originate from L'Oreal.
Contentions of the Parties:
L'Oreal argues that it has been using the "L'OREAL" trademark since around 1910-1915 and has established a strong global presence, including in India. They claim that their trademark is well-known and that they have invested heavily in advertising and marketing their products under this mark. L'Oreal asserts that the mark "L'ORNELL" used by Sarvodaya Overseas Pvt. Ltd. is phonetically, visually, and structurally similar to their trademark, which could lead to confusion in the market.
Sarvodaya Overseas Pvt. Ltd., on the other hand, had registered the trademark "L'ORNELL" and claimed user since 2006. They have not provided substantial evidence to counter L'Oreal's claims of deceptive similarity or to establish their independent rights to the mark.
Issues Dealt with by the Court:
The court had to determine whether the trademarks "L'OREAL" and "L'ORNELL" are deceptively similar, considering the visual and phonetic aspects of the marks. Additionally, the court had to assess the evidence of actual confusion, the strength of L'Oreal's mark in the market, and the potential for dilution of L'Oreal's trademark.
Reason and Final Decision:
The court found that there was no evidence of actual confusion, which might be due to L'Oreal's trade not being of long standing in the specific market context. However, the court held that the marks were deceptively similar phonetically, as they have great phonetic similarity and are indistinguishable in sound and pronunciation. The court also noted that L'Oreal's mark has a strong presence in India and is well-known in the market.
The court ultimately ruled in favor of L'Oreal, allowing their appeal and dismissing Sarvodaya Overseas Pvt. Ltd.'s application for registration of the "L'ORNELL" trademark. The court ordered the removal of the impugned trademark from the register, citing the provisions of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The decision highlights the importance of maintaining the purity of the trademark register and preventing the registration of marks that are deceptively similar to existing well-known trademarks.
Case Citation: L'oreal Vs Sarvodaya Overseas Pvt. Ltd.: 09.09.2024:ORA/269/2010/TM/MUM: IPAB: Manmohan Singh, H.J.
Written by: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman
IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney] United & United
Disclaimer:
The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
No comments:
Post a Comment