Trademark GANRAJ-Chappan Bhog was rectified on account of prior registered Trademark Chappan Bhog
Fact of the Case
The case involves a trademark dispute between Dinesh Kumar Chowdhury and the Registrar of Trademarks along with a private respondent. The private respondent, engaged in the business of manufacturing dried fruits (Makhana), is the registered proprietor of the trademark "CHAPPAN BHOG," which has been in continuous use since 2003 and was registered on January 1, 2011. The appellant, Dinesh Kumar Chowdhury, trading as Ganraj Papad Udyog, applied for registration of the device mark "GANRAJ-Chappan Bhog," claiming user since March 16, 2006. The private respondent filed an application for rectification, seeking removal of the appellant’s registration on the grounds of deceptive similarity and likelihood of confusion.
Procedural Background in Brief
The private respondent filed a rectification application on December 5, 2020, alleging that the appellant's mark was deceptively similar to their registered trademark. The Deputy Registrar of Trademarks allowed the rectification application on August 6, 2024, ruling that the private respondent was the prior user and that the appellant’s adoption of the mark was dishonest. The appellant challenged this decision before the High Court at Calcutta.
Reasoning of Court
The Court examined the similarities in trade dress, packaging, color scheme, and overall appearance of both marks and concluded that there was a high likelihood of confusion and deception. It noted that the appellant not only copied the style of the mark "CHAPPAN BHOG" but also used a similar artwork, packaging, and trade channels. The Court relied on precedents, including Ciba Ltd. vs. M. Ramalingam and S. Subhramaniam (AIR 1958 Bombay 56), which emphasized that trademark registers should not contain identical or deceptively similar marks, and Laxmikant V. Patel vs. Chetanbhat Shah & Anr. (2002) 3 SCC 65, which upheld the principle that no business should mislead customers into believing its goods are associated with another.
Decision
The High Court upheld the order of the Deputy Registrar, dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant. The Court found no grounds for interference, concluding that the rectification order was well-reasoned and addressed all issues raised by the parties. The appellant’s mark was removed from the trademark register. No costs were imposed in the judgment.
Case Title: Dinesh Kumar Chowdhary Vs. The Registrar of TrademarksDate of Order: March 3, 2025
Case Number: IPDTMA/13/2024
Name of Court: High Court at Calcutta,
Name of Hon'ble Judge: Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur
