The Effect of statement made by a party in reply to Trademark Examination Report
Introduction:
The case in question pertains to a dispute between two entities: the Plaintiff, holding the trademark 'IOD' representing 'Institute of Directors,' and the Defendant, accused of infringing upon this trademark by using 'Directors Institute.'
Factual Background:
The Plaintiff initiated the litigation, asserting its exclusive rights over the trademark 'IOD,' claiming that the Defendant's use of 'Directors Institute' infringed upon its registered mark. However, the Defendant's defense was anchored on a seemingly contradictory stance adopted by the Plaintiff during the examination of its trademark application.
Contradictory Standpoint of the Plaintiff:
A pivotal point of contention arose from the Plaintiff's response to the examination report concerning its trademark application. In its reply, the Plaintiff contended that the words constituting the mark, being common English language words, were merely descriptive in nature. The Plaintiff argued that such generic and descriptive terms could not vest exclusive proprietary rights in any single entity.
Legal Analysis:
The case unravels complex legal intricacies concerning the doctrine of 'acquired distinctiveness' and the principle of 'estoppel by conduct.'
Acquired Distinctiveness:
The Plaintiff's initial stance, recognizing the descriptive nature of 'IOD,' may have inadvertently weakened its claim to inherent distinctiveness. This acknowledgment could be leveraged by the Defendant to argue against the exclusive proprietary rights asserted by the Plaintiff.
Estoppel by Conduct:
The doctrine of estoppel prevents a party from asserting a claim or right that is contradictory to its previous actions or statements if such assertion would unfairly prejudice another party. In the present case, the Plaintiff's earlier admission regarding the descriptive nature of the mark could estop it from subsequently asserting exclusive rights over the same mark against the Defendant.
Judicial Pronouncement:
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, in its wisdom, declined to grant an injunction in favor of the Plaintiff. The Court's decision seems to be predicated on the Plaintiff's own admission regarding the descriptive nature of the mark 'IOD.' By adopting a contradictory stance, the Plaintiff inadvertently undermined its claim, thereby providing the Court with a rationale to rule in favor of the Defendant.
The Concluding Note:
Trademark disputes necessitate a meticulous examination of facts, legal principles, and precedents. The case involving the Plaintiff's trademark 'IOD' underscores the significance of consistency in legal assertions and the potential ramifications of adopting contradictory stances.
The Case Law Discussed:
Case Title: Institute of Directors Vs Worlddevcorp Tachnology and Business
Date of Judgement/Order:11.12.2023
Case No. CS Comm 611 of 2023
Neutral Citation No:2023:DHC;8923
Name of Hon'ble Court: Delhi High Court
Name of Hon'ble Judge: C Hari Shankar HJ
Disclaimer:
Ideas, thoughts, views, information, discussions and interpretation expressed herein are being shared in the public Interest. Readers' discretion is advised as these are subject to my subjectivity and may contain human errors in perception, interpretation and presentation of the fact and issue involved herein.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman,
IP Adjutor - Patent and Trademark Attorney,
Email: ajayamitabhsuman@gmail.com,
Ph No: 9990389539
