This is a judgment from the High Court of Delhi, dated July 30, 2024, in the case of TERMO ISI SISTEMLERI TICARET VE SANAYI ANONIM SIRKETI (Appellant) versus REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS (Respondent), under C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 14/2023. The appellant, a Turkish company established in 1967, sought to challenge the conditions imposed by the Registrar of Trade Marks on the registration of its trademark application no. 4553823 in Class 35. The appellant has been using the trademark "Ecostar" since 2006 globally and since 2007 in India, and has secured domain names and registered the trademark in various classes.
The Trade Mark Registry raised objections under Section 11 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, citing the likelihood of confusion with similar marks. The appellant responded, stating that their trademark is a distinctive device mark and requested a hearing before any adverse decision. The Registrar allowed the application with the condition that the mark be used as substantially represented, with no exclusive rights over any of the words.
The appellant argued that the condition imposed was unnecessary and contrary to Section 18(5) of the Trade Marks Act. They also claimed the benefit of Section 12 of the Act, as they had registrations in other classes. The respondent's counsel supported the impugned order, stating that the appellant is estopped from claiming rights over the word "Ecostar" in a non-stylized form, per Section 17(1) of the Act.
The court, after hearing both parties and reviewing the documents and case laws cited, found that the appellant had consistently stated it did not claim rights over the word "Ecostar" in a non-stylized form. The court held that the Registrar's condition was a mere recording of the appellant's stance and not an unnecessary condition or disclaimer. The court also rejected the appellant's arguments regarding Section 18(5) and the benefit of Section 12, stating that the appellant could not change its stance at the appellate stage.
The court concluded that the Registrar had exercised discretion judicially and reasonably, and the appellant failed to make a case for interfering with the impugned order. The appeal was dismissed as lacking merit.
Case Citation: Termo ISI Sistemleri Ticarat Vs Registrar of Trademark:30.07.2024 : C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 14/2023/2024: Delhi High Court: Saurabh Banerjee: H.J
Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman
IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney]
United & United
Ph no: 9990389539
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.
