NIF Private Limited Vs Registrar of Trademarks

Procedural Fairness in Trademark Refusal Appeals: A Critical Analysis of Unreasoned Orders

Introduction:

A recent legal dispute has brought to light the importance of procedural fairness in trademark matters, specifically in the context of appeals against the refusal of trademark applications. The appellant challenged the order of the Registrar of Trademarks, contending that the refusal of Trademark Application No. 2665269 lacked justification as no reasons were provided. The ensuing analysis by the Hon'ble Court emphasizes the imperative of reasoned orders and fair procedural practices in trademark proceedings.

Unreasoned Orders and Due Procedure:

The Hon'ble Court's observation that an unreasoned order constitutes an affront to due and fair procedure underscores a fundamental tenet of administrative justice. The lack of reasons not only hampers aggrieved party's understanding of the basis for refusal but also raises concerns about the transparency and accountability of the decision-making process.

Critique of Post-Refusal Reasoning Scheme:

The court critically evaluated post-refusal reasoning scheme, expressing dissatisfaction with the practice of initially issuing unreasoned orders. The court contended that requiring an applicant to subsequently request and pay for the reasons, at their own expense, creates an unjust burden on the party seeking redress.

Insufficient Grounds in the Impugned Order:

The court's scrutiny of the impugned order revealed a deficiency in its substantive content. Apart from merely reproducing relevant legal provisions, the order failed to elucidate how these provisions were applicable to the appellant's case or why the application was rejected based on them. This lack of clarity undermines the essential requirement for a reasoned decision in administrative actions.

Remand for De Novo Consideration:

In light of the inadequacies identified in the refusal order, the court ordered the remand of Trademark Application No. 2665269 for de novo consideration by the office of the Trade Marks Registry. This directive reflects the court's commitment to upholding fair procedures and ensuring that decisions affecting trademark rights are founded on sound reasoning and proper application of the law.

Implications for Trademark Applicants:

The court's ruling carries broader implications for trademark applicants navigating the registration process. It reinforces the principle that applicants are entitled to transparent, reasoned decisions from administrative authorities, and the absence of such reasons can be a ground for challenge.

The Concluding Note:

This case highlights the imperative of reasoned decision-making in the context of trademark application refusals. The court's rebuke of unreasoned orders and its insistence on fair procedures contribute to the evolving landscape of trademark law, emphasizing the need for transparency, accountability, and procedural fairness in administrative actions related to intellectual property.

The Case Law Discussed:

Date of Judgement/Order:05.12.2023

Case No. C.A.(Comm-IPD-TM) 29 of 2021

Neutral Citation No:2023:DHC:8716

Name of Hon'ble Court: Delhi High Court

Name of Hon'ble Judge: C Hari Shankar, HJ

Case Title: NIF Private Limited Vs Registrar of Trademarks

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,

Mob No: 9990389539

House Of Diagnostics LLP & Ors Vs House Of Pathology Labs Private Limited

Importance of Advance Service in Trademark Infringement Cases

Introduction:

The recent pronouncement by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi underlines the crucial role of advance service in trademark infringement suits, emphasizing the significance of complying with Rule 22 of the Intellectual Property Division (IPD) Rules. The court's observation sheds light on the public interest inherent in this procedural requirement and underscores the principle that contested orders are integral to a fair legal process.

Public Interest in Rule 22 of IPD Rules:

The court, in its wisdom, acknowledged the public interest embedded in Rule 22 of the IPD Rules. It emphasized the fundamental premise that a contested legal proceeding is inherently healthy, as it ensures a comprehensive consideration of arguments from both sides. This stance resonates with the idea that an uncontested order may be susceptible to errors, given that it arises from a hearing involving only one party.

Contested Orders and Protection against Errors:

The court's observation underscores the safeguarding effect of contested orders. By their very nature, contested proceedings mitigate the risk of unilateral errors, whether factual or legal. The participation of both parties provides a more robust examination of the issues at hand, thereby reducing the likelihood of an erroneous judgment. This aligns with the core tenets of justice, ensuring a fair and balanced adjudication process.

No Right to Uncontested Orders:

The court's assertion that no party can claim an uncontested order as a matter of right reinforces the principle of fairness in legal proceedings. It establishes that the process of adjudication demands active engagement from all parties involved, and a party cannot expect a one-sided order without due contestation.

Strict Interpretation of Rule 22 of IPD Rules:

In the specific case at hand, the court directed the plaintiff to serve the defendant, underscoring a strict interpretation of Rule 22 of the IPD Rules. This indicates the court's commitment to upholding procedural requirements that contribute to the adversarial nature of legal proceedings.

Exemptions to Advance Service:

While emphasizing the importance of advance service, the court recognized that exceptions could be warranted in certain circumstances. The mention of situations involving substantial stocks of spurious products or a prior association between the parties suggests a pragmatic approach where the strict application of Rule 22 may not be necessary.

The Concluding Note:

The court's elucidation on the significance of advance service in trademark infringement cases, as governed by Rule 22 of the IPD Rules, reaffirms the commitment to a fair and contested legal process. The delicate balance between adherence to procedural requirements and recognition of exceptional circumstances underscores the nuanced nature of trademark litigation.

The Case Law Discussed:

Date of Judgement/Order:05.12.2023

Case No. CS(COMM)869/2023

Neutral Citation No:2023:DHC:8767

Name of Hon'ble Court: Delhi High Court

Name of Hon'ble Judge: C Hari Shankar, HJ

Case Title: House Of Diagnostics LLP & Ors Vs House Of Pathology Labs Private Limited

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,

Mob No: 9990389539

Cable News Network Inc Vs City News Network

Trademark Infringement and the Notion of "State of Wonderment" under the Trade Marks Act

Introduction:

In a recent legal case, the plaintiff alleged trademark infringement against the defendant, specifically concerning the use of the term "CABLE NEWS Network" along with the acronym "CNN." The crux of the argument revolved around the claim that the defendant's trademark was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trademark, known as the "CNN Device." This case raises important considerations related to the Trade Marks Act, particularly in relation to Sections 29(2)(b) and 29(2)(c), and the concept of "state of wonderment."

Deceptive Similarity and Infringement:

The plaintiff contended that the defendant's trademark, comprising both the name "CABLE NEWS Network" and the acronym "CNN," was deceptively similar to their registered trademark, the "CNN Device." Despite the absence of a separate registration for the term "CNN" by the plaintiff, it was argued that the existence of the registered device mark could induce a "state of wonderment" for a reasonable person.

Legal Framework - Trade Marks Act:

The legal foundation for this argument lies in Sections 29(2)(b) and 29(2)(c) of the Trade Marks Act. Section 29(2)(b) deals with infringement based on deceptive similarity, stating that a mark shall be deemed to be deceptively similar if it so nearly resembles another mark as to be likely to deceive or cause confusion. Section 29(2)(c) extends this to cases where the use of the mark takes unfair advantage or is detrimental to the distinctive character or repute of the registered trademark.

The "State of Wonderment" Concept:

The notion of "state of wonderment" is crucial to this case. This concept suggests that even in the absence of a direct match between trademarks, the overall impression created by the defendant's mark may lead a consumer to wonder about its association with the plaintiff's registered mark. In essence, it implies a potential for confusion or deception.

Analysis and Implications:

While the plaintiff did not possess a standalone registration for the term "CNN," the argument hinges on the cumulative impact of the registered device mark. The court must consider whether the combination of the defendant's trademark elements creates a likelihood of confusion or a "state of wonderment" for consumers.

Conclusion:

This case highlights the nuanced interplay between registered trademarks, deceptive similarity, and the subjective perception of consumers. The court's decision will likely set a precedent regarding the interpretation of the Trade Marks Act, particularly in cases where the registered mark is part of a larger composite mark. The outcome will provide clarity on the scope of protection afforded to registered trademarks and the extent to which a "state of wonderment" can constitute infringement.

The Case Law Discussed:

Date of Judgement/Order:04.12.2023

Case No. CS(COMM)272/2021

Neutral Citation No:2023:DHC:8695

Name of Hon'ble Court: Delhi High Court

Name of Hon'ble Judge: C Hari Shankar, HJ

Case Title: Cable News Network Inc Vs City News Network

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,

Mob No: 9990389539

Franklin Aviation Services Pvt Ltd. Vs Tata Sia Airlines Limited

Non Trademark use of an Expression 

Introduction:

In a recent legal battle, the Plaintiff initiated a lawsuit against the Defendant, aiming to prohibit the use of the trademark "FLY HIGH" or "FLY HIGHER." The central issue revolves around whether the Defendant's use of these terms falls within the ambit of trademark infringement or if they are being utilized in a non-trademark sense. The court's decision sheds light on the delicate balance between protecting intellectual property rights and allowing expressive and non-traditional uses.

Background:

The Plaintiff's claim is rooted in the belief that the Defendant's use of "FLY HIGH" or "FLY HIGHER" infringes upon their trademark rights. Conversely, the Defendant asserts that their utilization of these terms is non-trademark in nature. This sets the stage for a nuanced legal analysis to determine the scope of protection afforded to the Plaintiff's trademark.

Court's Ruling:

The Hon'ble Court, after careful consideration, ruled in favor of the Defendant. The decision permits the Defendant to employ "FLY HIGH" or "FLY HIGHER" in a non-trademark sense, including its incorporation into keywords, advertising campaigns, and hashtags. This ruling signifies a recognition of the evolving landscape of intellectual property, acknowledging the expanded use of trademarks in the digital age.

Analysis:

1.Non-Trademark Use:

The court's decision acknowledges the Defendant's argument that they are using the contested terms in a non-trademark sense. This could include situations where the terms are used descriptively or generically, rather than as identifiers of the source of goods or services.

2.Keywords and Advertising Campaigns:

Allowing the use of "FLY HIGH" or "FLY HIGHER" in keywords and advertising campaigns suggests a broader interpretation of fair use. The court recognizes the importance of not stifling creative and expressive language in the online realm.

3. Hashtags:

The inclusion of hashtags in the court's ruling is particularly noteworthy. It acknowledges the prevalent use of hashtags in modern communication and marketing, signaling a pragmatic approach to the intersection of trademark rights and social media practices.

The concluding Note:

This legal saga highlights the evolving nature of trademark disputes in the digital age. The court's decision to permit the Defendant's use of "FLY HIGH" or "FLY HIGHER" in a non-trademark sense, including its incorporation into keywords, advertising campaigns, and hashtags, reflects a delicate balance between protecting intellectual property rights and fostering free expression in the contemporary business landscape.

The Case Law Discussed:

Date of Judgement/Order:04.12.2023

Case No. CS(COMM)54/2022

Neutral Citation No:2023:DHC:8670

Name of Hon'ble Court: Delhi High Court

Name of Hon'ble Judge: Prathiba M Singh, HJ

Case Title: Franklin Aviation Services Pvt Ltd.  Vs Tata Sia Airlines Limited

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, 

Mob No: 9990389539

Shantapa alias Shantesh S. Kalasgond Vs Anna

Trademark Disputes and the Doctrine of Prosecution History Estoppel

Introduction:

This article explores the nuanced implications of an admission made by the Plaintiff in a Trademark opposition proceeding and its consequential impact on a subsequent trademark dispute involving the mark 'ANNA.' The focus is on the recent decision by the Hon'ble High Court of Mumbai, which dismissed an appeal challenging the denial of an injunction by the District Judge-4, Pune.

Background of the Dispute:

The essence of the dispute lies in the conflicting claims of exclusivity over the name 'Anna' by both the Plaintiff and the Defendant, each owning registered trademarks—'ANNA IDLI GRUHA' for the Plaintiff and an undisclosed mark for the Defendant. The Plaintiff, asserting  prior use, seeks a restraint order against the Defendant, alleging infringement and passing off in the operation of a restaurant in Pune using the mark 'ANNA.'

Prosecution History and Suppression Allegations:

The turning point in the case arises from the Plaintiff's response to an examination report during the trademark application process. The Defendant's mark was cited as conflicting, prompting the Plaintiff to assert dissimilarity. However, when initiating the subsequent lawsuit, the Plaintiff took a contradictory stance, suppressing its earlier response to the examination report.

The Doctrine of Prosecution History Estoppel:

The Hon'ble High Court, in dismissing the appeal, applied the doctrine of prosecution history estoppel. This legal principle prevents a party from claiming advantages associated with rights consciously waived in prior proceedings. The court emphasized that the Plaintiff's representations before the Trademark Registry, twice denying resemblance between the marks, were crucial in applying the doctrine.

Implications of Estoppel in the ANNA Trademark Dispute:

The Court's observation that the Plaintiff's prior stance influenced the Defendant's belief that using the mark 'ANNA' was permissible is pivotal. By leading the Defendant to believe in the dissimilarity of the marks, the Plaintiff, in the eyes of the Court, cannot now argue deceptive similarity. The article underscores the significance of consistency in representations before the Trademark Registry and its lasting impact on subsequent legal proceedings.

The Concluding Note:

The ANNA trademark dispute serves as a noteworthy case study in the application of the doctrine of prosecution history estoppel. It highlights the need for parties in trademark disputes to maintain transparency and consistency in their dealings with trademark authorities. 

The decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Mumbai reaffirms that a party's previous representations can significantly influence its entitlement to remedies such as a temporary injunction, emphasizing the intricate interplay between trademark registration and enforcement processes.

The Case Law Discussed:

Date of Judgement/Order:30/11/2023

Case No. Appeal from Order No. 915 of 2023

Neutral Citation No:N.A.

Name of Hon'ble Court: Bombay High Court

Name of Hon'ble Judge: Sandeep V Varne, HJ

Case Title: Shantapa alias Shantesh S. Kalasgond Vs Anna

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, 

Mob No: 9990389539

Bolt Technology Vs Ujoy Technology-DB

Goodwill of a Trademark and the Principle of Territoriality

Introduction:

The recent decision by the Hon'ble Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi in a trademark dispute involving the mark "BOLT" underscores the significance of the principle of territoriality in establishing goodwill for trademarks in India. The case involved a multinational company's attempt to secure an interim injunction based on the alleged violation of its trademark in the Indian market.

Factual Background:

The Plaintiff, a multinational company, claimed to have used the trademark "BOLT" in connection with taxi aggregation services in Tallinn, Estonia, and Riga, Latvia since 2013. Over time, the services expanded to 45 countries, including India. In 2018, the Plaintiff adopted the "BOLT" brand for a wide range of services, including ride-hailing, food and grocery delivery, rental of cars, e-bikes, and scooters, as well as electric vehicles.

The Plaintiff relied on advertising campaigns launched in February 2020, reaching several Indian cities, including Ahmedabad, Pune, Surat, Chennai, and Kolkata. The campaigns were conducted through the Plaintiff's mobile app and purportedly reached over 30 lakh customers in India.

Legal Proceedings:

The trademark dispute arose when the Defendant announced the impending launch of its electric vehicle charging network under the brand "REVOS Bolt" through public posts on social media platforms in October 2020. The Plaintiff sought an interim injunction, which was initially denied by the Ld. Single Judge on the grounds of the Plaintiff's failure to establish goodwill in India.

The Plaintiff appealed this decision, leading to the recent decision by the Hon'ble Division Bench.

Analysis of the High Court's Decision:

The Hon'ble Division Bench upheld the decision of the Single Judge, emphasizing the principle of territoriality in determining goodwill for trademarks. The Court observed that the Plaintiff's singular advertising campaign in five cities within India was insufficient to establish substantial goodwill or reputation across the entire nation.

The court noted that the geographical expanse of India requires a more extensive and impactful presence to claim cross-border reputation. It held that the transnational reputation of a trademark must be substantiated with adequate evidence of substantial goodwill or reputation specifically within the Indian market.

Implications:

This decision reinforces the importance of establishing territorial goodwill for trademarks in India. Mere transnational reputation, without a concrete demonstration of substantial goodwill within the Indian market, is unlikely to succeed in trademark disputes. Multinational companies operating in India must strategically develop and present evidence of widespread and impactful use of their trademarks to successfully claim protection under the principle of territoriality.

The Concluding Note:

The recent decision by the High Court of Delhi reaffirms the principle that establishing goodwill for trademarks in India requires more than just transnational reputation. It serves as a reminder to litigants and trademark owners that a robust and territoriality specific case must be presented to secure protection against potential trademark violation in the Indian market.

The Case Law Discussed:

Date of Judgement/Order:30/11/2023

Case No. FAO(OS) (COMM) 45/2023

Neutral Citation No:2023:DHC:8509-DB

Name of Hon'ble Court: Delhi High Court

Name of Hon'ble Judge: Yashwant Varma and Dharmesh Sharma, HJ

Case Title: Bolt Technology Vs Ujoy Technology

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,

Mob No: 9990389539

Aditya Borkar Vs Sachin Ganesh

Maintainability of Infringement Suit Based on Trademark Application

Introduction:

The issue of the maintainability of an infringement suit based solely on the filing of a trademark application by the defendant is a nuanced legal question. This article delves into the matter, drawing insights from a case before the Bombay High Court involving the trademark 'BOROPLAST.'

Facts of the Case:

The plaintiff, having used the trademark 'BOROPLAST' since 2000 in various categories, filed a suit against the defendant upon discovering the latter's trademark application for 'BOROPLAST.' Notably, the defendant had not yet introduced any vendible articles into the market under this mark.

Legal Basis for the Suit:

The crux of the plaintiff's argument rested on the maintainability of an infringement suit when a defendant has merely applied for trademark registration, without any tangible products in the market. Citing the precedent of Analco (India) Pvt Ltd vs Navodya Exim Pvt Ltd, the plaintiff contended that such a suit is indeed maintainable.

Precedent and Legal Position:

The mentioned case, decided on January 23, 2014, established a precedent supporting the plaintiff's claim. The court in Analco held that the filing of a trademark application itself could be sufficient grounds for maintaining an infringement suit. This decision reflects a broad interpretation of trademark rights, extending protection even before the actual use of the mark in commerce.

Court's Observations and Decision:

In the BOROPLAST case, the Bombay High Court granted an ex parte injunction in favor of the plaintiff. The court found that the defendant had blatantly imitated the 'BOROPLAST' trademark by applying for an identical mark, thereby infringing on the plaintiff's registered trademark. This decision underscores the court's willingness to afford protection based on the mere filing of a trademark application.

The concluding Note:

The maintainability of an infringement suit based on a defendant's trademark application, even in the absence of actual market presence, is a legal terrain where precedent plays a pivotal role. The BOROPLAST case, aligning with Analco, highlights a proactiveness by the judiciary in safeguarding trademark rights. This legal stance serves to deter potential infringers and underscores the importance of early intervention to protect intellectual property.

The Case Law Discussed:

Date of Judgement/Order:28/11/2023

Case No. COM IPR SUIT (L) NO.31504 OF 2023

Neutral Citation No:2023:Mad:5222

Name of Hon'ble Court: Bombay High Court

Name of Hon'ble Judge: R.I.Chagla, HJ

Case Title: Aditya Borkar Vs Sachin Ganesh

Disclaimer:

Ideas, thoughts, views, informations, 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, 

Mob No: 9990389539

Kuraray Co Limited Vs Assistant Controller of Patent

The Interplay Between Priority Dates and Publication Dates in Patent Law

Abstract:

This article delves into the intricate relationship between priority dates and publication dates in patent law, drawing insights from a notable case before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras concerning the Patent Application "FILM FOR PLANT CULTIVATION." The case, involving the rejection of Patent Application No.2394/CHENP/2013, explores the pivotal question of whether a cited prior art, D2, with a publication date subsequent to the claimed priority date, should be considered as prior art.

Introduction:

The determination of the validity and novelty of a patent application is significantly influenced by the interplay between its priority date and the publication dates of relevant prior art. This dynamic was brought to the forefront in the case under consideration, where the Appellant's patent application faced rejection based on the cited prior art D2.

Background:

The Appellant filed Patent Application No.2394/CHENP/2013, derived from PCT Application No.PCT/JP2011/070596, titled "FILM FOR PLANT CULTIVATION." The controller of patents issued an order on 30.12.2019 rejecting the application, prompting the Appellant to challenge this decision before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras.

Priority Date Significance:

The crux of the matter lay in the priority date of the subject matter patent application, set at 28.09.2010. The cited prior art, D2, presented a publication date of 28.10.2010, placing it chronologically after the priority date. This temporal misalignment raised a fundamental question: could D2 be deemed as prior art?

Legal Analysis:

The Hon'ble High Court of Madras engaged in a nuanced legal analysis, recognizing the fundamental principle that for a document to qualify as prior art, its publication date must precede the priority date of the claimed invention. 

In this instance, the court astutely observed that the publication date of D2, being 28.10.2010, was subsequent to the priority date of 28.09.2010. Consequently, the court held that D2 did not qualify as prior art and should be disregarded in the evaluation of the patent application.

Implications and Precedent:

This decision establishes a precedent emphasizing the critical role of the priority date in determining the relevance of prior art to a patent application. The court's ruling underscores the chronological hierarchy between priority dates and publication dates, reaffirming that only documents predating the priority date can be considered as prior art.

The Concluding Note:

The case of "FILM FOR PLANT CULTIVATION" serves as a compelling illustration of the meticulous consideration required when assessing the interrelationship between priority dates and publication dates in patent law. The court's discerning analysis reaffirms the importance of temporal alignment in evaluation of patent applications.

The Case Law Discussed:

Date of Judgement/Order:29/11/2023

Case No. MA (PT) No.47 of 2023 

Neutral Citation No:2023:Mad:5222

Name of Hon'ble Court: Madras High Court

Name of Hon'ble Judge: Senthil Kumar Ramamoorthy, HJ

Case Title: Kuraray Co Limited Vs Assistant Controller of Patent

Disclaimer:

Ideas, thoughts, views, informations, 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, 

Mob No: 9990389539

Vicky Aggarwal versus Sumeet Agarwal

Trademark Rights Post-License Termination

Introduction:

The recent judgment by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the trademark dispute concerning the mark BACHPAN sheds light on the critical legal aspects surrounding the fate of a trademark user after the termination of a license user agreement. This article explores the implications of such terminations and the court's stance in safeguarding the rights of the licensor.

Background:

Since 2004, the plaintiff has been offering play school services across India under the trademark BACHPAN. With registered trademarks dating back to 2003 and holding copyrights, the plaintiff established a significant presence in the market. A Franchisee Agreement was executed with the defendant, granting them the right to operate play schools under the BACHPAN mark, contingent on payment of license fees. The agreement naturally expired on January 31, 2021, and due to default in fees, it was not renewed, leading to the defendants losing their right to use the registered trademarks.

Legal Analysis:

The central issue revolves around the defendants' alleged continued use of the plaintiff's trademarks post the agreement's expiry. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, in granting the interim injunction, reaffirmed the settled legal position that an ex-licensee is not entitled to use the licensor's trademark after the termination of the license user agreement.

The court's observations:

1. Prima Facie Infringement: The court acknowledged a prima facie case of trademark infringement by the defendants. The continued use of the registered trademarks by the ex-licensee, post-agreement termination, was seen as a violation of the exclusive rights held by the plaintiff.

2. Passing Off: The court also noted an attempt by the defendants to pass off their services as those of the plaintiff. Despite losing the right to use the trademarks, the defendants were allegedly misleading the public by presenting themselves as affiliated with the plaintiff.

The Case Law:

The interim injunction granted by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi serves as a powerful reminder of the legal remedies available to licensors when faced with trademark infringement and passing off by ex-licensees. This judgment further solidifies the principle that the expiration or termination of a license user agreement extinguishes the rights of the licensee to use the licensor's trademarks, reinforcing the sanctity of contractual obligations in the realm of intellectual property law.

The Concluding Note:

This case underscores the importance of adhering to the terms of license agreements and the legal consequences that follow termination. It emphasizes the court's commitment to protecting the rights of trademark owners against unauthorized use by former licensees.

The Case Law Discussed:

Date of Judgement/Order:17/11/2023

Case No. CS(COMM) 715/2023

Neutral Citation No:N.A.

Name of Hon'ble Court: Delhi High Court

Name of Hon'ble Judge: C Hari Shankar, HJ

Case Title: Vicky Aggarwal versus Sumeet Agarwal

Disclaimer:

Ideas, thoughts, views, informations, 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,

Mob No: 9990389539

Muneer Ahmed Vs Registrar of Trademarks

Analyzing Distinctiveness in Trademarks

Introduction:

The legal landscape surrounding trademark registration often involves nuanced considerations of distinctiveness. This article delves into a recent case where an appeal was filed against the rejection of a trademark application for "BHARAT with device of Brush" in relation to painting brushes, artistic brushes, and roller brushes. The Registrar of Trademarks had rejected the application on the grounds of the mark being highly descriptive and indicative of the intended purpose of the specified goods. The High Court of Delhi, in its decision, examined the distinction between a trademark inherently lacking in distinctiveness and a trademark lacking in distinctiveness.

I. Background of the Case:

The appellant's trademark application was rejected by the Registrar on the basis that the mark, comprising the word "BHARAT" with a distinctive brush device, was highly descriptive and may serve to designate the quality of the applied specification. The Registrar contended that the inclusion of a brush in the trademark indicated the intended purpose of the specified goods, making it non-registrable.

II. Inherently Lacking in Distinctiveness:

The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi noted that there are marks that are inherently lacking in distinctiveness, rendering them incapable of distinguishing the goods or services to which they relate. This category may include commonly used words that inherently lack distinctive character, such as "and," "the," or "it." These marks are incapable of functioning as source identifiers from the outset.

III. Lacking in Distinctiveness:

In contrast, the court identified another category of marks that are "lacking in distinctiveness." These marks are commonly found or used in connection with goods or services, making them incapable of serving as source identifiers. For a mark to fall into this category, there must be specific reference in the Registrar's order identifying the mark as being "common to the trade."

IV. Analysis of BHARAT with Device of Brush:

The High Court analyzed the trademark "BHARAT with device of Brush" as a whole, emphasizing that it is a device trademark and must be considered in its entirety. The court rejected the notion that the mark was descriptive merely because it included a paint brush. The distinctive style of the word "BHARAT," combined with the unique elements of the brush device, was deemed to be distinctive and not lacking in distinctiveness.

V. Conclusion and Remand:

Concluding that the trademark, seen as a whole, was clearly distinctive, the court set aside the impugned order of the Registrar. The matter was remanded to the Senior Examiner of Trademarks for further examination, recognizing the distinctive character of the mark and its potential eligibility for registration.

In essence, this case underscores the importance of considering trademarks as integral wholes, particularly when they involve distinctive elements that contribute to their overall distinctiveness. The analysis also highlights the critical distinction between marks that are inherently lacking in distinctiveness and those lacking distinctiveness due to common usage in the trade.

The Case Law Discussed:

Date of Judgement/Order:17/11/2023

Case No. C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 20/2023

Neutral Citation No:2023:DHC:8404

Name of Hon'ble Court: Delhi High Court

Name of Hon'ble Judge: C Hari Shankar, HJ

Case Title: Muneer Ahmed Vs Registrar of Trademarks

Disclaimer:

Information and discussion contained herein is being shared in the public Interest. The same should not be treated as substitute for expert advice as it is 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,

Mob No: 9990389539