Case Law Details
RSPL Health Private Limited Vs Reckitt And Colman (Overseas) Hygiene Home Limited & ANR (Delhi High Court)
Conclusion: The Hon’ble High Court observed that for refusal of Registration under Section 11 of the Trademarks Act, it would have to be shown that the marks themselves are confusingly similar to each other, and that, owing to the similarity in the marks and the goods and services which they cover, there is a likelihood of confusion among the public, or a likelihood of the public believing the existence of an association between the marks.
Facts: In present facts of the case, petitions were filed under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. They seek rectification of the Register of Trademarks by removal, therefrom, of the word mark “HARPIC DRAINXPERT”. The impugned mark stands registered in favour of Respondent 1 in Classes 3 and 5, vide Registration No. 5258906 and 5258907 respectively. The Petitioner submitted that the impugned word mark “HARPIC DRAINXPERT” of Respondent 1 is similar to earlier trade marks of the petitioner, and is used with respect to goods or services which are similar to the goods or services in respect of which the earlier trade marks of the petitioner stand registered. It was submitted that there has been confusion on the part of the public or of the public drawing an association between the impugned mark and the registered trade mark of the petitioner. The trade marks could not have been registered under Section 11(1) and are, therefore, wrongly continuing to remain on the register of Trade Marks within the meaning of Section 57(2) of the Trade Marks Act.
The Hon’ble High Court observed that Section 11(1)(b) requires cumulative satisfaction of three ingredients for a trade mark to be ineligible for registration. They are (i) that the trade mark should be similar to an earlier trade mark, (ii) that the goods or services covered by both the trade marks should be identical or similar and (iii) that, as a consequence of (i) and (ii), there must exist either a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public or of the public drawing an association between the latter mark and the earlier mark.
It was observed that, of the three ingredients which require cumulative satisfaction for Section 11(1)(b) to apply, the only ingredient which may be said to be satisfied in respect of the impugned marks, which could blight their entitlement to registration, is the similarity of goods or services covered by the rival marks. The mere fact that the rival marks cover the same, or similar, goods or services would not, however, suffice to invalidate the later registrations. Additionally, it would have to be shown that the marks themselves are confusingly similar to each other, and that, owing to the similarity in the marks and the goods and services which they cover, there is a likelihood of confusion among the public, or a likelihood of the public believing the existence of an association between the marks.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
