Case Law Details
GM Modular PVT LTD Vs Gopal Shinghal & ANR (Delhi High Court)
Conclusion: The Hon’ble High Court while allowing the Petition observed that a trademark being deceptively similar would be hit under Section 11(1)(b) of the Trademark Act, 1999 which prohibits registration of a mark deceptively similar to a mark which is already on the register in respect of identical or similar goods.
Facts: In present facts of the case, the Petitioner has filed the petition seeking cancellation of trademark ‘GMT’ bearing registration in class 9. The case of the Petitioner is that it is engaged in the business of manufacture and trade of electrical goods, switches, appliances, and other allied and related goods. The Petitioner is stated to have adopted the mark ‘GM’ in word and label form in the years 1999. Further, the mark ‘GM’ forms part of the corporate name of the Petitioner as well. Further, the ‘GM’ mark of the Petitioner in logo form is also registered under the Copyright Act, 1957. The Petitioner has been using the mark in question in the course of trade in relation to goods and services within the meaning of section 14 of the said Act.
The grievance of the Petitioner in the present petition is that Respondent No.1 has adopted the mark ‘GMT’ in relation to similar trade and business as that of the Petitioner, i.e., manufacture and trade of electronics, wires and cables, choke, phatti, starters, electrical bells, buzzers, transformers, sockets, electric connectors, etc. The said mark has been registered by Respondent No.1 in his favour under trade mark number in class 9. The Petitioner submitted that the adoption of the mark ‘GMT’ for electrical products in class 9 and the registration of the same would be contrary to the provisions of Section 11 of the Act and hence is deserved to be rectified/cancelled.
The Hon’ble High Court observed that none of the averments of the Petitioner have been rebutted by the Respondents. Respondent No.1 has not bothered to file a reply since 2015 in this matter. Use of the mark ‘GMT’ for identical products would be violative of the rights of the Plaintiff in the mark ‘GM’ for products under Class 9. ‘GM’ though being a two letter mark has, due to long and continuous user by the Petitioner, acquired a secondary meaning and reputation in the electrical trade. It is the settled legal position that two letter marks can be protected so long as they are arbitrary adoptions and combinations and they are exclusively associated with one entity.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
