Back
R. I. CHAGLA
Harikishan Pandurang Mundada – Appellant
Versus
Mahadeo Sadashiv Khedkar – Respondent
ORDER :
R.I. Chagla, J.
Heard, Mr. Kamod, Ld. Advocate appearing for the Petitioner.
2. By this Petition, the Petitioner is challenging the registration of the impugned trade mark 
bearing no. 4076679 in class 32 granted by the Respondent No. 2, in favour of the Respondent No. 1, in respect of mineral and aerated waters and packaged drinking water.
3. It is stated that the present Petition has been duly served by hand upon the Respondent No. 1 on 22nd December, 2022 as well as upon Respondent No. 2, by email on 15th February, 2023 and by registered AD post on 16th February, 2023. Apart from the above, the Respondents were also given notice/informed that the matter would be listed on 3rd March, 2023 and 17th April, 2023. It is specifically pointed out that Respondent No. 1 has refused to accept service of the notice. Accordingly, it is stated that Respondent No. 1's refusal to accept service amounts to good service. Affidavit of Service of one Mr. Dilip Palwankar dated 12th April, 2023 to that effect has been filed.
4. Considering, the Respondents have failed to appear, in spite of service, Mr. Hiren Kamod, Ld. Advocate for the Petitioner is pressing for interim relief in terms of prayer
Prior use and distinctiveness of a trademark override subsequent registrations, establishing a likelihood of consumer confusion in trademark disputes.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 11(1)(b) of the Trademarks Act to determine the likelihood of confusion based on phonetic similarity and the priority....
The court established that the respondent's trademark 'GREEN DIAMOND' was a dishonest adoption of the petitioner's trademark 'DIAMOND', leading to confusion and passing off, warranting cancellation o....
Registration of a trademark can be revoked if it is found to be deceptively similar to a prior, distinctive mark, prioritizing consumer protection against confusion.
The court ruled that deceptive similarity between competing marks creates a likelihood of consumer confusion and supports injunction against the infringing party.
A well-known trademark is entitled to protection against identical and similar marks, as well as dissimilar goods, especially when registration is obtained in bad faith.
The court ruled that the marks 'RACIRAFT' and 'EsiRaft' are not deceptively similar, thus denying the plaintiff's claim for trade mark infringement and passing off.
The court emphasized that prior user rights prevail over subsequent registrations, particularly when malafide intentions to misappropriate goodwill are evident. The removal of confusingly similar tra....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
