Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ARIF S.DOCTOR
Century 21 Real Estates LLC – Appellant
Versus
Century 21 Town Planners Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.
1. The captioned Commercial Miscellaneous Petitions impugn the validity of the following four registrations obtained by Respondent No. 1 viz.
The Petitioner has impugned the aforesaid registrations of the trade mark ‘C21’ (“the impugned registrations") and has sought rectification of the register of trade marks on the basis that the Petitioner has prior rights, both statutory and common law in ‘CENTURY 21’ and ‘C21’ word as well as device mark worldwide and also in India.
The Facts and Challenge in Brief:
2. The Petitioner is a multinational company engaged in the business of franchising its brand for use in connection with real estate.
3. The Petition sets out that the Petitioner operates more than 6,900 independently owned and operated franchised broker offices across 78 countries and territories worldwide, with independent sales associates in numerous jurisdictions, including India. The Petition also sets out that, by virtue of the Petitioner's extensive global presence and longstanding operations, the Petitioner has acquired significant goodwill and reputation in the real estate industry, such that the trade mark “CENTURY 21” has become closely associate
Dishonest adoption of identical abbreviated mark in same field, without bona fides explanation and false prior use claim, defeated by prior global/India rights via registrations, franchises, domains,....
Prior use and distinctiveness of a trademark override subsequent registrations, establishing a likelihood of consumer confusion in trademark disputes.
Prior adoption and user rights establish entitlement to trademark protection, and their absence undermines claims for rectification, regardless of phonetic similarity.
A trade mark recognized as well-known under the Trade Marks Act is protected against concurrent use by others regardless of the class of goods, particularly when evidence of rightful prior use and bo....
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 validity sustained if distinctiveness established over time despite claims of descriptiveness.
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.
Registration of a trademark may be cancelled if it is found to be deceptively similar to a prior registered mark and has not been used for five years, reflecting both private and public interest.
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.
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
