Back
VIBHU BAKHRU, AMIT MAHAJAN
Soothe Healthcare Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Dabur India Limited – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Amit Mahajan, J.
1. “Soothe Healthcare Private Limited”, hereinafter referred to as “SOOTHE”, which is in the business of manufacturing, marketing and trading of goods relating to personal hygiene including sanitary preparations and allied products, filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the “Dabur India Limited”, hereinafter referred to as “DABUR”, from infringing/passing off, inter alia, the relevant trademarks of SOOTHE.
2. SOOTHE obtained trademark registration in its favour for the marks “SUPER CUTESTERS”,
“SUPER CUTEZ” and “SUPER CUTE’S” in the year 2019 and 2020. It then commenced the use of marks for its product, baby diapers.
3. SOOTHE claims that the trademark application in respect of the trademark/device mark is
pending registration before the Trademark Registry.
4. SOOTHE claims that DABUR commenced marketing and selling baby diapers using the deceptively similar trademark, i.e., “DABUR BABY SUPER PANTS”. It is claimed that the use of mark “DABUR BABY SUPER PANTS” is deceptively similar to its trademark for similar products, i.e., baby diapers and has, therefore, infringed SOOTHE’s registered trademark. For the ease of reference, SOOTHE’s packaging and D
On a plain reading of Section 15(1), it is evident that where a proprietor of a trade mark claims to be entitled to exclusive use of any part thereof separately, he is permitted to apply to register ....
On a plain reading of Section 15(1), it is evident that where a proprietor of a trade mark claims to be entitled to exclusive use of any part thereof separately, he is permitted to apply to register ....
The distinctiveness of a trademark, statutory defenses, and the descriptive use of trademarks were central to the court's decision.
Generic and descriptive terms in trademarks cannot be exclusively claimed, and likelihood of confusion must be assessed holistically from the average consumer's perspective.
The court found that despite phonetic similarity, the distinctiveness of trade marks and differences in intended consumer bases negate the likelihood of confusion and passing off.
Trademarks that are descriptive, like 'Pe' in 'PhonePe', cannot claim exclusivity; parties may not dissect marks but can analyze dominant features for likelihood of confusion.
The court emphasized likelihood of consumer confusion in trademark law, holding that similar marks can infringe established trademarks regardless of differences in service or field, thus supporting t....
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
