IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Navin Chawla, J.
Nirma Limited - Appellant
Versus
Purnima Gupta & Anr. - Respondents
C.O. (Comm.IPD-TM) No. 292 of 2022
Decided On : 28-09-2022
NIMA - Trade Mark Rectification - Trade Marks Act, 1999, Section 2(1)(zg), Section 11(2) - The court discussed the well-known trade mark status of 'NIRMA', deceptive similarity between 'NIMA' and 'NIRMA', and the prior adoption and use of the marks by the petitioner. The court relied on legal provisions to cancel the registration of 'NIMA' in favor of the respondent No.1.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought rectification of the trade mark 'NIMA' registered in favor of the respondent No.1, claiming prior adoption and use of 'NIRMA' and 'NIMA' in various trade segments. The respondent No.1 claimed user of 'NIMA' since 2000 for precious metals and their alloys.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that 'NIMA' was deceptively similar to 'NIRMA', a well-known trade mark, and the petitioner was the prior adopter and user of the marks. The registration of 'NIMA' was likely to cause deception and dilution of the petitioner's mark.
Issues: Deceptive similarity, well-known trade mark status, prior adoption and use, and cancellation of trade mark registration.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the Trade Marks Act, 1999, Section 2(1)(zg) and Section 11(2) to establish the well-known trade mark status of 'NIRMA' and the deceptive similarity between 'NIMA' and 'NIRMA', leading to the cancellation of 'NIMA' registration.
Final Decision: The court allowed the rectification petition and directed the removal of the 'NIMA' mark from the Register of Trade Marks.
JUDGMENT
1. The present rectification petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking the rectification/removal of the trade mark 'NIMA' bearing application no. 934534 in Class 14, registered in favour of the respondent No.1 for 'precious metals and their alloys and goods in precious metals of coated therewith (except cutlery, forks and spoons) jewellery, precious stones'. The mark of the respondent No.1 is reproduced herein below:
2. The respondent no.2 is the Registrar of Trade Marks, who has granted said registration in favour of the respondent No.1.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner's predecessor-in-title coined and adopted the trade marks 'NIRMA' and 'NIMA' in the years 1969 and 1982, respectively. The trade mark 'NIRMA' was coined and adopted from the name of the petitioner-company's founder-promoter's daughter 'Nirupama' and the trade mark 'NIMA' was coined and adopted by dropping the letter 'R' from the trade mark 'NIRMA'.
4. The petitioner-company has been using the trade marks 'NIRMA' and 'NIMA' for various trade segments such as toilet soaps, detergents, liquid blue, scouring bar, shampoo, toothpaste and other chemicals, tea, salt, spices and other food supplements. The business activities of the petitioner also extend to cleaning preparations or chemicals, tea, salt, spices and other food supplements. The petitioner is also involved in business activities such as packing, marketing and distributing a variety of goods such as clocks, flour mills, gold and silver coins and other goods falling under Class 14, match boxes, garments like T-shirts, caps and other products. The petitioner claims that it has also started the expansion of its articles into various other industries such as buildings materials, various chemicals et cetera. The petitioner gives a list of group companies registered and a Trust created with mark 'NIRMA' and 'NIMA', in paragraph 6 of the present rectification petition.
5. The petitioner has also provided details of the year-wise statement of export sales of goods bearing the mark 'NIRMA' up until the filing of the present rectification petition in paragraph 9 of the petition. The petitioner further provides details of year-wise sales and advertisement expenditure of goods bearing the trade marks 'NIRMA' and 'NIMA', incurred on publicity in different media such as TV and print, the details whereof are provided in paragraph 10 of the petition.
6. The petitioner is the registered proprietor of the trade marks 'NIRMA' and 'NIMA', in all trade mark classes, including Class 14. The details of the petitioner's trade mark registrations under the provisions of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (in short, 'the Act') in Class 14 are as under:
Trademark No.
Trademark
Status
Date of Application
1.
823336
NIMA
Registered
15/10/1998
2.
946625
NIMA
Registered
09/08/2000
3.
422859
NIRMA
Registered
05/06/1984
4.
713466
NIRMA
Registered
13/06/1996
5.
713467
NIRMA
Registered
13/06/1996
6.
946624
NIRMA
Registered
09/08/2000
7. It is the case of the petitioner that the trade marks 'NIRMA' and 'NIMA' have been used by the petitioner continuously, openly and uninterruptedly in not only Indian but also in international markets for goods and services falling under Classes 1 to 42, with 'NIMA' being a registered mark in all classes except Class 41, which at the time of filing the rectification petition before the erstwhile-learned Intellectual Property Appellate Tribunal (in short, 'IPAB') was still pending for registration.
8. The petitioner claims that its mark 'NIRMA' is registered in a hundred countries, while the 'NIMA' is registered in ninety-six countries are registered, including but not limited to Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Hong Kong, Italy, Japan, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Thailand, the United K
The central legal point established is the cancellation of a trade mark registration based on deceptive similarity and the well-known trade mark status of the petitioner's mark.
A trade mark that is phonetically and visually identical to a well-known mark, if registered without bona fide intent and in bad faith, is liable to be removed from the Register of Trade Marks under ....
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....
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.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the application and interpretation of various provisions of the Trademarks Act, 1999 in determining the similarity of trademarks, dishonest adop....
Registration validity sustained if distinctiveness established over time despite claims of descriptiveness.
Registered trademarks can be removed for non-use exceeding five years, reinforcing the burden of proof on the registered proprietor to demonstrate genuine usage.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.