Back
AMIT BANSAL
Vinod Aggarwal Trading As Vaneet Sales Corporation – Appellant
Versus
Meera Devi – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
AMIT BANSAL, J.
1. The present petition is a civil original trademark rectification petition and has been wrongly numbered as an appeal. Accordingly, the Registry is directed to re-number the present petition as a civil original trademark rectification petition.
2. The present petition has been filed seeking cancellation/removal of the impugned trademark ‘BAL BIHAR SUPER’ (word per se), registered under no.4256368 in Class 34 in the name of the respondent no.1, from the Register of Trade Marks.
3. Briefly, the case set up in the petition is that the petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading all kinds of unmanufactured tobacco/tobacco since the year 1990. The petitioner also has many registrations of the trademark/label ‘LAL BIHARI CHAAP’ in Class 34, details of which are given in paragraph 5 of the petition. All the aforesaid trademark registrations are valid and subsisting. The petitioner owns the copyright of the artistic work in the ‘LAL BIHARI CHAAP’ labels.
4. The petitioner has also filed its sales turnover in respect of its products from the financial year 1989-90 to 2020- 21. The turnover of the petitioner in the year 2007-08 was around Rs.11,
The central legal point established in the judgment is the likelihood of confusion and deception of consumers due to the adoption of a deceptively similar trademark, leading to the cancellation of th....
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....
The court ruled that the fraudulent registration of a trademark can be annulled if the prior user establishes confusion and lack of bona fide intention by the registrant.
Prior use and established reputation of a trademark can lead to cancellation of later registrations that may cause consumer confusion.
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....
Deceptive similarity of trade marks can lead to cancellation of registrations under the Trade Marks Act, prioritizing the rights of prior users over subsequent registrations.
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 registration of a trade mark that is identical or similar to an existing mark is liable to be cancelled if it is likely to cause confusion among consumers.
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.
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
