Back
C. HARI SHANKAR
Vending Updates (india) Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Registrar of Trademarks – Respondent
JUDGMENT (Oral)
C. Hari Shankar, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 7th September 2022, passed by the Senior Examiner in the office of the Registrar of Trademarks refusing registration to [IMG] device mark and rejects Application No. 4024218 of the appellant, of which the appellant sought the registration in Class 30, covering "Coffee including instant coffee, coffee mixtures, coffee beverages, coffee premix, tea including instant tea, iced tea, tea beverages, tea-mix powders, beverages made of tea, tea premix, flavoured premixes for tea and coffee, sugar".
2. Consequent on the application being filed by the appellant for registration of the aforesaid device mark, First Examination Report (FER) was issued on behalf of the Registrar of Trademarks on 2nd January 2019, objecting to the registration of mark as sought by the appellant under Section 11(1) of the Trademarks Act, 1999 on the sole ground that an identical/deceptively similar mark "AMAZON" stood registered in favour of Amazon Technologies, Inc., 410 Terry Avenue North, Seattle, Washington 98109, USA for "coffee, tea, cocoa, sugar, rice, tapioca, sago, artificial coffee, flour and preparations made from ce
Consent of the existing trademark holder can nullify objections to registration of a similar mark.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of likelihood of confusion on the part of the public and the principle of comparing composite marks as a whole under Section 11(....
The court established that a composite trade mark must be assessed as a whole for registration, not in parts, and that refusal based on descriptiveness must consider the entirety of the mark.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for distinctiveness of a mark for registration under Section 9(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Act, and the need for the Registrar to p....
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 main legal point established in the judgment is that the rejection of a trademark application can be justified based on phonetic and conceptual similarity with an earlier trademark, likelihood of....
Refusal orders under Section 11(1) must reason rejection of honest concurrent use evidence under Section 12; unreasoned mechanical orders ignoring user affidavits and non-use set aside with remand.
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
