Back
C. HARI SHANKAR
Jainsons Lights Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Registrar of Trade Marks – Respondent
JUDGMENT (Oral)
1. Application no. 3487036 was filed by the appellant before the Trade Marks Registry for registration of the Mark [IMG] (hereinafter referred to as "the subject mark") in Class 11, for electric lamps, lighting apparatus and installations, luminaries chandeliers, lamp shades, lamps, led and fluorescent lights, flash lights, lanterns for lighting, lighting fittings and fixtures, decorative lighting, light diffusers, ceiling light, wall lights, outdoor lights, water proof lights, desk lamps, floor lamps, hanging lamps, lighting tubes, light bulbs, security lights, garden lights, mood lighting, display lighting etc. The appellant claimed user of the subject mark since 2014.
2. The Registrar, vide First Examination Report (FER) dated 7th March 2017, objected to the registration of the subject mark. In the FER, "M/s JAINSONS LITES" was cited as an earlier trade mark, for which Application No. 2242763, submitted by Mr. Rakesh Jain, seeking registration of the mark in Class 11 in respect of "electrical fancy lights, electrical goods, items and instruments", was already in existence with user claim of 2005. The FER objected to the registration of the subject mark on the g
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....
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....
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.
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 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 likelihood of confusion between competing marks arises from both the similarity of the marks and the nature of the goods, permitting trademark opposition to succeed under Section 11.
The court held that a well-known trademark's protection is prospective, not retrospective, meaning it cannot eliminate prior similar trademarks duly registered and used in a different class.
Prior use and distinctiveness of a trademark override subsequent registrations, establishing a likelihood of consumer confusion in trademark disputes.
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
