Back
C. HARI SHANKAR
Khadi And Village Industries – Appellant
Versus
Khadi Design Council of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT
I.A. 6811/2021 (Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC)
1. The plaintiff Khadi & Village Industries Commission (KVIC) has, by the present suit, alleged that the defendant Khadi Design Council of India (KDCI) is not entitled to use the word KHADI as any part of any word or device mark for any purpose whatsoever, as KHADI, both as a word mark as well as part of various device marks, stands registered in the plaintiff's favour under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
2. The plaintiff is the registered proprietor of
(i) the word mark KHADI
(a) in Classes 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 14, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 32, 34, 35, 38 and 42 with effect from 27th November 2014, claiming user since 25th September 1956, and
(b) in Class 22 with effect from 28th November 2014 claiming user since 4th October 2014
(ii) the device mark [IMG] in Classes 1, 2, 3,4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 14, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 32, 34, 35, 38 and 42 with effect from 19th June 2018, claiming user since 25th September 1956,
(iii) the device mark [IMG]
(a) in Classes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 37, 38 and 42 with
Unauthorized use of a registered trademark, particularly in health-related products, constitutes infringement and can endanger public safety, warranting permanent injunction and damages.
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.
Point of law: Registration of trademark shall, if valid, give to registered proprietor of trademark exclusive right to use of trademark in relation to goods or services in respect of which trademark ....
Trademark infringement occurs when a registered mark's rights surpass an unregistered mark's claims, especially when confusion is likely.
Important Point :The use of a trademark that is phonetically and visually similar to a registered trademark can lead to confusion, constituting infringement, especially when dishonest conduct is evid....
The court affirmed the registered trademark holder's rights against similar marks and clarified standards for proving prior use and confusion under trademark law.
Distinctiveness in trademark law must be assessed concerning the goods or services; common terms can acquire distinctiveness based on usage, thus allowing for a prima facie case of infringement.
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
