Back
AMIT BANSAL
Arvind Medicare Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Registrar of Trade Marks, Delhi – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Amit Bansal, J. (Oral)
1. The present appeal has been filed impugning the order dated 29th May, 2018 passed by the Senior Examiner of Trade Marks in respect of Application No. 2420117 for the word mark "MIRACLES" in class 44.
2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the present appeal are as under:
2.1. The appellant is a company engaged in the business of offering medical, hospital and allied services under the word mark "MIRACLES" since 2012.
2.2. On 31st October, 2012, the appellant applied for registration of the word mark "MIRACLES" under class 44 vide Application No. 2420117.
2.3. Vide Examination Report dated 2nd September, 2013, the Trade Marks Registry objected to the registration of the word mark "MIRACLES" under class 44, citing prior subsisting registrations of trademarks which were similar to the mark of the appellant.
2.4. In response to the Examination Report, the appellant stated that the word mark of the appellant should be registered since it is distinctive in nature. Further, it was stated that since the mark had been continuously used by the appellant since 2012, the customers of the appellant were easily able to differentiate between products of t
The central legal point established in the judgment is the significance of distinctiveness and acquired reputation in trademark registration under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
The distinctiveness acquired through extensive use and global presence of a trademark should be considered in the registration process.
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(....
A descriptive trademark can be registered if it is proven to have acquired distinctiveness through secondary meaning, alongside consideration of existing registrations and usage.
For trademarks filed on a proposed-to-be-used basis, evidence of secondary meaning is not required. Trademarks must be analyzed as a whole rather than being dissected into common constituent words, a....
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.
Distinctiveness of a trade mark must be assessed in its entirety, not by dissecting its components, supporting the Anti-Dissection Rule.
The use of the outline of the map of India as a trademark is not violative of Section 9 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 or the Emblems and Name (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950.
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
