The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 11 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 to determine deceptive similarity between trademarks based on visual, phonetic, and conceptual aspects.

JUDGMENT

Sanjeev Narula, J. (Oral):

BRIEF FACTS

1. RSPL Ltd., formerly known as Rohit Surfactants Pvt. Ltd., is a diversified conglomerate in the Fast-Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG) industry. The company specializes in manufacturing detergent powders and cakes, which are marketed under the brand names `GHARI' and `GHADI'. RSPL Ltd. was incorporated in 1988 and reconstituted as a public limited company in August 2011. They hold several device and label mark registrations, which are detailed in paragraphs No. 11 (vii) and (viii) of the petition [hereinafter collectively "Petitioner's marks"].

2. In paragraph No. 11 (vii) of the petition, Petitioner has presented label mark registrations that they assert are pertinent to the present proceedings. These registrations, which exclusively consist of label marks, are extracted hereinbelow:

3. Petitioner is aggrieved with the registration of word mark `AGRAGHADIYAL' (Trade Mark No. 4398088 under Class-03) for "DETERGENT POWDER & DETERGENT CAKE, LIQUID TOILET CLEANER, CLEANING, POLISHING, SCOURING AND ABRASIVE PREPARATIONS AND SOAPS INCLUDED IN CLASS 3" [hereinafter "impugned mark"].

PETITIONER'S CONTENTIONS

4. Mr. S.K. Bansal, counsel for Petitioner, argues that registration of the impugned mark is liable to be cancelled on the following grounds:

4.1 The impugned mark is deceptively and confusingly similar to Petitioner's mark '[IMG]' (Trade Mark No. 809474), which has been declared to be a `well-known trademark' within the meaning of Section 2(1)(zg) r/w Section 11(6) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 [hereinafter "the Act"].^{1[A notification, to that effect, has been published in Trade Marks Journal No. 1942 dated 24th February, 2020 at serial No. 17]}

4.2. The impugned mark resembles Petitioner's mark `GHADI' and in absence of cancellation, having both such marks, for the same class of goods/ in the same market, is likely to decieve or cause confusion to public at large.

4.3. The mark `AGRAGHADIYAL' in question bears structural, visual, and phonetic similarities to the mark `GHADI', which can potentially mislead unsuspecting consumers into believing that they are purchasing products from Petitioner or that there is some form of association or endorsement between Respondent No. 1 and Petitioner's well-known brand.

4.4. Meaning of `GHADIYAL', which forms part of the impugned mark, is same as `GHADI'.

4.5. Adoption of the impugned mark is solely with the intent to come close to Petitioner's marks and create unauthorized association with Petitioner's brand name and cachet.

4.6. Respondent No. 1, in addition to registering the impugned mark, has also applied for the registration of a device mark- '[IMG]' (Trade Mark No. 5554653 under Class-03) on a `proposed to be used' basis. Petitioner has opposed this registration. Notably, the application for the device mark identifies the impugned (word) mark as an Associated Trademark.

4.7. The impugned mark and the afore-extracted proposed to be used label mark in relation to goods and business is identical with and deceptively similar to Petitioner's marks in each and every respect including phonetically, visually, structurally and its basic idea and its features. Side- by-side comparison of competing marks is culled down below:

[IMG]

4.8. Respondent No. 1 was well-aware of Petitioner's regis