Back
C. HARI SHANKAR
Fybros Electric Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Vasu Dev Gupta Trading As Vasu Electronics – Respondent
ORDER (Oral)
1. This is a petition under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 ("the Act", hereinafter). The petitioner is the registered proprietor of the following marks:
| S. No. | TRADE MARK/LABEL | DATE OF FILING AND USER CLAIM | APP. NO. | CLASS | STATUS |
| 1. | [IMG] | 10th December 2008 Proposed to be used | 1762041 | 09 | Registered |
| 2. | [IMG] | 20th March 2015 User claim: 06.11.2008 | 2927191 | 09 | Registered |
| 3. | [IMG] | 26th November 2008 Proposed to be used | 1758032 | 09 | Registered |
| 4. | [IMG] | 26th November 2008 | 1758036 Proposed to be used | 09 | Registered |
| 5. | [IMG] | 26th November 2008 | 1758033 Proposed to be used | 11 | Registered |
| 6. | [IMG] | 26th November 2008 | 1758037 Proposed to be used | 11 | Registered |
| 7. | [IMG] | 10th December 2008 | 1762045 Proposed to be used | 11 | Registered |
| 8. | [IMG] | 20th March 2015 | 2927192 6th November 2008 | 11 | Registered |
2. The mark [IMG] is, therefore, registered in favour of the petitioner in, inter alia,
(i) Class 9 covering "Electrical Accessories And Fittings, Switches, Switch Gears, Wire And Cables Scientific, Nautical, Surveying, Electric, Photographic, Cinematographic, Optical, Weighing, Measuring, Signaling, Checking (Supervision), Life Saving And Teaching Apparatus And Instruments; Apparatus For Recording, Transmission O
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 57(2) read with Section 11(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 to remove the impugned mark NJBROS from the register of tr....
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 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.
Court held that common descriptive terms in trademarks cannot be claimed exclusively and must be assessed as a whole, dismissing claims of deceptive similarity.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that for a trade mark to be ineligible for registration under Section 11(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act, there must be a cumulative satisfaction o....
The use of a deceptively similar mark in the pharmaceutical industry can lead to confusion, warranting injunction to protect the registered trademark.
The court held that similar trademarks operating in different markets do not always lead to confusion, emphasizing the need to prove distinctiveness and absence of confusion under the Trade Marks Act....
The principle of prior user of a trademark prevails over subsequent registrations, especially when confusion or association is likely between goods and services of similar trade sectors.
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
