Back
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
Fluke Corporation, 6920 Seaway Boulevard Everett, Washington 98203, Usa – Appellant
Versus
Registrar of Trademarks Boudhik Sampada Bhavan, Plot No. 32, Secstor-14, Dwarka, New Delhii – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)--This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present appeal has been filed under Section 91(1) of Trade Marks Act, 1999 by the Appellant-Fluke Corporation challenging the impugned order dated 10th December 2018 passed by the Respondent-Registrar of Trademarks.
3. Vide the impugned order, the Appellant's Trademark Application bearing no. 2354325 dated 26th June 2012 for the mark `DATAPAQ' in Class 9 (`the Application') has been rejected under Section 9(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 on the ground that the same is descriptive of the goods and services.
4. On 4th July, 2022, a statement was made on behalf of the Appellant that it is willing to restrict the mark `DATAPAQ' qua certain goods for temperature systems and temperature profiling. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant was directed to place on record an amended description of goods. The same has been placed on record today. The new description of goods read as under:
"computer software for temperature profiling systems in the fields of heavy clay and ceramics, heat treating, electronics manufacturing and the finishing industry: temperature profiling system comprised of electronic da
The central legal point established in the judgment is that descriptive marks can be registered under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 if they acquire secondary meaning, and the distinctiveness of marks and....
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 a mark cannot be dissected into its individual parts while examining its entitlement to registration, and the distinction between lack of dist....
Generic and descriptive terms in trademarks cannot be exclusively claimed, and likelihood of confusion must be assessed holistically from the average consumer's perspective.
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.
The distinctiveness acquired through extensive use and global presence of a trademark should be considered in the registration process.
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 the strict adherence to the statutory provisions of the Trademarks Act in determining the eligibility for trademark registration, including the ....
Distinctiveness of a trade mark must be assessed in its entirety, not by dissecting its components, supporting the Anti-Dissection Rule.
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
