Back
ANISH DAYAL
Pidilite Industries Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Sanjay Jain & Another – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Anish Dayal, J. - This rectification application has been filed under Sections 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 ("the Act") for removal/cancellation of the impugned mark 
bearing no. 2223608 in the Register of Trade Marks.
2. The said matter was initially filed before the Intellectual Property Appellant Tribunal ("IPAB") and transferred to this Court, consequent to the abolition of IPAB in 2021.
3. The impugned mark of which removal is sought, 'POMA-EX KIWKHEAL' (device)
, was applied for on 21st October, 2011, with user claimed from 01st July, 2011, and was granted on 16th December, 2014 to the respondent.
4. The petitioner claims to, inter alia, have the following registrations:
5. The trademarks are applied to their product which is instant adhesive and bears the following packaging/label:
6. The petitioner is a company incorporated in India, having its registered office in Mumbai. It claims to be world-renowned in the field of adhesives and sealants, construction, paint chemicals, art materials, industrial adhesives, et al.
7. Petitioner's products are sold under well-known trademarks 'FEVIKWI', 'FEVICOL', 'FEVISTIK', 'FEVICRYL', 'FEVI BOND', 'FEVIART', 'FEVIGUM', 'FEVITI
The court emphasized that the petitioner's claim was expansive beyond legitimate bounds, and the use of the word 'KWIK' on one of their many sub-brands could not give them dominance over what had alr....
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 main legal point established in the judgment is that a rectification petition seeking removal of a device mark from the register of trade marks must establish a fresh cause of action for rectific....
Registration validity sustained if distinctiveness established over time despite claims of descriptiveness.
In trademark infringement actions, a presumption of confusion arises if the defendant's mark is identical to that of the registered trademark, fostering the entitlement to interim injunction.
A trade mark recognized as well-known under the Trade Marks Act is protected against concurrent use by others regardless of the class of goods, particularly when evidence of rightful prior use and bo....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of the anti-dissection rule and the identification of the dominant part of a composite mark, leading to a likelihood of confusio....
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....
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
