Back
C. HARI SHANKAR
Institute of Directors – Appellant
Versus
Worlddevcorp Technology And Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
JUDGMENT (Oral)
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
I.A. 16738/2023 [under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC]
1. This judgment adjudicates IA 16738/2023, preferred by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).
2. The following trademarks stand registered in favour of the plaintiff under the Trade Marks Act, 1999:
| Trademark | Application No. | Date of filing | Class |
| 1180935 | 6 March 2003 | 16 | |
| INSTITUTE OF DIRECTORS | 2535355 | 22 May 2013 | 16 |
| INSTITUTE OF DIRECTORS | 2535356 | 22 May 2013 | 35 |
| 2394163 | 11 September 2012 | 41 |
3. Classes 16, 35 and 41, in which the above marks stand registered pertain to "printed matter namely publications, books, periodicals, magazines, brochures, pamphlets, newsletters, instructional material used for training, stationary items, advertising boards", "association services catering to management, personal development of directors, and boardroom development" and "arranging and conducting of conferences, seminars and workshops, organizing international conferences & training programs", respectively.
4. The registration of the 
device mark of the plaintiff in Class 41 was subject to a disclaimer, disentitling the plaintiff from claiming any exclusive right
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.
Generic and descriptive terms in trademarks cannot be exclusively claimed, and likelihood of confusion must be assessed holistically from the average consumer's perspective.
Trademark infringement occurs when a registered mark's rights surpass an unregistered mark's claims, especially when confusion is likely.
The importance of placing all facts before the court for dispensing justice and the disentitlement to relief due to deliberate omission of placing a counterstatement on record.
Distinctiveness in trademark law must be assessed concerning the goods or services; common terms can acquire distinctiveness based on usage, thus allowing for a prima facie case of infringement.
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
