Back
MINI PUSHKARNA
PUMA SE – Appellant
Versus
SH. JUGAL KISHORE JAIN T/A M/S ASHISH JAIN TEXTILE MILLS (REGD) – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Mini Pushkarna, J.)
1. The present petitions have been filed under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (“Trade Marks Act”) seeking removal of the trademarks, i.e. “
” /PUMAXE (Label) registered under nos. 1572831 under Class 35 and 1229883 under Class 24, in favour of respondent no. 1 from the Register of Trade Marks.
2. This Court vide order dated 14th October, 2024 has proceeded ex-parte against respondent no. 1. The relevant portion of the said order is reproduced as under :
1. Perusal of the order dated 01st August, 2024 shows that respondent no.1 has already expired and the legal representative of the deceased respondent no.1 was served on 19thJuly, 2024 via publication.
2. None has appeared for respondent no.1 despite service on the previous date.
3. None appears for the respondent no.1 even today.
4. Accordingly, respondent no.1 is proceeded ex-parte.
…… ….. ……..
xxx xx xxx”
3. Accordingly, this Court has proceeded to hear the present matters.
4. The facts as encapsulated in the pleadings, as necessary for adjudication of the present matters, are as under:
4.1 The petition C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 697/2022 was initially filed before the Intellectual Proper
Well-known trademarks require a higher degree of protection against deceptively similar marks to prevent consumer confusion.
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....
Prior adoption and user rights establish entitlement to trademark protection, and their absence undermines claims for rectification, regardless of phonetic similarity.
Registration validity sustained if distinctiveness established over time despite claims of descriptiveness.
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....
Registration of a trademark can be revoked if it is found to be deceptively similar to a prior, distinctive mark, prioritizing consumer protection against confusion.
Registered trademarks can be removed for non-use exceeding five years, reinforcing the burden of proof on the registered proprietor to demonstrate genuine usage.
Prior use and distinctiveness of a trademark override subsequent registrations, establishing a likelihood of consumer confusion in trademark disputes.
A well-known trademark can be protected across different classes of goods, and its prior use entitles the owner to seek rectification against similar marks likely to cause confusion.
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
