Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
TEJAS KARIA
Shri Ved Prakash Garg Trading As M/S Parul Food Products – Appellant
Versus
Dhruv Singh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition for rectification of trademarks. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petitioner has proprietary rights over trademark 'funfine'. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. proceedings and notices for the present petitions. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 4. petitioner's argument on trademark ownership and infringement. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 5. respondents' absence and lack of defense. (Para 24 , 25) |
| 6. uncontested evidence by petitioner establishing trademark ownership. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 7. similarity between 'funfine' and 'funshine'. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 8. legal standards for deceptive similarity in trademarks. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39) |
| 9. impugned marks found in violation of trademark laws. (Para 40) |
| 10. court's order to cancel impugned trademarks. (Para 41 , 42) |
JUDGMENT :
TEJAS KARIA, J.
1. The present Petitions have been filed seeking rectification of the Register of Trade Marks by cancellation/removal of the Trade Mark and the Device Mark registered in favour of Mr. Dhruv Singh i.e. Respondent No. 1, which are “FUNSHINE” and 
(“Impugned Marks”) bearing Application number 3583213 and 3583212 respectively in Class 30, on account of being deceptively an
Deceptive similarity of trade marks can lead to cancellation of registrations under the Trade Marks Act, prioritizing the rights of prior users over subsequent registrations.
Prior use and distinctiveness of a trademark override subsequent registrations, establishing a likelihood of consumer confusion in trademark disputes.
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....
Prior adoption and user rights establish entitlement to trademark protection, and their absence undermines claims for rectification, regardless of phonetic 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....
Trademark registrations must be based on bona fide use; deceptive similarity can lead to cancellation of marks.
The impugned mark was ineligible for registration due to similarity with an earlier trade mark, as per Section 11(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act.
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....
The registration of a trade mark that is identical or similar to an existing mark is liable to be cancelled if it is likely to cause confusion among consumers.
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
