IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SAURABH BANERJEE
Mankind Prime Labs Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Registrar Of Trade Marks – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. nature of the application and initial objections (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. arguments for trademark distinctiveness (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. legal framework for trademark registration (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. analysis of trademark distinctiveness and confusion likelihood (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 5. final decision and order on trademark registration (Para 23 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
JUDGMENT :
SAURABH BANERJEE, J.
Preface:
1. The appellant, by the present appeal under Section 91 of the TRADE MARKS ACT , 1999[Hereinafter referred as “the Act] read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and read with Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, seeks to assail the impugned order dated 17.10.2023 passed by the learned Examiner of Trade Marks, Trade Mark Registry, New Delhi, [Hereinafter referred as “impugned order], whereby its application no.4804262 for the registration of mark “CROSSRELIEF” in Class 5 of the Act has been rejected.
Brief Factual Matrix:
2. The appellant is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 2013 and is a subsidiary of Mankind Pharma Limited, the fifth-largest pharmaceutical company in India.
3. The appellant, on

F. Hoffmann-La Roche & Co. Ltd. v. Geoffrey Manners & Co. Pvt. Ltd.
A composite trademark should be evaluated in its entirety, as dissection can overlook its distinctive commercial identity.
Distinctiveness of a trade mark must be assessed in its entirety, not by dissecting its components, supporting the Anti-Dissection Rule.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of likelihood of confusion on the part of the public and the principle of comparing composite marks as a whole under Section 11(....
Common phrases lack distinctiveness under trade mark law, but may be registered if they can show acquired distinctiveness through usage.
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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.