Back
P. B. BALAJI
LEGO Juris A/S – Appellant
Versus
Gurumukh Singh – Respondent
ORDER :
Common Prayer: These Petitions came to be numbered by transfer of O.R.A.Nos.278 & 287/2015/TM/CHN, from the file of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board, Chennai, the mark LEGO CUTEHEART (label) under Registration No.1073754 in Class 30 and the mark LEGO COFFYBOND (label) under Registration No.999049 in Class 30 be removed/cancelled from the Register of Trade Marks.
These Rectification Petitions have been filed under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (in short 'Act'), seeking rectification in the register of the 2nd Respondent, by cancelling the registered mark of the 1st Respondent.
I. Case of the Petitioner:
2. The Petitioner is a world-renowned leader in manufacture and sale of toys, games etc. The Petitioner was founded way back in the 1930s’ and the LEGO mark was adopted for the first time in 1934. According to the Petitioner, LEGO is coined from two Danish words ‘leg’ and ‘godt’ which literally means play well.
3. The Petitioner employs around 27000 employees globally and has presence in more than 40 countries across the globe. The LEGO mark has been used in India ever since 1987 and in 1994, the manufacturing and selling division of the Petitioner entered into
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.
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....
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.
Prior adoption and user rights establish entitlement to trademark protection, and their absence undermines claims for rectification, regardless of phonetic similarity.
Dishonest adoption of identical abbreviated mark in same field, without bona fides explanation and false prior use claim, defeated by prior global/India rights via registrations, franchises, domains,....
Well-known trademarks require a higher degree of protection against deceptively similar marks to prevent consumer confusion.
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....
A well-known trademark is entitled to protection against identical and similar marks, as well as dissimilar goods, especially when registration is obtained in bad faith.
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
