Manupatra

Fill in the following details to e-mail

Subject

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> <head> </head> <body> <div style="font-family:Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size:12px; text-align:justify"> <table width="800" border="0" style="border:1px solid #ccc;padding:5px;" align="center" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top"> High Court of Delhi Registration of a composite mark does not necessarily grant exclusive right in respect of any part of the trademark MANU/DE/4260/2022 - (02 Nov 2022) </td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Sanjha Chulha vs Sanjha Chulha & Ors.</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" style="background-color:#FDEDCE">The Appellant has filed the present appeal impugning an order passed by the learned Commercial Court, whereby the Appellant's application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) was dismissed and the Respondents' application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the CPC was allowed. The case of the Appellant is that since the respondent is engaged in the same business and the Respondent's mark is phonetically and visually identical/similar to its trademarks, it causes confusion and deceives its customers. The Appellant contends that it is using its trademarks since the year 1986 and thus, it is not only the prior user but also the registered proprietor of the trademark "SANJHA CHULHA" and the formative device marks. 
The Appellant is not the registered proprietor of the word mark "SANJHA CHULHA". It had applied for registration of the word mark "SANJHA CHULHA" (under Classes 43, 29, 30 and 43). However, the said word marks had been opposed and the appellant has not been granted registration of the word mark "SANJHA CHULHA" as yet. 
In the facts of the present case, the question as to which of the parties is the prior user of the trademark incorporating the device mark "SANJHA CHULHA" or incorporating the said words, is a contentious issue. However, there appears to be no serious dispute that the respondent had been running a restaurant under the name "SANJHA CHULHA" since a period of more than twenty-four years. In the given facts, no fault with the decision of the learned Commercial Court to decline the appellant's request for an interim order interdicting the respondent from running its restaurant under the name "SANJHA CHULHA" till completion of the trial. 
It is now well-settled that registration of a composite mark does not necessarily grant exclusive right in respect of any part of the trademark. Undeniably, if a prominent part of the registered trademark is subsequently adopted by another user, either on a standalone basis or as a part of the composite mark, the same may in a given case indicate that the two marks are deceptively similar. But it is not necessary that in every case where a part of a composite trademark is used by another as a part of its trademark, the conclusion that the two marks are similar must necessarily follow. 
In the present case, the Appellant claims exclusive rights to the words "Sanjha Chulha" by virtue of registration of a device mark. The learned Commercial Court had noted that the words "Sanjha Chulha" have acquired a figurative meaning over the years meaning a "common kitchen". Further, the literal meaning of the words "Sanjha Chulha" is a "Common Clay Oven" in the Punjabi language. Thus, the said term is a descriptive word. 
A proprietor of a device mark that includes certain descriptive words of common use, would not necessarily acquire an exclusive right to usage of the said words. If it is accepted that the words "Sanjha Chulha" are now descriptive of a general dhaba - which is the prima facie view of the learned Commercial Court - the appellant may not be able to claim exclusive rights to use those words to the exclusion of all others, merely by virtue of registration of the device trademarks. This Court is unable to accept that the impugned order is capricious, perverse or arbitrary. No interference with the impugned order is warranted. Appeal dismissed.</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" ></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" >Tags : Prior user, Registered proprietor, Exclusive rights</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> <tr>  <td align="left" valign="top">Source : newsroom.manupatra.com</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Regards</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Team Manupatra</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> </table> </div> </body> </html>