Calcutta HC Disqualifies Politician Mukul Roy from Assembly under Anti-Defection Law  ||  Supreme Court Bans Mining in and Around National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries  ||  Supreme Court Terms Delay in Framing Charges for 4 Years in Maharashtra Case ‘Shocking’  ||  Kerala High Court: Widow’s Remarriage No Bar to Compassionate Appointment  ||  Delhi HC: Child Care Leave Not Absolute but Cannot Be Denied Arbitrarily  ||  Bombay HC: Furnace Oil Not Part of ‘Plant & Machinery’, No Complete Sales Tax Set-Off  ||  MP HC: Injury Not Required to Prove Attempt to Murder  ||  Supreme Court: Tenant Must Pay Rent Despite Appeal Against Fixation Order Without Stay  ||  Supreme Court: Counterclaim under Order 8 Rule 6A CPC Allowed Only Against Plaintiff  ||  SC: Externally Procured Parts Given For Assembly, Not Used in Manufacture, Not Liable to Excise Duty    

Reliance Industries Ltd. v. Concord Enviro Systems Pvt. Ltd. - (High Court of Bombay) (30 Jun 2016)

Reliance claim of ‘mirrored’ logo rejected

MANU/MH/1077/2016

Intellectual Property Rights

Bombay High Court rejected claims by Reliance Industries against the infringement of its registered trade mark by defendant’s use of its deceptively similar logo.

At the very outset, the court discarded the test of side-by-side comparisons, as deliberation would rest on the subtle elements of similarity and not an outright comparison. It noted, “resemblance need not be such as would deceive persons who should see two marks placed side-by-side”.

Instead, it borrowed the question: “what would he normally retain in his mind after looking at the trade mark? What would be the salient features of the trade mark which in future would lead him to associate the particular goods with that trade mark?”

The court accepted defendant’s contention that there was no similarity between the two. It also accepted that a comparison between the logos by reversing defendant’s image was too convoluted a mode of comparison and “no average man with imperfect recollection is going to look at the ‘rotated’ mark”.

Moreover, the logos were used for distinct products: the defendant engaged in the development and installation of waste water treatment. Customers availing its niche services would not purchase its goods and services without deliberation.

Relevant : National Chemicals v. Reckitt & Colman MANU/MH/0016/1991 S.M. Dyechem Ltd. v. Cadbury India Ltd. MANU/SC/0407/2000

Tags : LOGO   MIRROR   WATER TREATMENT  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved