Supreme Court: Police May Freeze Bank Accounts under S.102 CrPC in Prevention of Corruption Cases  ||  SC: Arbitrator’s Mandate Ends on Time Expiry; Substituted Arbitrator Must Continue After Extension  ||  SC: Woman May Move Her Department’s ICC For Harassment by Employee of Another Workplace  ||  SC: Women’s Representation Requirement Applies to All Bar Associations in Gujarat  ||  SC: Contempt Power isn’t Judges’ Personal Shield nor a Tool to Silence Legitimate Criticism  ||  SC: Statutory Corporation Can Deduct under S.36(1)(viii) Only for Income from Long-Term Finance  ||  NCLT Kolkata: Costs for Compromise or Arrangement Scheme not Part of Liquidation Expenses  ||  NCLT Ahmedabad: Complaints Against Auditors or Company Secretaries Not Grounds for Company Probe  ||  SC: NCLT Can Forfeit Entire Deposit if Purchaser Defaults on Payment for Liquidation Assets  ||  Meghalaya HC: Non-Signatory or Non-Existent LLP Cannot Claim Arbitration via Group of Companies    

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