Patna HC: Disciplinary Authority Cannot Impose Major and Minor Penalties in a Single Order  ||  Calcutta HC: Landlord Decides His Residential Needs; Courts Cannot Set Living Standards in Eviction  ||  Orissa HC: Second Marriage During Subsistence of First Remains Invalid Even After First Wife's Death  ||  Karnataka HC: Appeals Against Acquittal in Bailable Offences Lie Only Before High Court  ||  Supreme Court: Stamp Duty on an Agreement to Sell is Leviable Only if Possession is Transferred  ||  SC: Motive Becomes Irrelevant When Direct Evidence Such as a Dying Declaration is Available  ||  Supreme Court Issues Directions to CoC in Builder Insolvency Cases To Protect Homebuyers’ Interests  ||  MP High Court: Women Retain Reservation Benefits After Marriage if Caste is Recognized in Both States  ||  Allahabad HC: Police Must Prosecute Informants of False Firs, and IOs May Face Contempt if They Fail  ||  MP HP: Over-Age Candidate Cannot Claim Age Relaxation Due to Delay in Earlier Recruitment    

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 2026 - All Rights Reserved