SC: Mere Mention of 'Arbitration' Does not Form Agreement Without Clear Intent  ||  SC: No Entitlement to Job as Compensation for Land Acquired under Land Acquisition Act  ||  SC: Court Cannot Probe Credibility of FIR Allegations While Entertaining Quashing Plea  ||  SC: Notice under Indian Forest Act Does not Transfer Private Forests to Maharashtra Law  ||  SC: Unilateral Termination of Sale Agreement Invalid if Contract Does Not Permit it  ||  NCLAT: Pre-COVID Defaults do not Exempt Debtors From Insolvency Proceedings  ||  NCLAT: Liquidator Must Obtain NCLT Approval Before Conducting Private Sale  ||  NCLAT: Contract Termination for Performance Default Not Barred by CIRP Moratorium  ||  Kerala HC: Partial Specific Performance Not Allowed if Defendant Holds Undisputed Property Title  ||  Kerala HC: Complainant Must be Informed if Probe Against FIR-Named Accused is Dropped    

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