Bombay HC: Mortgage, Enforcement and Related Reliefs Not Subject to Arbitration  ||  Bombay HC: Assessment Beyond DRP Directions & S.144C(13) Timeline is Invalid  ||  Rajasthan HC: WhatsApp Summons to Soldier Invalid; Ex-Parte Maintenance Order Set Aside  ||  Karnataka HC: Quarry Lease Renewal Allowed Next Day If Deadline Falls on Public Holiday  ||  SC Eases Firecracker Ban in NCR for Diwali; Permits Sale and Use of Green Crackers  ||  SC Issues Contempt Notices to States/UTs for Ignoring ICU/CCU Healthcare Standards Orders  ||  Supreme Court Reopens Case Against Ex-MLA Over Alleged Fake Caste Certificate in Elections  ||  Supreme Court Reverses Acquittal in 1997 Daughter-in-Law Murder Case  ||  SC Halts NCDRC Order Granting Compensation to Rajasthan Royals for Sreesanth, Citing No Match Played  ||  SC Warns TN Police Media Statements May Affect Impartiality of Karur Stampede Probe    

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