Gauhati HC: DRT Has to Dispose of Application under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act as per RDB Act  ||  Kerala HC: Showing or Waving Black Flag to a Person Cannot Amount to Defamation  ||  Del. HC: Merit Based Review of Arb. Award Involving Reappraisal of Factual Findings is Impermissible  ||  Del. HC: It is the Product and Not the Technology Used that Determines HSN Classification  ||  P&H HC: Provis. of Punjab Recruitment of Ex-Servicemen (First Amendment) Rules are Unconstitutional  ||  Cal HC: High Time that Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage be Read as Grounds of Desertion & Cruelty  ||  Supreme Court: Third Party Can File SLP Against Quashing Of Criminal Proceedings  ||  SC: Absolute Ownership in Property as Per HSA Can’t be Claimed by Woman with Limited Interest  ||  SC: Can’t Forego Fundamental Requirements of Election of Society in Absence of Specific Provisions  ||  SC: Special Efforts Should be Made to Identify Women Prisoners Eligible for Release u/s 479 of BNSS    

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 2024 - All Rights Reserved