SC: Under Order XXI Rule 102 CPC, A Transferee Pendente Lite Cannot Obstruct Execution of a Decree  ||  SC: RTE Act promotes fraternity and equality by children of judges and vendors studying together  ||  MP High Court: Aadhaar and Voter ID Cards are Not Definitive Proof of Date of Birth  ||  Chhattisgarh HC: Second Marriage During Subsisting First Marriage Void Unless Custom Permits It  ||  Allahabad HC: Will in Favor of Someone Does Not Affect Compassionate Appointment Based on Dependency  ||  MP High Court: Mere Illness of a Family Member, If Improving, is Not Sufficient for Interim Bail  ||  Bombay HC: ?25K Fine for Flying Kites With Nylon Manjha; Parents Must Ensure Responsible Conduct  ||  Delhi High Court: Home State Must be the First Preference For Claiming Insider IFS Cadre Allocation  ||  SC: Hindu Daughter-In-Law Widowed After Her Father-In-Law’s Death is Entitled to Maintenance  ||  SC: Vendor Remains a Necessary Party in Specific Performance Suits Even After Transferring Property    

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