- Case number
- C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 113/2021
- Court
- Delhi High Court
- Date of judgment
- Judge
- C. Hari Shankar
- Outcome
- Dismissed
Headnote
A refusal was upheld. The customer of average intelligence and imperfect recollection cannot be credited with the perspicacity to recall that one mark spelled the common word differently from the other, and the dominant part of both marks was the same distinctive surname. A 'since 1978' element in disproportionately small letters does not mitigate confusion, being the kind of element that changes from time to time. Section 34 failed because the user claimed for the complete mark as applied for was 2014, later than the cited proprietor's 2005.
Disposition
Dismissed. No case for interference with the impugned order.
Headnote by BRB Legal, written from the judgment: a summary for reference, not legal advice. Read the judgment itself before relying on it.