- Court
- Delhi High Court
- Date of judgment
- Judge
- Vibhu Bakhru
- Outcome
- Set aside
Headnote
Appeal allowed and the interim injunction set aside. The Commercial Court had held that the word Rose was common and could not be monopolised, yet found SWEET ROSE LOLLIPOP deceptively similar to MADHUR ROSE POP LOLLIPOPS, giving no reason for that conclusion or for its parallel finding on packaging. The Division Bench held that the marks must be seen as a whole: the common elements ROSE and LOLLIPOP are descriptive of the product and cannot be monopolised, the appellant's mark led with its house name UNICON, and section 30(2)(a) protects use indicating the kind or quality of goods. On packaging, the colour schemes and placement differed, and a transparent top panel for displaying the product is common to the trade.
Headnote by BRB Legal, written from the judgment: a summary for reference, not legal advice. Read the judgment itself before relying on it.