- Case number
- C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 143/2021
- Court
- Delhi High Court
- Date of judgment
- Judge
- C. Hari Shankar
- Outcome
- Set aside
Headnote
Refusal under section 11 quashed and the application allowed outright. Section 11(1) requires the cumulative satisfaction of three criteria: that the marks are identical or similar; that the goods or services are identical or similar; and that registration would result in a likelihood of confusion, including association, on the part of the public. Likelihood of confusion is not to be easily presumed, and the nature of the goods and the class of their purchasers must be borne in mind. Here the cited registration was for paper caps used in toy pistols, not for toy pistols at all, while the applicant sought registration for water and colour spray guns, which are guns in form and not in substance and emit not fire but its antithesis. Similarity for the purposes of section 11(1) has to be of the goods or services, not of the occasion of their use, so the fact that both might be used at the same festivals was irrelevant. The Court added that registration of an eligible mark is a valuable commercial right carrying inalienable entitlements, chief among them protection against infringement, so an application can be rejected only if it falls strictly within the periphery of sections 9 and 11. Allegations of mala fide in the impugned order ought not to have been made without adequate evidence.
Headnote by BRB Legal, written from the judgment: a summary for reference, not legal advice. Read the judgment itself before relying on it.