Refusal under section 11(1)(a) and (b) set aside after the applicant converted the word mark into a composite device and offered to disclaim the word PATANJALI. The composite logo, with a book device, a stick figure and a tagline, distinguished it from the cited marks, and the disclaimer answered the objection that PATANJALI stood declared well known. Advertisement before acceptance directed under the proviso to section 20(1).
Refusal of a pharmaceutical word mark under section 11(1)(b) for deceptive similarity to an earlier registered mark, set aside. Phonetic similarity is assessed on the test in In re Pianotist Co.'s Application, approved by the Supreme Court in Amritdhara Pharmacy and Khoday Distilleries: take the two words, judge them by look and by sound, consider the goods, the nature and kind of customer likely to buy them, all the surrounding circumstances, and what is likely to happen if each mark is used normally. Applying it, the marks looked different, one being an adjective of common English usage and the other a coined word with no etymological meaning; they sounded different, having three syllables against four, with different concluding syllables, which convey a distinct impression when pronounced. A meaningless, arbitrary and coined word is entitled to additional protection. It was also not known whether the two pharmaceutical compositions were the same, and a difference would be a further mitigating factor against confusion.
Refusal under sections 9(1)(a), 9(1)(b), 11(1)(a) and 11(1)(b) set aside. The Statement of Grounds gave no reason why the word mark was not distinctive or was descriptive, and nearly a decade of use with documents on record showed acquired distinctiveness. Appeal allowed and the application sent to advertisement under the proviso to section 20.
Refusal under section 11(1)(a) and (b) set aside. Of the cited marks two were likely to be removed for non-renewal and one stood refused, while the only surviving citation was shown to be unused on e-commerce portals. The appellant already held a registration for a mark containing the same element, in use since 2011. Mark allowed to be advertised before acceptance under the proviso to section 20.
Refusal under section 11(1)(a) and (b) and section 18(4) set aside. Of the three cited marks the first was likely to be removed for non-renewal, the second covered different goods and the third had been abandoned. The commonality extended only to the generic word GEM, while the subject mark was a composite device of stripes and stylised words, and the same mark already stood registered for the appellant in seven other classes.
