IP Case Digest · Trade Marks Act s.12

Section 12, Trade Marks Act: case law

3 judgments of the Supreme Court of India, the Madras High Court and 1 other court applying Trade Marks Act s.12, from 2023–2025, each with a headnote by BRB Legal.

3judgments
3courts
2023–2025years

Pernod Ricard India Private Limited & Another v. Karanveer Singh Chhabra, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10638 OF 2025

Supreme Court of India · Dismissed

Appeal dismissed and the refusal of an interim injunction upheld. The Supreme Court compared BLENDERS PRIDE and IMPERIAL BLUE with LONDON PRIDE and found no visual, phonetic or structural resemblance capable of supporting infringement or passing off, resemblance being a sine qua non for both. The judgment works through the anti-dissection rule, the dominant feature test, the principle that no exclusive right attaches to common or descriptive terms, and the average consumer with imperfect recollection, and discusses the post-sale confusion doctrine as it has developed in the United Kingdom. Although the appellants held registrations for the composite marks, no evidence showed that any element, such as bottle shape, colour scheme or the word PRIDE, had acquired distinctiveness or secondary meaning. An earlier unsuccessful challenge to the use of PRIDE, where it was held that they had no independent registration for the word alone, also told against them.

Idamakanti Madhusudhana Reddy v. The Registrar of Trade Marks, (T)CMA(TM) 191/2023

Madras High Court · Remanded

A preliminary objection raised under section 11(1) cannot become a refusal under section 11(2), and a summary refusal at the preliminary stage is premature: the Registrar should have let the mark go to publication and waited to see whether opposition followed. Section 11(1) is also subject to section 12, so the Registrar is not without power to impose suitable conditions, including a disclaimer, in place of refusing outright.

MHG IP Holdings (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. v. The Registrar of Trade Marks, Delhi, C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 49/2021

Delhi High Court · Remanded

Refusal under section 11 set aside and remanded. The cited registrations had all been filed long after the appellant's adoption of the mark in 1933, and the appellant held the corresponding domain name and showed extensive global use. On that material the case could fall within section 12, which permits registration by more than one proprietor on honest concurrent use or other special circumstances, and the Registrar was directed to consider it.