Court Rules 'TIGER' and 'BRAND' as Generic Terms, Rejects Interim Injunction for Trademark Infringement and Passing Off
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a trademark infringement lawsuit filed by Mayank Jain, proprietor of Mahaveer Udyog, against M/s Atulya Discs Pvt. Ltd. The court ruled that the terms 'TIGER' and 'BRAND' are generic and cannot be monopolized as they are common to trade. The case involved allegations of trademark infringement and passing off concerning the use of the marks 'TIGER GOLD BRAND' and 'TIGER PREMIUM BRAND'.
The plaintiff, Mahaveer Udyog, claimed ownership of the trademark 'TIGER GOLD BRAND', which they had been using since 2010 for agricultural implements like harrows and disc harrows. They argued that Atulya Discs Pvt. Ltd.'s use of 'TIGER PREMIUM BRAND' was deceptively similar and amounted to trademark infringement and passing off.
Justice Tejas Karia, presiding over the matter, held that the marks 'TIGER' and 'BRAND' are generic and common to the trade, thus not eligible for exclusive ownership. The court emphasized that the registration of a device mark does not confer exclusive rights to individual words within the mark. Applying the 'anti-dissection rule', the court stated that trademarks must be compared as a whole, considering the overall impression, rather than dissecting them into individual components.
In its detailed judgment, the court found no deceptive similarity between the plaintiff's mark and the defendant's impugned mark when viewed in totality. It noted that the visual, phonetic, and structural differences between the marks were sufficient to avoid consumer confusion. Additionally, the court highlighted that the plaintiff failed to establish goodwill, reputation, or any likelihood of confusion among consumers, and no evidence of damages was presented.
The ruling further stated that Mahaveer Udyog could not claim exclusive rights over the words 'TIGER' and 'BRAND', as these terms are widely used in the industry and have become public domain. The decision emphasized that exclusive rights are granted to a trademark as a whole, not to its individual non-distinctive components.
Concluding the judgment, Justice Karia dismissed the application for an interim injunction, stating that Mahaveer Udyog did not make a prima facie case for trademark infringement or passing off. The court's decision underscores the importance of considering the overall impression of a trademark and the non-exclusivity of generic terms within the trade.
Bottom Line:
Trademark Law - Generic terms such as 'TIGER' and 'BRAND' cannot be monopolized as they are common to trade and generic in nature. The registration of a device mark does not confer exclusive rights to individual words within the mark.
Statutory provision(s): Trade Marks Act, 1999 Sections 17, 29, 30; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2
