Court Finds Phonetic Similarity and Identical Style of Writing in Trademark Application Likely to Mislead Consumers
In a significant judgment, the Madras High Court has upheld the opposition of M/s. Karnataka Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Limited against the registration of the trademark 'Nandini' for agarbattis and doops by Vinod Kanji Shah and Nitin Kanji Shah, trading as Shalimar Agarbatti Company. The court's decision, delivered by Justice N. Anand Venkatesh, emphasized the phonetic similarity and identical style of writing that could potentially deceive consumers familiar with the well-established 'Nandini' brand of milk and dairy products.
The appellant, a prominent federation known for its milk products under the 'Nandini' trademark since 1983, challenged the application for the same trademark by the first respondent for incense products. Despite the second respondent's initial dismissal of the opposition, citing the distinct nature of the products, the High Court found the phonetic resemblance and identical style of writing sufficient grounds to prevent potential consumer confusion.
The court referred to a precedent set by the Supreme Court in a similar case involving the same appellant, underscoring the importance of assessing the likelihood of misleading consumers. The decision highlights the court's commitment to protecting established trademarks from deceptive similarities, even across different product categories.
The judgment effectively sets aside the earlier order by the second respondent, reinforcing the appellant's rights over the 'Nandini' trademark and preventing its use in unrelated product categories that could exploit the brand's established goodwill.
Bottom Line:
Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Phonetic similarity and deceptive resemblance - Registration of trade mark "nandini" by the first respondent for agarbattis and doops rejected as it was found to be deceptively similar to the appellant's mark "nandini" used for milk and dairy products, considering phonetic resemblance, identical style of writing, and potential to mislead customers.
Statutory provision(s): Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Sections 9, 11, 18, 91
