INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS

REGISTRATION
OF
TRADEMARKS

SUBMITTED BY : SUBMITTED TO:

ANIRUDH ARORA Dr S Z AMANI

SEM IXth

ROLL NO. 5

1|Page
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I extend my heartfelt gratitude and sincere thanks to my IPR Law teacher Dr S
Z Amani, for his encouragement and full cooperation throughout the completion of
this assignment. Without his guidance and support this assignment would never
have been possible.

THANK YOU SIR

2|Page
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
CASES REFERRED

1. Amritdhara Pharmacy v Satya Deo Gupta AIR 1963 SC 449;

2. Ashoka Dresses v Bonn’s Shirts & Another (2000) RPC 507
3. BDH Industries Ltd. v. Croydon Chemical Works Pvt. Ltd. AIR 2002 Bom 361
4. Chaseside Engineering Co. Ld.’s Appl. (1956) RPC 73;
5. Consolidated Food Corp. v. Brandon & Co., AIR 1965 Bom 35.
6. Corn Products v Shangrila Food Products Ltd. AIR 1960 SC 142.
7. Cycling IS…TM Applications (2002) RPC. 37, 729
8. Dalip Chand Aggarwal v Escorts Ltd. AIR 1981 Del 150.
9. Davis v Sussex Rubber Co. Ltd. (1927) 44 RPC 412; (1927) 2 Ch 345
10. Electrix Ld’s., Appl. (1958) RPC 176;
11. Geep Flashlight Industries Ltd. v. Registrar of Trade Mark AIR 1972 Del 179.
12. Hastimal Jain trading as Oswal Industries v Registrar of Trade Marks 2000 PTC 24;
13. Hemla Embroidery v Hindustan Embroidery FAO No. 21 of 1968;
14. Imperial Tobacco Co. of India Ltd. v. Registrar of Trade Mark AIR 1977 Cal 413.
15. Jagajit Industries Ltd. v The Registrar of Trade Marks 2001 PTC 24;
16. Kantilal Thulasidas Jobanputra v Registrar (1982) PTC 127;
17. Mohd. Iqbal v. Mohd. Wasim AIR 2002 MP 162.
18. Moneysworth Trade Mark (1976) RPC 317.
19. Mumtaz Ahmed v. Pakeeza Chemicals AIR 2003 All 114.
20. National Bell Co. v Metal Goods MFG. Co (1970) 3 SCC 665
21. P. N. Mayor v Registrar of Trademarks AIR 1960 Cal. 80
22. Philips Electronics v Remington [1999] RPC 809
23. Philips’ Phonographische Industrie’s Appl. (1955) 72 RPC 183;
24. Registrar of Trade Marks v Hamdard National Foundation (India) AIR 1980 Del 180
(DB)
25. Tastee Freez International Ld.’s Appl. (1960) RPC 255
26. Tikam Chand and Another v Dy. Registrar of Trade Marks 1998 PTC 542 (Del)
27. Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v Union of India (1998) (2) Arb. LR 45
28. Torrent Pharmaceuticals v Wellcome Foundation Ltd. 2001 (2) CTMR 158.
29. Triomede (PTY) Ltd. v Beecham Group PLC FSR [2001]
30. Verve’s Records Inc.’s Appl. (1958) RPC 3;
31. Virendra Sethi v Kundan Das 20002 (25) PTC 50 (Del)

3|Page
JOURNALS REFERRED

 India Law Journal

 Indian Society of International Law
 Journal of Law and Economics

WEBSITES VISITED

 www.wikipedia.org
 www.cll.com
 www.tm-india.com
 www.thomsonreuters.com
 www.indlii.org

4|Page
S.No. CONTENTS PAGE NO.

1. INTRODUCTION 6

2. PROCEDURE FOR REGISTRATION 6

3. ADVERTISEMENT OF APPLICATION 8

4. OPPOSITION TO REGISTRATION 8

5. REGISTRABILITY OF THE MARK AS TRADEMARK 10

6. ABSOLUTE GROUNDS FOR REFUSAL OF REGISTRATION UNDER 11

SECTION 9

7. MARKS COMMON TO TRADE SECTION 9(1)(C) 13

8. MARKS DECEIVING THE PUBLIC OR CAUSE CONFUSION 14

9. IDENTITY OR SIMILARITY OF MARKS 16

10. RELATIVE GROUNDS FOR REFUSAL OF REGISTRATION UNDER 15

SECTION 11

11. JUDICAL PRONOUNCEMENTS 18

12. CONCLUSION 19

13. BIBLIOGRAPHY 21

5|Page
INTRODUCTION

The essential function of a trademark is to exclusively identify the commercial source or origin
of products or services, such that a trademark, properly called, indicates source or serves as a
badge of origin. In other words, trademarks serve to identify a particular business as the source
of goods or services. The use of a trademark in this way is known as trademark use. Certain
exclusive rights attach to a registered mark, which can be enforced by way of an action for
trademark infringement, while in some countries unregistered trademark rights can be
enforced pursuant to the common law tort of passing off.

If the mark is a registrable one the best way to protect it is by registration. Infringement of the
mark can be easily established. If the infringing mark is identical and the goods covered by
registration, the success in an action for infringement is almost certain unless the registration can
be attacked on the ground of invalidity of registration or the defendant could established honest
concurrent user, or acquiescence on the part of the registered proprietor, or prior user. If the
marks are not identical but only similar then the plaintiff will have to establish that the
defendants` mark is deceptively similar, that is to say, the similarity is such as to be likely to
deceive or cause confusion which is a proposition not easy to establish. Ultimately the question
of similarity is one for the judge to decide on which opinion may often differ.

PROCEDURE FOR REGISTRATION

Application for Registration

Section 18 of the Trade Marks Act 1999 says that any person, claiming to be the proprietor of a
trademark used or proposed to be used by him, who is desirous of registering it shall apply in
writing to the registrar in the prescribed manner for the registration of the mark.

Essential Ingredients for registration:

1. Any person

Any person includes individual, partnership firm, association of persons, a company whether
incorporated or not, a trust, Central or State Government. It does not allow the representative
of the proprietor to apply in his own name.

2. Claiming to be proprietor

A person may obtain proprietorship in a trademark either by use or by registration under this
Act. He may also acquire proprietorship by assignment or by inheritance. In case of

6|Page
unregistered mark but in use, proprietorship will be the person who first used it in case of two
rival claims whereas in case of proposed use of mark, which comes up for registration, the
designer or the originator will be the proprietor in case of any controversy. Between two rival
claims of user of the mark and designer of the mark the former will be preferred.

At this stage of making application, the proprietor has to show his bona-fide claim. If the mark
is not mistaken on the face of application and also there is not objection to the claim, the
registrar is entitled to accept the application. In case of manufacturer having a trademark
abroad has made goods and imported them into this country with foreign mark on them, the
foreign mark may acquire distinctive character and in such circumstances, the same or
colourably similar mark cannot be registered not because it is registered abroad but because it
lacks distinctiveness.

3. Used or proposed to be used

The law permits registration of a mark, which has been or is being used or is proposed to be
used. In case of proposer of the mark, he must have definite and present intention to use the
mark as on the date of the application. Definite and present intention is different from the
general intention to use the mark sometime in future to something, which he may think
desirable later on. Definite and present intention means a real intention to use the mark for
resolved and settled purpose. In case of used mark, the use in itself is not sufficient but is to be
accompanied with real intention continue with the use.
The ‘proposed use’ of the trademark must be normal and fair, which, however, may include
variations in presentation or colour difference but such variation should not stretched to far so
that the used form will be totally different from the one sought to be registered. If proprietor
does not have the real and present intention to use the mark, and try to register is for some
mala-fide intention, such as to block the mark, it would amount to registration in bad faith1,
which is a serious form of commercial fraud.

The application for registration of the mark must be filed with the Registrar in the prescribed
manner who has been conferred the discretion either to accept or reject or accept with
amendments, modifications, conditions or limitations2. The Registrar must communicate his
decision in writing with the applicant and is under obligation to give the reasons in cases of
rejection or acceptance on conditions or with modification.3

1
K. C. Kailasam/Ramu Vedaraman, Law of Trademarks and Geographical Indications (Wadhwa and company,
Nagpur) 2003 at 239
2
Section 18 (4)
3
Section 18 (5)

7|Page
Withdrawal of Acceptance

In case the Registrar decides to accept the mark for registration, but before actual registration,
the Registrar may withdraw his acceptance under certain circumstances under section 19 of the
Trade Marks Act 1999. For example, if the Registrar is satisfied that the application is being
accepted in error or that circumstances are such that such registration should not be granted,
he has been empowered to withdraw the acceptance of application.

This power can be exercised subject to certain conditions. Registrar has to issue a notice,
specifying the objections, which has led him to think that the application has been accepted in
error or why the mark should not be registered, to the applicant and give him an opportunity of
being heard by requiring him to show cause why acceptance should not be withdrawn.4

Advertisement of Application

Once the Registrar for registration has accepted the application, he shall get the application
advertised in the prescribed manner after acceptance. However, the application shall be
advertised before acceptance if the application is related to a trademark to which section 9(1)
and 11(1)(2) apply or in any other case as it seems expedient to the Registrar.5 The purpose of
advertisement is give information to the public at large in respect of the trademark advertised
and afford an opportunity to oppose the registration of the mark on given grounds. So the
advertisement must be complete in all respects and otherwise the very purpose of
advertisement will be frustrated.6 If there is incomplete or incorrect information in the
advertisement, it would amount to misrepresentation, which deprives a prospective opponent
of the opportunity to get full information and of filing an effective opposition.7

Opposition to Registration

Section 21 of The Trade Marks Act 1999 allows any person to oppose an application for
registration. “Any person” need not be only a prior registered trademark owner.8 Even a
customer, purchaser or a member of the public likely to use the goods may object to the
registration of a trademark in respect of such goods on the ground of possible deception or
confusion. The period within which opposition to the application for registration can be filed is
three month from the date of advertisement, which can be extended by Registrar not
exceeding one month on application made to him and on payment of the prescribed fee. So the
period cannot exceed four months in toto.

4
Relevant Case: Tikam Chand and Another v Dy. Registrar of Trade Marks 1998 PTC 542 (Del).
5
Section 20
6
Relevant case: Virendra Sethi v Kundan Das 20002 (25) PTC 50 (Del)
7
Ashoka Dresses v Bonn’s Shirts & Another (2000) RPC 507
8
P. N. Mayor v Registrar of Trademarks AIR 1960 Cal. 80

8|Page
The grounds of opposition should be based upon the specific provisions of law. The grounds
based on section 9, 11, 12, 13, 18, 24, 33, 35, 36(2) etc. would be suitable to challenge the
application of registration. However, the grounds based on section 11(2) and (3) are available
only to the proprietor of earlier trademark.9

On receiving the notice of opposition, the Registrar is under obligation to send a copy of the
same to the applicant for registration. Upon receiving such notice, the applicant is given two
months time, from the date of receipt of the notice, to file counter statement together with the
prescribed fees to the registrar. This copy of counter statement shall be sent to the person who
has filed opposition under section 21 (3). The applicant and the opponent are given the
opportunity to adduce evidence in support of their claims and may also be given an opportunity
to be heard if they so desire under Section 21 (4).10 However the onus is on the opponent to
allege and prove the existence of facts, which may lead the tribunal to assess the existence of
likelihood of confusion in the minds of the public, which includes likelihood of association with
the earlier mark. But this does not relieve the applicant of his onus to satisfy the Registrar or
the court that there is no reasonable probability of confusion, in respect of all goods coming
within the specification applied for and not only in respect of the goods on which he is
proposing to use it immediately.11

Registration

Subject to Section 19 the Registrar is under obligation to register the Trade Mark under section
23 if he decides in favour of applicant after listening to the opposition. However, Central
Government may direct otherwise on certain grounds. The mark can also be registered jointly
for two or more persons under section 24 if two or more persons agree to work jointly. In such
cases, the registrar shall require a copy of joint venture agreement to satisfy himself because
none of them is entitled to use the mark independently. The section in its earlier part
specifically precludes the Registrar from registration of two or more persons who use the
trademark independently or propose to use it independently. The registration shall be made as
of the date of the application and the applicant shall be issued a certificate of registration.
However the registrar is empowered U/S 23 (4) to amend the register or certificate of
registration for the purpose of correcting a clerical error or an obvious mistake. The applicant
must complete all formalities within one-year time period or within such time as may be given

9
K. C. Kailasam/Ramu Vedaraman, Law of Trademarks and Geographical Indications (Wadhwa and company,
Nagpur) 2003 at 261.
10
Case relating to adducing evidence: Hemla Embroidery v Hindustan Embroidery FAO No. 21 of 1968; Hastimal
Jain trading as Oswal Industries v Registrar of Trade Marks 2000 PTC 24; Jagajit Industries Ltd. v The Registrar of
Trade Marks 2001 PTC 24; Kantilal Thulasidas Jobanputra v Registrar (1982) PTC 127; Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
v Union of India (1998) (2) Arb. LR 45
11
K. C. Kailasam/Ramu Vedaraman, Law of Trademarks and Geographical Indications (Wadhwa and company,
Nagpur) 2003 at 272

9|Page
in the notice. If defaulted, the application may be treated as abandoned after the registrar gives
notice in this regard to the applicant. Section 25 provides that Registration shall be for a period
of ten years but may be renewed from time to time in accordance with the provisions of this
act. Renewal can be made before the expiration of the registration. In case of default in
renewal before expiration, the act provides for the grace period of six months from the date of
expiration for renewal on payment of prescribed fee. However, before expiration of the last
registration of a trademark, the Registrar shall send notice in the prescribed manner to the
registered proprietor of the date of expiration and conditions as to the renewal. If the
proprietor does not file for renewal, the name of the mark will be removed from the register.
However, the Registrar is entitled to restore the mark in register if it is just to do so after six
month but before one year from the expiration of the last registration, on the receipt of
application and on payment of the fee by the proprietor. Such restoration shall be for another
ten years to period.

REGISTRABILITY OF THE MARK AS TRADEMARK

Any mark, which is not hit by the definition and section 9, qualifies for registration. However, a
mark qualified under section 9 has to meet the positive objections under section 11 to be finally
registered. Section 11 is the qualification of section 9. Mark having crossed the threshold under
section 9 is capable of getting the protection of the Trademark Act subject to section 11. It
deals with prohibition on registration but does not hit the inherent capability of mark as to its
registrability. The marks prohibited under section 11 may not be desirable based upon public
policy considerations. Under The Trademark Act, 1999, trademark is defined as to mean, inter
alia, a mark, which can be represented graphically and is capable of distinguishing the goods or
services of one person from those of others.

In a way, the definition itself prescribes two features to be present in any mark to be a
trademark:

Capability of being represented graphically;

Capability to distinguish the goods or services of one person from those of others.

Absolute Grounds for Refusal of Registration under Section 9

Whereas Section 9 of The Act lays down the ground for on the basis of which, the registration
of the mark can be denied absolutely. One of the grounds is ‘if the mark is devoid of distinctive

10 | P a g e
character’12. The phrase ‘distinctive character’ implies the ‘incapability of the mark to
distinguish’ the goods or services of one person from that of the others. It also implies that the
mark in itself should be distinctive in certain cases. For example, common word of dictionary or
the name of the place can not be registered unless it is shown that the common word or the
name has become distinctive of his goods or services in the mind of the purchasing public, but if
he succeeds, then he will be entitled to protect his mark by registration.13

Another ground14 for refusal to register the mark is that the mark should not indicate the kind,
quality, quantity, intended purpose, values, geographical origin or the time of production of the
goods or rendering of services or other characteristics of the goods or services. In addition to
these, a mark stands disqualified from registration if represents the shape of goods results from
the nature of the goods themselves or shape of the goods necessary to obtain a technical result
or shape which gives substantial value to the goods.15

Yet another ground16 is that the mark must not be consisted of the marks or indications, which
have become customary in current language or in the bona fide and established practices of the
trade it is not desirable to monopolize such marks. These are the grounds, which are specific to
the mark that means, if the mark is affected by any of these characteristics, it cannot be
registered. But this is not the end. The mark not affected by any such disqualification, has to
pass what can be called as the effect test. That means, the mark should not deceive the public
or cause confusion or hurt the religious susceptibilities of any class or section of the citizens or
be scandalous or obscene.17 The section 9 lays down the pre-requisites of qualification for the
protection of trademark law.

Capability to Distinguish Section 9(1)(a)

In National Bell Co. v Metal Goods MFG. Co18, Supreme Court of India observed that distinctive
in relation to the goods or services as meaning ‘adapted to distinguish’ goods with which the
proprietor is/ may be connected. Whereas in Davis v Sussex Rubber Co. Ltd.19, the Court of
Appeal drew the distinction between capable of distinguishing and adapted to distinguish by
saying that ‘capable of distinguishing’ seems to have a somewhat wider import than the
expression ‘adapted to distinguish’ as it embraces marks which have not at the date of the

12
Section 9(1)(a)
13
K. C. Kailasam/Ramu Vedaraman, Law of Trademarks and Geographical Indications (Wadhwa and company,
Nagpur) 2003 at 91
14
Section 9(1)(b)
15
Section 9(3)
16
Section 9(1)(c)
17
Section 9(2)
18
(1970) 3 SCC 665
19
(1927) 44 RPC 412; (1927) 2 Ch 345

11 | P a g e
application, but which, if used long enough, may become distinctive of the goods of the
proprietor of the mark. The court in this case, observed that ‘capable of distinguishing’ might
perhaps refer to the future, in the sense that a word may be able to distinguish although at the
moment of time at which the application is made it may not

have become fully effective to distinguish. However, the Court of Appeal observed that the
general considerations, which have to be taken into account in construing the expression
‘capable of distinguishing’, are the same as in construing ‘adapted to distinguish’.20

In determining the capability to distinguish, the authority must take into consideration both
inherent capability and factual capability to distinguish. Inherent capability may mean that
irrespective of the peculiarities of the trade or the practice of other traders, the mark is shown
to possess the capability of distinguishing the goods to which it is applied. For example, a mark
having direct reference to the character or quality of the goods is considered as inherently not
capable of distinguishing. However Indian Trademark Registry takes the view that if the
reference to the character or quality is only indirect or suggestive, the mark can be considered.
The ‘factual capability to distinguish’ depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. In
each particular case, it become a subject of inquiry whether the mark by virtue of its being use
or any other circumstances, it is in fact is capable of distinguishing the goods. The Supreme
Court in National Bell case observed that in determining the distinctiveness, regard must be had
whether it is inherently distinctive or is inherently capable of distinguishing and by reason of its
use or any other circumstances, it is in fact adapted to distinguish or is capable to distinguishing
the goods.

Indicating Nature or Characteristics under Section 9(1)(b)

Section 9(1)(b) lays down the other ground of disqualification of the mark for registration. It
says that the mark consists exclusively of marks or indications, which may serve in trade to
designate the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, values, geographical origin or the time
of production of the goods or rendering of services or other characteristics of the goods or
services. In addition to these, a mark stands disqualified from registration if represents the
shape of goods results from the nature of the goods themselves or shape of the goods
necessary to obtain a technical result or shape which gives substantial value to the goods.21

The expression ‘kind’ includes the name or size or type of the goods or services. This is based on
the public policy of not affording registration to the generic description of the goods which are

20
English Cases: Electrix Ld’s., Appl. (1958) RPC 176; Philips’ Phonographische Industrie’s Appl. (1955) 72 RPC 183;
Chaseside Engineering Co. Ld.’s Appl. (1956) RPC 73; Verve’s Records Inc.’s Appl. (1958) RPC 3; Tastee Freez
International Ld.’s Appl. (1960) RPC 255
21
Section 9(3)

12 | P a g e
the only available method of description of the goods would not be having a capability to
distinguish. E.g. words like extra, small, big, liquid, solid etc. Any mark indicating the ‘quality’ of
the goods or services is the property of everybody and no one can be allowed to monopolize it.
e.g. superior, best, No. ! etc. . Such words are found to be devoid of distinctiveness.

Indications of quantity or standard weights or measures or numbers of contents such as

kilograms, liters, gallons, grams etc are not allowed, as these are needed by every trader in
respect of all the goods and services. Words describing intended purpose or the primary
functions of the goods or services such as giving soothing effect or giving absolute cleaning. For
example, word SAFFO22 was not given registration for cleaning powder and liquids on the
ground that word was too close to the descriptive of SAFF mean ‘clean’. Similarly words
indicating value or worth of any product are incapable of getting registration such as
Moneysworth.23

Marks indicative of place of manufacture or sale of goods or time of production are not allowed
for registration. E.g. Punjab basmati or Talvandi rice or prepared in one day etc.

Marks common to trade Section 9(1)(c)

Section 9(1)(c) prohibits the registration of marks that consists exclusively of marks of
indications which have become customary in current language or in bona fide and established
practices of the trade. This is to protect the free use of indications or marks, which are already
in use in the trade, from being monopolized as a trademark. Moreover such marks lack
distinctive character. Words or indications common to trade are open to everybody for use. E.g.
generic names notified by the WHO as non-proprietary names, are open to the trade to use.

Proviso to Section 9(1)

The proviso to Section 9(1) provides that any mark or name, which though is not distinct,
nevertheless may be registrable if it is shown that it has by virtue of use acquired a distinctive
character. That means, as a result of use, the mark has become distinctive of the goods or
services of the proprietor. In an well-know case in Registrar of Trade Marks v Hamdard National
Foundation (India)24 the Delhi High Court gave approval of the registration of the mark ‘SAFI’ by
holding that words having direct relation to the character and quality of the goods, sometimes
lose their primary meaning and acquire secondary or good specific meaning of a particular
manufacturer. If it happens then such marks may be registered as trademark.

22
Chef TM (1979) RPC 143.
23
Moneysworth Trade Mark (1976) RPC 317.
24
AIR 1980 Del 180 (DB)

13 | P a g e
In English case, Cycling IS…TM Applications25 the Court laid down the test to determine the
distinctiveness on the basis of use by holding that “Right view to take of a particular sign may
well depend upon the use (if any) that has been made of it and more generally upon the usage
of persons involved in the relevant field(s) of commercial activity.”

Other Relevant English cases on this point are given as under:

 Merz & Krell GmbH & Co.26

 Windsurfing Chiemsee Produktions und Vertriebs v Boots-und Segelzubehor Walter
Huber and Granz Attenberger27
 LLOYDS SCHUHFABRIK Meyer & Co. GmbH Handel28
 Philips Electronics v Remington29
 British Sugar Plc v James Robertson & Sons Ltd.30
 Bach and Bach Flower Remedies Trade Marks31

Marks deceiving the public or cause confusion: Section 9 (2)(a)

Section 9 (2) (a) seeks to prevent the registration of marks, which are of such nature as likely to
deceive the public or cause confusion.

Generally deception or confusion might arise by reason of similarity between the proposed
mark and another existing mark or might result from the nature of the mark itself or nature of
the use of the mark.32 For example, Deception in the nature of the Mark may be in the form of
misrepresentation as to the characteristics of the goods or services or to the effect that they
were made in a specified geographical region or place, when in fact not so made. Deceptive use
may involve where mark contains false or misleading information. E.g. use of word Regd. when
the mark is actually not registered.

25
(2002) RPC. 37, 729
26
(2001) ETMR. 105.
27
(2000) Ch. 523
28
BV (2000) FSR 77.
29
[1999] RPC 809
30
[1996] RPC 281.
31
[2000] RPC 513.
32
K. C. Kailasam/Ramu Vedaraman, Law of Trademarks and Geographical Indications (Wadhwa and
company, Nagpur) 2003 at 150

14 | P a g e
Section 9(2)(a) is intended to apply where the deception or confusion arises from the nature of
the mark itself33 and not to the questions based upon the similarity of the mark with other
existing mark which is a ground of refusal under section 11 which deals with relative grounds of
refusal for registration. Hence, a mark not deceptive or confusing may qualify for registration
even if the mark has resemblance or identity with other mark but is distinct.

Section 9 (2) (b) forbids registration if the mark contains or comprises of any matter likely to
hurt the religious susceptibilities of any class or section of the citizens of India. But this does not
forbid the use of name or pictures of God or Goddess or religious heads as trademarks that are
not offending. Examples of offending use may be use of Hindu Gods in respect of beef or meat
or Muslim Saints for port products etc. however, the perception and the practice is that usually
symbols relating to religion, gods or goddesses, place of worship should not be registered even
if it is not hurting but because these are part common heritage and should not allow any
monoplization. Section 9 (2) (c) prohibits the registration of mark if it is scandalous or obscene.
Whether the mark is scandalous or obscene or not depends upon the current religious, social
and family values.

In addition to all these ground for refusal of registration of a mark under section 9(3) on the
ground of shape will not be entertained for registration. The shape of the goods resulting from
its nature34 or giving substantial value to goods or shape of goods necessary to obtain technical
results35 would disqualify the mark for registration. Whereas the definition of the mark itself
provides that mark includes shape of goods or packaging. However generally the shapes would
not be allowed registration unless it is shown that the shape is distinctive of the goods or
services.

Relative Grounds for Refusal of Registration under Section 11

While Section 9 provides for absolute grounds for refusal of an application for registration of
trademark, section 11 provides for relative grounds for refusal to register any trademark.
Subsection (1) of section 11 provides that a mark shall be refused registration if it is identical
with an earlier trademark covering similar goods or services as are covered by earlier
trademark. Also refusal can come if the mark is similar to the earlier trademark covering
identical goods or services as are covered by the earlier mark. The register is under obligation
to refuse the registration on the ground of ‘likelihood of confusion’ on the part of the public.
Earlier trademark need not necessarily be registered. If the trademark is having earlier priority

33
This is in consonance with the heading of section entitling “absolute grounds for refusal”.
34
Philips Electronics v Remington [1999] RPC 809
35
Philips Electronics v Remington [1999] RPC 80; Triomede (PTY) Ltd. v Beecham Group PLC FSR [2001]
583.

15 | P a g e
date or is entitled to protection by virtue of being well-known trademark, it would sufficiently
be an earlier mark for the purposes of this section.

So the Registrar before refusing the register a mark that has come up for registration has to
function at three levels. One, he must find out the identity or similarity of mark. Two he must
look for identity or similarity of goods or services to which the mark is going to be applied. And
three, he must check out whether there is any likelihood of confusion on the part of the public.

Identity or Similarity of Marks

Test for determining Identity or similarity of Marks

For determining the identity or similarity, the rules of comparison are developed over the years
and which J. Parkar aptly explains in Pianotist Company Ltd.’s Application 36 case. According to
him one must judge the two marks both by the look and by the sound;

consider the goods to which the mark is to going to be applied; consider the nature and kind of
customers who are likely to buy the goods; consider as to what would happen if both the marks
are used in the normal way as a trademark for goods of the respective owners of the mark.
After considering all these circumstances, if one comes to the conclusion that there will be
confusion, registration must be refused.

While comparing, one must not take a part of the word rather consider the whole and compare
it. Supreme Court37 while recognizing it further observed that the approach to comparison
should be from the point of view of a man of average intelligence and of imperfect recollection.
Whether to such a man, the overall structure and phonetic similarity or similarity of the idea in
the two marks is reasonably likely to cause a confusion between them, is the test.38

Search Procedure

To determine the identity or similarity with the earlier mark, the Registrar needs to go through
the search procedure before registration. Search is confined to a particular class in which
registration is applied for. However, search should be carried on amongst the marks not only
for identical goods but also for similar goods. [Schedule IV to the Trade Marks Rules provides
for classification of the goods and services in 45 classes – goods being classified in classes 1 to
34 and services included in classes 35 to 45. For international classification of goods and
services published by WIPO, one can visit www.wipo.org earlier trademark is one that is already

36
(1906) 23 R.P.C. 774
37
In Corn Products v Shangrila Food Products Ltd. AIR 1960 SC 142. Also refer to Amritdhara Pharmacy v Satya Deo
Gupta AIR 1963 SC 449; Torrent Pharmaceuticals v Wellcome Foundation Ltd. 2001 (2) CTMR 158.
38
Corn Products v Shangrila Food Products Ltd. AIR 1960 SC 142

16 | P a g e
registered or subject of a convention application39 of an earlier priority date or is one which is
entitled to protection as a well known trade mark.

Identity or similarity of goods or services

To determine the identity or similarity, the Registrar needs to go through the search process
before registration. Search is to be done in the specific classes of goods and services in which
the proposed mark falls is going to fall. However, search would include not only amongst the
identical goods but cover similar goods.

For this purpose, it is advisable that applicant should be precise in stating the specification of
goods or services for which the mark is sought to be registered. However, the specification, if
indefinite, may be a bar to the registration. If the applicant gives unnecessarily wide
specification, there are greater chances that he may found a prior registration in same or
similar mark in that class which may result in an objection to his registration. Moreover, even
registrar may object to wide specification of goods under rule 25(15) of Trademarks Rules.

One thing is to be made clear here that classification of goods and services is not the criterion
for determining whether two sets of goods or services are of the same description. Indeed,
goods comprised in same class may include goods of a different description and different
description of goods may fall in the same class. [Schedule IV to the Trade Marks Rules provides
for classification of the goods and services in 45 classes. For international classification of goods
and services published by WIPO, one can visit www.wipo.org

Likelihood of confusion [Section 11(1)]

Section 11(1) of the Trade Marks Act 1999 says that if because of the identity or similarity of
marks or goods or services, there exists a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public,
which includes the likelihood of association with the earlier trademark, the mark shall not be
registered save as otherwise provided in section 12.

Laying down the test in Amritdhara Pharmacy case40 the Supreme Court observed: “for
deceptive resemblance two important questions are: (1) who are the persons whom the
resemblance must be likely to deceive or confuse, an (2) what rules of comparison are to be
adopted in judging whether such resemblance exists. As to confusion, it is perhaps an
appropriate description of the state of mind of a customer who, on seeing a mark thinks that it

39
India being member of Paris Convention for protection of industrial property is bound to accord priority date
under section 154.
40
Amritdhara Pharmacy v Satyadeo Gupta AIR 1963 SC 449.

17 | P a g e
differs from the mark on goods, which he has previously bought, but is doubtful whether that
impression is not due to imperfect recollection… the question has to be approached from the
point of view of a man of average intelligence and imperfect recollection.”

The risk of likelihood of confusion is considered as the most in cases where both the mark and
goods and services are identical of the existing mark and lesser where either of them is
identical. Whereas in the instance of similarity of mark and good or services risk is considered
lesser than in case of identical marks.

The provision in section 11(1) is mandatory on the Registrar and therefore when this section
hits an application, the Registrar is bound to refuse registration. The issue under this section
can be raised by the Registrar, prior to acceptance of the application, and by any person after
the mark is advertised. In the absence of any attack on the registration fo the earlier trademark,
it is to be assumed that there has been notional use of the earlier trademark. The reason for
this is that unless one assumes notional use of the earlier trademark, the question whether
later on the trademark, proposed to be registered, will be give rise to a likelihood of confusion
on the part of the public will become difficult to answer. At the same time, ordinary practical
business probabilities having regard to circumstances of the case should be considered rather
than constructing imaginary and unlikely cases.

In Dalip chand case41 an application to register Escorts for electric iron, etc was opposed by
Escorts Ltd. The Assistant Registrar dismissed the objections on the ground that applicant had
established prior use and honest concurrent use. On appeal, Delhi High Court set aside the
orders of the AR and held in this particular case that it should be considered whether the mark
has come to be known and associated with the name of the opponent, not necessarily with the
particular goods of the same description but generally with its goods. In this case, it could be
shown that the mark escorts has been quite extensively used in the market by the respondent
with the result that any goods which may be marketed under this mark will be associated with
the name of the respondent, so that people buying may feel that it is product of the
respondent. This is sufficient justification for refusing the application of a similar trademark.

DECEPTIVELY SIMILAR

Section 2(h) of the Act defines mark, which can be called deceptively similar. According to the
definition, a mark shall be deemed to be deceptively similar to another mark if it so nearly
resembles that other mark as to be likely to deceive or cause confusion. The act does not lay
down any criteria for determining what is likely to deceive or cause confusion. So every case of
deceptive similarity depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case after applying the
test, which has been laid down by judiciary through cases.

41
Dalip Chand Aggarwal v Escorts Ltd. AIR 1981 Del 150.

18 | P a g e
In H. C. Dixon42, the Court held that likely to deceive is a question largely one of first impression
and not necessary to prove the intention to deceive. It is sufficient if the ordinary user
entertains a reasonable doubt43 as to the source of the product. It is the likely hood of
deception and not the actual deception, which is the deciding factor.

JUDICAL PRONOUNCEMENTS

Mumtaz Ahmed v. Pakeeza Chemicals44

Test of similarity: In order to come to the conclusion whether one mark is deceptively similar to
another the broad and essential features of the two are to be considered. They should not be
placed side by side to find out if there are any differences in the design and if so whether they are
of such a character as to prevent one design from being mistaken for the other. It would be
enough if the impugned mark bears such an overall similarity to the registered mark as would be
likely to misled a person usually dealing with one to accept the other if offered to him.

BDH Industries Ltd. v. Croydon Chemical Works Pvt. Ltd.45

Apart from the structural, visual and phonetic similarity or dissimilarity, the question has to be
considered from the point of view of man of average intelligence and imperfect collection.
Secondly, it is to be considered as a whole and thirdly it is the question of his impression.

Mohd. Iqbal v. Mohd. Wasim46

It is common knowledge that ’bidis’ are being used by persons belonging to poorer and illiterate
or semi-literate class. Their level of awareness is not high. It cannot be expected of them that
they would comprehend and understand the fine differences between the two labels, which may
be detected on comparing the two labels when placed side by side. The essential features of the
two labels are common. In view of above, there appears to be deceptive similarity between the
two labels.
Geep Flashlight Industries Ltd. v. Registrar of Trade Mark47
Registration is not a matter of right: Even if the appellant’s proposed trade mark satisfies the
conditions under the Act, the appellant is not entitled as a matter of right to the registration of
trade mark. It is open to the Registrar to decline to register the appellant’s trade mark.

42
H. C Dixon & Sons Ltd. v Geo Richardson & Co. Ltd. 50 RPC 36, p. 374
43
Jellineck’s Appl., (1946) 63 RPC 59. P. 78
44
AIR 2003 All 114.
45
AIR 2002 Bom 361
46
AIR 2002 MP 162.
47
AIR 1972 Del 179.

19 | P a g e
Imperial Tobacco Co. of India Ltd. v. Registrar of Trade Mark48
The expression ’distinctive in relation to the goods’ in respect of which a trade mark is proposed
to be registered, means adapted to distinguish goods with which the proprietor of the trade mark
is or may be connected in course of trade from goods in the case of which no such connection
subsists either generally or, where the trade mark is proposed to be registered subject to
limitations in relation to use within the extent of registration.

CONCLUSION

Trademarks help promote economic efficiency. If trademarks are not allowed to be registered
with the manufacturers it may eventually take away the incentive of trademark owning
manufacturers to make investments in quality control. There would thus be no healthy
competition among the manufacturers leading to the loss of vitality of the economy. If we do not
have a system of having trademark a manufacturer would get nothing by improving his product’s
quality. And consumers would not be in a position to identify high or low-quality products. In
such a situation, a manufacturer who reduces the price by reducing quality may pocket the
benefit of the market. The consequence would be attempts to produce inferior quality products
rather than competition to produce better quality products.

48
AIR 1977 Cal 413. See also Consolidated Food Corp. v. Brandon & Co., AIR 1965 Bom 35.

20 | P a g e
BIBLIOGRAPHY
BOOKS

1. Law Relating to Intellectual Property 5th Edition Wadehra B L

2. Law Relating to Intellectual Property Rights 2nd EditionV. K. Ahuja
3. K. C. Kailasam/Ramu Vedaraman, Law of Trademarks and Geographical
Indications (Wadhwa and company, Nagpur) 2003

WEBSITES

1. http://ebtc.eu/index.php/sector/ipr/121-ipr/ipr-prosecution/182-trademark-
prosecution-in-india.

21 | P a g e