Delhi High Court - Orders
Reckitt And Colman Overseas Health ... vs Ind Swift Limited & Anr on 18 July, 2024
$~28
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 51/2024 & I.A. Nos. 33412/2024,
33413/2024, 33414/2024 & 33415/2024
RECKITT AND COLMAN OVERSEAS HEALTH
LIMITED .....Appellant
Through: Ms. Anuradha Malhotra with
Ms. Ekta Sarin, Mr. Nikhil Sharma
and Mr. Aman Venugopal,
Advocates.
versus
IND SWIFT LIMITED & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar,
CGSC with Mr. Srish Kumar Mishra
and Mr. Alexander Mathai Paikaday,
Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA
ORDER
% 18.07.2024 I.A. No. 33413/2024 (Exemption from filing certified copies)
1. The present is an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("CPC") seeking exemption from filing certified copies of documents.
2. Exemption is granted, subject to all just exceptions.
3. Accordingly, the present application is disposed of. I.A. No. 33414/2024 (Exemption from filing clearer copies)
4. The present is an application under Section 151 CPC seeking Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:CHARU CHAUDHARY Signing Date:20.07.2024 17:06:52 exemption from filing documents with margin of 4 cms on left side of documents and exemption from filing the typed copies of dim documents.
5. Exemption is granted, subject to all just exceptions.
6. Appellant shall file legible and clear copies of the documents, before the next date of hearing.
7. Accordingly, the present application is disposed of. I.A. No. 33415/2024 (Application seeking additional time to submit duly notarized and apostilled Power of Attorney)
8. The present application has been filed on behalf of the appellant under Section 151 CPC seeking additional time to submit duly notarized and apostilled Power of Attorney.
9. It is submitted that the appellant is based in United Kingdom and hence getting the Power of Attorney in favour of its constituted attorney Ms. Laurissa Sophie Abdull duly notarized and apostilled is taking a little longer time than expected. Thus, it is prayed that additional time may be granted to submit the duly notarized and apostilled Power of Attorney.
10. Considering the submissions made before this Court, the appellant is exempted from filing the legalized/apostilled and notarized versions of the Power of Attorney, at this stage.
11. The apostilled version thereof, be filed subsequently.
12. With the aforesaid directions, the present application is disposed of. C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 51/2024 & I.A. No. 33412/2024 (Application under Order XLI Rule 5 read with Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC seeking stay)
13. The present appeal has been filed under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Rule 156 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017, challenging Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:CHARU CHAUDHARY Signing Date:20.07.2024 17:06:52 the order dated 09th February, 2024, passed by the learned Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks, Trade Mark Registry, New Delhi.
14. By way of the impugned order, the learned Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks has dismissed the appellant's Opposition No. DEL-125161 against application for registration of the trade mark "DECA-NEUROPHEN" under Application No. 843092 in Class 05 and has accepted the Application No. 843092 and directed the same to proceed to registration.
15. It is submitted that the appellant's predecessor, The Boots Company PLC, coined and adopted the trade mark NUROFEN in the year 1981. It is submitted that the trade mark NUROFEN is an invented word having no meaning.
16. It is submitted that the learned Registrar has incorrectly held that the marks NUROFEN and DECA-NEUROPHEN are totally different from one another, phonetically and visually. It is submitted that the learned Registrar has completely disregarded the fact that the word NUROFEN and NEUROPHEN, are phonetically identical, and that since a mark phonetically identical to appellant's registered trade mark NUROFEN is contained in its entirety in the respondent's trade mark DECA- NEUROPHEN, the addition of the descriptive word DECA makes no difference in the comparison.
17. Issue notice.
18. Notice is accepted by learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 2.
19. Let notice be issued to respondent no. 1.
20. Let reply be filed within a period of four weeks. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed within a period of two weeks, thereafter.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:CHARU CHAUDHARY Signing Date:20.07.2024 17:06:5221. List on 17th September, 2024.
MINI PUSHKARNA, J JULY 18, 2024 c Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:CHARU CHAUDHARY Signing Date:20.07.2024 17:06:52