Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

untenable pleading. Each mark must be assessed independently, and cherry-picking generic or unregistered features from multiple marks to fabricate a composite case of infringement is not legally sustainable.

51. It is not in dispute that the word "PRIDE" is not registered as a standalone mark. Nor can the appellants claim exclusivity over common elements like bottle shape or color schemes that are generic and widely used in the industry. While the composite marks 'BLENDERS PRIDE' and 'IMPERIAL BLUE' are protected, their individual elements - lacking distinctiveness - are not independently enforceable.

(Emphasis supplied) Thus, the Plaintiff on its own showing admitted before the Registrar of Trade Marks that the word 'WOW' alone being an English Dictionary word is not distinctive and it is in a combination with another word that it would as a composite mark have a distinctive character. In view of this stand, Plaintiff cannot contend in these proceedings that the word WOW on a standalone basis is a distinctive mark.

"32. A foundational principle in trademark law is that marks must be compared as a whole, and not by dissecting them into individual components. This is known as the anti-dissection rule, which reflects the real-world manner in which consumers perceive trademarks - based on their overall impression, encompassing appearance, sound, structure, and commercial impression. In Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma v. Navratna Pharmaceuticals Laboratories (supra), this Court underscored that the correct test for trademark infringement is whether, when considered in its entirety, the defendant's mark is deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered mark. The Court expressly cautioned against isolating individual parts of a composite mark, as such an approach disregard how consumers actually experience and recall trademarks. ...

13.8. The Plaintiff has placed on record details about various awards and investments received by the Plaintiff; this Court has perused the said record and is of the opinion that none of the said documents relates to either 'WOW! BURGER' and/or standalone 'WOW!', instead all of that material/documents relates to composite mark 'WOW! MOMO'. Therefore, the assertion of the Plaintiff that 'WOW!' is their source identifier, is false and incorrect, instead the source identifier of the Plaintiff is the composite mark i.e., 'WOW! MOMO'. 13.9. In disputes relating to trademark infringement, deceptive or confusing similarity is the essential requirement. Composite marks are generally evaluated as a whole, consistent with the anti‑dissection rule and from the perspective of the average consumer with imperfect recollection. However, where a component forms the dominant or essential feature of a composite mark (which is not the case in the present facts), copying that element can suffice for relief sought; still, this principle does not allow a proprietor to monopolize descriptive, generic, or laudatory terms.