Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: HAJMOLA in Rajasthan Aushdhalaya Private Limited vs Himalaya Global Holdings Ltd & Anr on 4 July, 2025Matching Fragments
59. Even otherwise, legally, Mr. Upadhyay's submission is untenable. A plea, almost identical to that raised by Mr. Upadhyay before us, was raised before another Division Bench of this Court in Pankaj Goel v Dabur India Ltd29. The rival marks before the Court, in that case, were HAJMOLA and RASMOLA. The defendant sought to urge that the common suffix 'MOLA' was publici juris and common to the trade and, inasmuch as the only similarity between the rival marks was this common MOLA suffix, no case of deceptive similarity could be said to exist. Addressing this submission, the Division Bench held thus: