Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Having adopted such a stand in its affidavit filed by way of reply to the opposition by Quantum USA to its application for registration of its mark, the appellant could not seek to claim exclusivity over the mark QUANTUM. These facts had been concealed by the appellant in its plaint.

(ix) In the same affidavit, the appellant had contended that the mark of which it sought registration was the composite mark "Quantum Hi-Tech QHMPL Group", which was different, when seen as a whole, from Quantum USA's marks. There was, therefore, no likelihood of confusion between the two. This stand would also operate with respect to the possibility of likelihood of confusion between the appellant's and the respondents' marks.

18.5 We, therefore, are of the view that the contents of para 16(l) of the affidavit filed by the appellant, in response to the opposition of Quantum USA, do not seriously impact the appellant's case.

18.6 However, in para 12 of the same affidavit, the appellant has also contested the assertion of Quantum USA that the mark of which the appellant was seeking registration was similar to the marks of Quantum USA. The ground on which the appellant had so contested Quantum USA's assertion is that the appellant's application was for FAO (COMM) 22/2022 KUMAR Signing Date:04.11.2025 11:39:55 the composite mark . The appellant contended that the said composite mark was in no way similar to the marks used by Quantum USA and that, therefore, the registration of the mark in the appellant's favour would not result in any likelihood of confusion.

19.9 This also follows from the judgments of the Division Bench of this Court in South India Beverages Pvt Ltd v General Mills Marketing Inc.23 as well as the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Pernod Ricard India (P) Ltd v Karanveer Singh Chhabra24. In both these decisions, the Court has lent its imprimatur to the "dominant part"25 principle, which counterbalances the principle of anti-dissection contained in sub-section (2) of Section 1726 of the Act. While, ordinarily, it is not permissible for the proprietor of a registered composite mark to claim exclusivity over any individual part of a composite mark, unless that individual part is separately registered, nonetheless, where any particular element of such composite mark constitutes its dominant part, the claim of exclusivity over the composite mark itself can be assessed by reference to the dominant part. In other words, while the right of the plaintiff-registrant would still only be for claiming exclusivity over the entire composite mark, 23 2015 (61) PTC 231 (Del) 24 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1701 25 somewhat inaccurately referred to, in the judgment, as "dominant mark" 26 17. Effect of registration of parts of a mark. -

the registration thereof shall not confer any exclusive right in the matter forming only a part of the whole of the trade mark so registered.

FAO (COMM) 22/2022 KUMAR Signing Date:04.11.2025 11:39:55 the likelihood of confusion can be assessed on the basis of dominant part of the composite part, vis-à-vis the marks of others. If the dominant part of the composite mark is replicated in the marks of another, the mark of such other party becomes ipso facto confusingly similar to the composite mark of the plaintiff. This is the principle laid down in South India Beverages as well as in Pernod Ricard.