Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

21. It was submitted, impugned order proceeded on a fundamentally erroneous legal framework. It was submitted, trademark protection was not absolute but depended on nature of goods and context of use. While word 'TULASI' may be an arbitrary or distinctive mark in relation to incense sticks, but, position materially changes when goods in question are tulsi- scented incense sticks. It was submitted, display of picture of Tulsi Pot along with Tulsi leaves and people praying before it were sufficient to distinguish defendant's product from that of plaintiff. In such context, word 'TULSI' clearly indicated fragrance/ingredient assuming descriptive character.

- 16 -

NC: 2026:KHC:16951 HC-KAR deny protection, which set exceptionally high threshold requiring defendant to prove registration was ex-facie illegal or fraudulent, which in any case, requires trial. She submitted, at interlocutory stage, trial Court was not to examine validity or strength of registration in detail and therefore, impugned order could not be faulted.

25. It was further submitted, mark 'TULASI' was in continuous use by plaintiff since 1950 and subject matter of valid registration in Class-3. It was submitted, said 'mark' was arbitrary in relation to incense sticks and therefore, adoption of word 'TULSI' by defendant, in relation to same class of goods i.e. incense sticks since 2023 was clear case of infringement under Section 29 (2) (c) of TMA as mark was phonetically similar and in respect of identical goods/product. She relied on decision in case of Cadila Healthcare Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., reported in (2001) 5 SCC 73 to emphasize that phonetic similarity and likelihood of confusion were sufficient to constitute infringement.

50. In Bata India Ltd.'s case (supra), it was held, strength of a mark depends on its position on spectrum of distinctiveness, with suggestive and arbitrary marks receiving higher protection. Though defendant contends that word TULASI is of common usage and cannot attract high degree of protection as sought, long usage of registered mark coupled with time and money spent on earning goodwill through promotional activities, indicated word TULASI had attained distinctiveness entitled for protection.

64. There cannot be any dispute about proposition that while applying strength of mark test, Courts are required to consider distinctiveness, with suggestive and arbitrary marks receiving higher protection. And descriptiveness has to be

- 39 -

NC: 2026:KHC:16951 HC-KAR assessed by applying dictionary meaning of term, degree of imagination required to connect term with goods/services, competitors' need to use term and extent of use by others.