Delhi High Court - Orders
Sunflame Enterprises P. Ltd vs The Registrar Of Trademarks & Anr on 7 May, 2024
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~29
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 32/2024 & I.A. 10225/2024
SUNFLAME ENTERPRISES P. LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Saikrishna Rajagopal, Mr. Nitin
Sharma, Ms. Sneha Jain, Ms. Deepika
Pokharia, Mr. Naman Tandon and
Mr. Rajit Ghosh, Advocates.
versus
THE REGISTRAR OF TRADEMARKS & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar,
CGSC with Mr. Srish Kumar Mishra
and Mr. Alexander Mathai Paikaday,
Advocates for R-1.
Mr. Anshuman Upadhayay, Mr.
Naseem, Ms. Apoorva Sharma and
Mr. Rahul Singh, Advocates for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 07.05.2024 I.A. 10226/2024 (seeking exemption from filing original documents/certified copies/translated copies of documents)
1. Exemption is granted, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The Appellant shall file the original, legible, and clearer copies of exempted documents, compliant with practice rules, before the next date of hearing.
3. Disposed of.
C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 32/2024 & I.A. 10225/2024 (seeking stay of Impugned Order) This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/05/2024 at 23:26:39
4. The present appeal under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 19991 impugns order dated 22nd January, 20242 passed by the Registrar of Trade Marks, rejecting Appellant's opposition No. 1214215, filed against trademark application no. 5231450, fled by Respondent No. 2, for the trademark " ", under Class 11.
5. The Appellant has several registrations for the trademark "SUNFLAME", " ", and other formative marks, in various classes. Mr. Saikrishna Rajagopal, counsel for the Appellant, contends that the impugned order is ex-facie unsustainable. He argues that the Registrar applied an incorrect standard by using the test of actual confusion to assess deceptive similarity between the two competing marks. Mr. Rajagopal submits that the appropriate test in such matters should focus on the likelihood of confusion or association, rather than requiring evidence of actual confusion. He emphasizes that the test of likelihood of confusion is a well-established principle in trademark law, which protects against the potential for consumers to be misled by similar marks, even if no actual confusion has yet occurred.
6. Issue notice to Respondents. Mr. Srish Kumar Mishra, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of Respondent No. 1. Mr. Anshuman Upadhayay, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of Respondent No. 2.
7. Reply/ written submissions, in response to the appeal, be filed within four weeks from today. Rejoinder/ written submissions be filed within three 1 "Act"
2"Impugned order"
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/05/2024 at 23:26:39 weeks thereafter.
8. Re-notify on 08th August, 2024.
SANJEEV NARULA, J MAY 7, 2024/d.negi This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/05/2024 at 23:26:40