Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: Arbitrary marks in Sentini Bio Products Pvt. Ltd. vs M/S. Allied Blender & Distillers Pvt. ... on 6 July, 2015Matching Fragments
13. Instructed by the law as above we proceed by applying the factors for assessing likelihood of confusion for trademark infringement and passing off in the two appeals and firstly we discuss the appeal filed by Shree Nath Heritage Liquor Pvt. Ltd. Our prima-facie observations and findings in the succeeding paragraphs 14 to 78 relate to FAO (OS) No.368/2014. Our prima-facie observations and findings in paragraphs 79 onwards relate to FAO (OS) No.493/2014.
Nature of the mark:
14. The respondent has registrations for its „Officer‟s Choice‟ composite word mark and „Officer‟s Choice‟ label dating back to the year 1988 and 1990 respectively. The respondent has been using the trademark „Officer‟s Choice‟ since 1988 and is an arbitrary mark for whisky. Therefore, the respondent has vast reputation and goodwill in the said mark. The appellant is using a composite word mark „Collector‟s Choice‟ and a label.
61. A similar view was taken by the United States Patent and Trademark Office Trademark Trial and Appeal Board while deciding trademark cancellation proceedings in the decision reported as 204 USPQ 257 H.Sichel Sohne, GmbH v. John Gross & Co., wherein it held that "the fact that the marks have aural and optical dissimilarity is not necessarily controlling on the issue of likelihood of confusion in the marketplace where the marks convey the same general idea or stimulate the same mental reaction...That is, similarity in meaning or significance alone is sufficient to indicate a likelihood of confusion, especially where, as in the present case, the marks are coined or arbitrary."
79. We now proceed to apply the aforesaid principles to the facts of FAO (OS) No.493/2014.
Nature of the mark:
80. We are limiting our enquiry to the respondent‟s registrations that are pleaded in the plaint. It is the respondent‟s case that it adopted the trademark „Officer‟s Choice‟ for alcoholic beverages in 1988 and has been using the same ever since. The respondent has pleaded registrations for its „Officer‟s Choice‟ label dating back to 1990. In our view, the trademark „Officer‟s Choice‟ is an arbitrary mark for whisky and even though the two words may be common, they are arbitrary to the goods in question [See 537 F.2d 4 (2d Cir. 1976 Abercrombie and Fitch v. Hunting World,), for the different categories of trademarks - Generic; descriptive; suggestive and arbitrary or fanciful]. An example of an arbitrary mark is „Apple‟ the name of a common fruit, which is also a dictionary word, for computers.The Respondent‟s huge sales and success under the trademark „Officer‟s Choice‟ as pleaded show that the Respondent has vast reputation and goodwill in the said mark. The Appellant is using a composite word mark „Officer‟s Special‟ and a label.