Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: postman in Nadeem Majid Oomerbhoy vs Sh. Gautam Tank And Ors on 9 January, 2026Matching Fragments
Mark Regn. No. Date
Device of a 'Postman' 162666 February 19, 1950
Device of a 'postman' 213353 January 18, 1963
and words POSTMAN
brand
Device of a 'postman' 258918 August 21, 1969
and words POSTMAN
brand
Device of a 'postman' 260538 November 12, 1969
and words POSTMAN
brand
Trademark postman 312898 March 4, 1976
Device of a 'postman' 415564 January 4, 1984
and words POSTMAN
brand
14. Before filing of the Suit, Defendant No. 2 had applied for registration of Mark 'SUPER POSTMAN' on 29.04.2004. As on the date of filing of the Suit, the Defendants did not have the registration of the Mark 'SUPER POSTMAN'. Accordingly, it is contended by Plaintiff No. 1 that the use by the Defendants of the Mark 'SUPER POSTMAN' for groundnut oil was willful and mala fide being without the consent, authorization or license of Plaintiff No. 1 and amounted to infringement of the Trade Marks of Plaintiff No. 1 for identical goods for which Trade Mark 'POSTMAN' is registered and renewed from time to time. It is further claimed by Plaintiff No. 1 that the Defendants also infringed the copyright of Plaintiff No. 1 by using the colour scheme of blue and yellow being the distinctive blue colour of the 'POSTMAN' groundnut oil pack and yellow colour used for the device of 'POSTMAN' in Plaintiff No. 1's product. By virtue of prior adoption, prior use, prior registration and extensive publicity and promotion, the Trade Mark 'POSTMAN' earned substantial goodwill and reputation whereby the members of the trade in public associate the Trade Mark 'POSTMAN' with Plaintiff No. 1's product. It is alleged by Plaintiff No. 1 that the use of the Mark 'SUPER POSTMAN' by the Defendants amounted to taking unlawful advantage of the reputation and goodwill built by Plaintiff No. 1 under the Trade Mark 'POSTMAN' in India and overseas.
95. Admittedly, Plaintiff No.1 was engaged in manufacture, distribution and sale of edible oils particularly groundnut oil under the Mark 'POSTMAN' and have registration of the following Trade Marks and Copyright in its favour:
Mark Regn. No. Date
Device of a 'Postman' 162666 February 19, 1950
Device of a 'postman' 213353 January 18, 1963
and words POSTMAN
brand
Device of a 'postman' 258918 August 21, 1969
and words POSTMAN
brand
Device of a 'postman' 260538 November 12, 1969
and words POSTMAN
brand
Trademark postman 312898 March 4, 1976
Device of a 'postman' 415564 January 4, 1984
and words POSTMAN
brand
116. Pursuant to the said order, the Plaintiffs have submitted that the Defendants' registration of 'SUPER POSTMAN' ought to have been refused under Section 11(1)(b) of the Act on the ground of similarity to the earlier Trade Mark 'POSTMAN' belonging to Defendant No.1 for the same product of edible groundnut oil under the same Class 29. The Defendants' utilization of the work Mark 'SUPER POSTMAN' constitutes a deliberate resemblance to Plaintiff No.1's Mark 'POSTMAN' for the same class and goods of service. Both the Marks are similar, and the goods are identical having the same consumer base, while traversing similar trade channels. The essential features of the Impugned Mark 'SUPER POSTMAN' is 'POSTMAN', which is identical to Plaintiff No.1's Mark 'POSTMAN' in writing as well as phonetically. Consequently, the probability of confusion is very high. The Mark 'POSTMAN' is arbitrary, fanciful and coined term for the purpose of edible oil and is entitled to highest degree of protection being essential feature of Plaintiff No.1's Mark.