Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"... Marks are often classified in categories of generally increasing distinctiveness; following the classic formulation set out by Judge Friendly, they may be (1) generic; (2) descriptive; (3) suggestive; (4) arbitrary; or (5) fanciful. ...The latter three categories of marks, because their intrinsic nature serves to identify a particular source of a product, are deemed inherently distinctive and are entitled to protection. In contrast, generic marks-those that "refe[r] to the genus of which the particular product is a species," Park „N Fly, Inc. v. Dollar Park & Fly, Inc., 469 U.S 189, 194 (1985), citing Abercrombie & Fitch, supra, at 9-are not registrable as trademarks. Park „N Fly, supra, at 194.

23. The term „generic‟ refers to the „genus‟ to which a particular product or service is a species of.

24. The term „descriptive‟ refers to a word/mark which describes an article/service, its qualities, ingredients or characteristics.

25. However, often the lines differentiating different categories of marks are blurred. Often, distinctions between suggestive, fanciful and arbitrary marks may seem artificial.

26. For instance, in Abercrombie & Fitch Co. (supra) it was explained that "Deep Bowl" when used for an article which is a deep bowl, does not only describe the article, but also identifies it. Therefore, "Deep Bowl" is generic when used for a deep bowl. Similarly the term "spoon" is not merely descriptive of the article i.e. spoon, but identifies the article and therefore, is generic.

30. The term „fanciful‟ refers to a mark which is an invented word solely for use as trademarks. When a common word is applied in an unfamiliar way, it is called an „arbitrary‟ mark. For instance, "Ivory" would be generic when used to describe a product made from the tusks of elephants but would be arbitrary when applied to a soap.

31. Fanciful and arbitrary terms enjoy all rights accorded to suggestive marks and are also entitled to registration without proof of secondary meanings.

32. Keeping in view the aforesaid mandate of law, this Court is of the view that a word may be generic qua a specific business or trade or industry but not across the board for all business or trades or industries. For instance, the word "Arrow" is a generic word qua archery business, but is an arbitrary word qua shoes.

"5. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge has fallen into an error in declining the grant of interim injunction to the appellant. The overriding aspect in a case such as the present is that deer is a prominent part of the trademark of the appellant. Copying of a prominent part of a trademark leads to deceptive similarity especially when the product of both the parties is the same. The expression "Deer" was arbitrarily adopted by the appellant with respect to its product being rice. A deer has no connection or co-relation with the product namely rice. Such arbitrary adoption of a word mark with respect to a product with which it has no co-relation, is entitled to a very high degree of protection, more so, as the appellant's trademark is a registered trademark. The use by the respondent of its trademark is admittedly subsequent to that of the appellant. The first registration of the appellant is of the year 1985 and then of 1990. The respondent claims the first user only from the year 1999, and, as the later discussion will show, that is also not a correct fact because the user of the respondent is prima facie only from around the year 2003."