Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

27. The Defendant contends that the Plaintiff would have to prove during the trial that the geometric pentagonal structure, per se, is a distinctive feature of the Plaintiff's marks and has become so distinctive that a customer associates the geometric pentagonal structure only with the Plaintiff's marks and goods.

28. This Court notes, at the outset, that though in the plaint at paragraph '37', there is an averment that the Plaintiff's wordmark 'BRITANNIA' and the Defendant's mark 'RENEWTRIA' are phonetically similar, however, no such plea was pressed during the oral arguments. Even otherwise, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Defendant's wordmark 'RENEWTRIA' is distinct from the Plaintiff's wordmark 'BRITANNIA'. The font, style and the colour scheme in which the word 'RENEWTRIA' is written in the impugned mark is distinct from the manner in which the word 'BRITANNIA' is written in the Plaintiff's registered mark. This Court therefore finds no visual and phonetic similarity in the two [2] marks.

29. The next step would therefore be to consider whether the wordmark 'RENEWTRIA' appearing in the geometric pentagonal structure is visually and structurally similar to Plaintiff's wordmark 'BRITANNIA' appearing in its geometric pentagonal structure.

30. It is trite law that for testing the visual and structural similarity, rival composite marks are to be compared as a whole, rather than dissecting them and comparing the individual aspects to determine the likelihood of consumer confusion.

37. However, even if this Court were to undertake a side-by-side comparison of the rival marks, this Court finds that the wordmark 'BRITANNIA' and the wordmark 'RENEWTRIA' are the prominent features of the rival marks, which create an impression in the mind. In the considered opinion of this Court, the said prominent features in the rival marks are so dissimilar that they would outweigh any similarity arising on account of the geometric pentagonal structure, thereby nullifying any chance of confusion.

[Emphasis supplied]

38. In addition, this Court, firstly, finds on the evaluation of the Plaintiff's mark that the geometric pentagonal structure is not the dominant/distinctive feature of the Plaintiff's mark. The said geometric pentagonal structure without the word mark 'BRITANNIA' fails to make any impression on the mind. Secondly, it is a matter of record that the Plaintiff does not use the geometric pentagonal structure as a standalone feature/mark on its products or advertisement campaigns or in any manner without its wordmark. Lastly, this Court notes that the Plaintiff has not placed on record any material which would lead this Court to form an opinion at this interlocutory stage that the geometric pentagonal structure [without the wordmark BRITANNIA] has acquired such distinctiveness in the minds of the consumers that they associate the said shape [without the wordmark BRITANNIA] only with the Plaintiff. There is no documentary evidence on record for the Court to conclude that the geometric pentagonal structure in the Plaintiff's mark has attained its own distinctiveness as a standalone mark. The Plaintiff has not placed on record any evidence to prove any goodwill associated with the geometric pentagonal structure, without the wordmark 'BRITANNIA'.