Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

36. We may highlight that even on earlier occasions judicial forums seisin of such disputes have held both the elements occurring in a composite trademark to be dominant. At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer to the judgment dated November 23, 2010 passed by the Court of Justice of the European Union (8th Chamber) in Case NoC-204/10P Enercon v. Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

37. The factual contours of the said case may be succinctly noted in order to appreciate the findings arrived at by the Court. The respondent board had denied the registration of appellant's mark 'ENERCON' on the opposition made by the proprietor of the registered trademark 'TRANSFORMERS ENERGON'. The appellant challenged the said rejection on the ground that word 'ENERGON' was not a dominant part of the registered trademark and therefore negated any likelihood of confusion. The Court rejected the plea of the appellant and observed that both the elements of the opposer‟s registered trademark i.e. „transformers‟ and „energon‟ were equally distinctive and dominant. The Court added that assessment of the similarity between two marks means more than taking just one component of a composite trade mark and comparing it with another mark; on the contrary, the comparison must be made by examining each of the marks in question as a whole, which does not mean that the overall impression conveyed to the relevant public by a composite trade mark may not, in certain circumstances, be dominated by one or more of its components.