Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(a) The nature of the marks i.e. whether the marks are word marks or label marks or composite marks i.e. both words and label works.
(b) The degree of resembleness between the marks, phonetically similar and hence similar in idea.
(c) The nature of the goods in respect of which they are used as trade marks.
(d) The similarity in the nature, character and performance of the goods of the rival traders.
(e) The class of purchasers who are likely to buy the goods bearing the marks they require, on their education and intelligence and a degree of care they are likely to exercise in purchasing and/or using the goods.

39. To show that there is no similarity between the overall get up, learned senior counsel for the defendants submits that defendants‟ mark LOTUS and ARTISTIC FIGUIRES are composite mark, consisting of combination of different features like multiple words, distinctive shape, colour scheme, arrangement of artistic and literal elements in the mark and, thus, they are distinctive from the plaintiff‟s mark. It is strongly urged by learned senior counsel for the defendants that there is a prominent difference in the overall impression of the marks, besides defendants have taken sufficient care to mention the words „Premium Copier Paper‟ and „TRIDENT‟, making it clear that they are the goods of the defendant‟s industrial group to avoid any confusion about the source of product. It is also submitted by learned senior counsel that packaging of the defendants‟ copier paper has a different colour scheme, the word LOTUS is written in a different way, above the mark there is a multi coloured LOTUS and the logo of defendant no.1 „TRIDENT paper‟ is prominently and clearly displayed. Learned senior counsel for the defendants has relied upon Marico Ltd. v. Agro Tech. Ltd., FAO(OS) 352/2010, more particularly para 7, which is reproduced below: