Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. The plaintiffs mark ZIFI by itself, as well as a prominent component of other marks, have been got registered with the Registrar of Trademarks.

The details of the registrations disclosed in the plaint are as follows:

S. Registration Trademark Application Class & Goods No. No. Date 1 995613 ZIFI March 09, Class 5: medicinal, 2001 pharmaceutical and veterinary preparations.

The aforesaid registrations have been duly renewed, are valid, and are subsisting.

9. The plaintiff has disclosed that it has made an application for registration of ZIFI BITES and ZIFI.CO.IN, which are pending registration, and details thereof as under:

Application Trademark Application Class & Goods Status No. date 2661913 ZIFI BITES January 20, Class 5: Pending 2014 medicinal, pharmaceutical and veterinary preparations being the goods falling in Class 5 2921493 ZIFI.CO.IN March 13, Class 35 : Pending 2015 Advertisement and promotion of drug product related information for doctors and patients

17. The defendant also applied for registration of ZIFFI with the Registrar of Trademarks on 17.12.2014 claiming user since 30.09.2014 under the various classes, namely, Class 35 and 42. Consequently, the plaintiff has filed the present suit.

18. In para 36 of the plaint, the plaintiff avers as follows:

"36. It is submitted that the plaintiff is the rightful registered proprietor and owner of ZIFI and ZIFI FAMILY OF TRADE MARKS and has a reputation and goodwill not only in India but in other countries as well. The trade mark ZIFI is a unique, coined mark, invented by the plaintiff and is being used extensively, continuously since the year 2001, which makes is distinctive and is capable of distinguishing the plaintiff's goods and business from that of others. Unauthorized adoption and use of a deceptively similar mark ZIFFI and domain name www.ziffi.com by the defendants in relation to their services and business is without permission, dishonest, illegal, unfair, unjustified, without due cause and in bad faith. Such unauthorized use of the plaintiff's registered trade mark by the defendant, even if for dissimilar goods/services is undoubtedly to take unfair advantage of the reputation of the plaintiff's registered trade marks and is detrimental to its distinctive character. The malafide intentions of the defendants can also be seen from the very fact that they have directed their earlier website www.docsuggest.com to the impugned domain www.ziffi.com. There is no bona fide reason or explanation given by the defendants for adoption of the trade mark and domain name ZIFFI and www.ziffi.com, which are visually, phonetically and deceptively similar and/or identical to the plaintiff's ZIFI and ZIFI FAMILY of registered trade marks and domain name www.zifi.co.in respectively. The defendants have adopted the mark ZIFFI/ZIFFI.COM to trade upon the immense goodwill and transnational reputation enjoyed by the plaintiff. Adoption and use of a similar trade mark and domain name by the defendants is with the sole intention to take unfair advantage of the repute of the plaintiff's registered trade marks/domain name and is bound to cause confusion and deception in the minds of the public as well as the trade into believing that the services offered by the defendants under the mark ZIFFI/ZIFFI.COM have some association or connection with the goods and business of the plaintiff, when in fact, there is no such connection or association whatsoever. Such unsolicited use of the trade mark ZIFFI and domain name www.ziffi.com by the defendants takes unfair advantage of and is detrimental to the distinctive character, goodwill and reputation of the plaintiff's registered trade mark ZIFI and ZIFI FAMILY OF TRADE MARKS, as well as its domain name www.zifi.co.in. The pharmaceutical goods manufactured by the plaintiff under the trade mark ZIFI and its variations, for purchase and use by patients, and the online services offered by the defendants under the name ZIFFI through its website www.ziffi.com, which allows users to book appointments with doctors, diagnostic centres, salons and other healthcare services, are in respect of similar target customer base/clientele. Hence, in these circumstances, confusion and deception is bound to take place, which is diluting the uniqueness and distinctiveness of the plaintiff's registered trade mark ZIFI as well as domain name www.zifi.co.in. The defendants have no legitimate rights or interest to use the impugned trade mark and domain name ZIFFI/ZIFFI.COM or any other trade mark visually, phonetically, structurally, confusingly and deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trade mark, therefore, will not suffer any loss, if they are restrained from using the trade mark impugned trade mark ZIFFI/ZIFFI.COM in relation to their services and business".

Similarity of the two marks:

53. The degree of similarity between the marks concerned can be assessed from their visual, structural and phonetic similarity. Apart from the visual and phonetic similarity, factors like class of users, distinctive character of the registered trademark, imperfect recollection of the average consumer, and overall impression of the mark are considered in ascertaining similarity between two marks. The Supreme Court in Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma v. Navaratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories AIR 1965 Supreme Court 980(1), in para 28 observed as follows: