Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

46. The next plank of the argument of the learned counsel for the Plaintiffs was that the use of the mark by the Defendants amounts to infringement of Plaintiffs' registered mark i.e. SUN logo . It is the pleaded case of the Plaintiffs that the Defendants have a valid and subsisting registration in the composite mark in Class 5, for which they had applied on 18.12.2018 and secured registration on 21.05.2021.

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/001471

47. A bare look at the two marks would show that they are not identical. The question that next arises is whether the mark of the Defendants is similar to that of the Plaintiffs, so as to cause deception or confusion in relation to the goods for which the Plaintiffs' mark is registered. The answer, in my opinion, is an emphatic 'no'. Defendants' registered mark is a composite mark consisting of: (a) a circular device with four spheres, which are not interlocking and contains a spiked wheel in the centre, embossed with the letters "KL"; (b) "Kinetic Lifescience" prominently written in a stylized font; (c) words "OPC Private Limited" written in capitals, below "Kinetic Lifescience"; and (d) the motto of the Defendants, "Our Mission Healthy People" appearing at the bottom of the mark. Component (a) covers one-third of the composite mark on the left side, while the remaining two-thirds is covered by components (b) to (d). The colour scheme throughout the composite mark is purple and fuchsia and it is also relevant to note that it is neither borne out from the pleadings nor the documents on record that component (a) is used by the Defendants separately for their products.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/001471 marks are seen as a whole. This principle has been enunciated by a Division Bench of this Court in M/s. South India Beverages Pvt. Ltd. vs. General Mills Marketing, 2014 SCCOnLine Del 1953.

49. Examined on the touchstone of the aforesaid principle and viewing the competing marks as a whole, it is not possible for this Court to accept that the impugned mark is similar to the SUN logo of the Plaintiffs so as to cause confusion or an association with the Plaintiffs. In fact, the three remaining components of the Defendants' composite mark, i.e. components (b), (c) and (d), when seen as a whole with component (a), clearly distinguish the two marks such that a man of average intelligence and imperfect recollection cannot be confused.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/001471

(i) the nature of the marks, i.e. whether there were demands/label marks/composite marks,

(ii) the degree of similarity between the competing marks,

(iii) the nature of the goods,

(iv) the similarity in nature, character and performance of the goods of the rival parties,

(v) the class of purchasers, and the degree of care which they would be expected to exercise while purchasing the goods, and