Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(i) He has pleaded that admittedly the plaintiff has no objection to the defendants using the trade mark VOBIT. The plaintiff also does not object to the defendants using the mark TRI. However, the defendant cannot use the word TRI-VOBIT as it is structurally and phonetically similar to the registered trade mark of the plaintiff TRIVOLIB.

(ii) It is pleaded that the trade mark journal is a voluminous document. The plaintiff is proprietor of about 1600 trademarks. To identify similar trademarks to the trademarks owned by the plaintiff, the plaintiff and other companies use a software which helps to search through the voluminous record of the Trade Marks Registry to identify similar or deceptively similar trademarks. The search by the software of the plaintiff did throw up TRI-VOBIT 1 and hence, the objections were filed. It however did not throw up the name of TRI-VOBIT 2 and hence, the plaintiff missed filing objections to the registration of the said trade mark. It is pointed out that the plaintiff have applied for cancellation of the said trade mark to the Trade Marks Registry.