Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (1.20 seconds)Mankind Pharma Limited vs Registrar Of Trade Marks on 6 February, 2023
5. It is urged that in the pharmaceutical industry, it is a common practice
that the medicines are named either on the basis of the salt or the ailments
they treat or on the name of the company concerned. The applied mark
DISOPIL was honestly adopted by the Appellant with prior existing
registered mark 'PIL'. It is further argued that the Registrar has also
overlooked the fact that the Appellant has prior registration for the word
mark 'BISOPIL' in Class 05. Reliance is placed on the judgment of this
Court in Mankind Pharma Limited v. The Registrar of Trade Marks, 2025
SCC OnLine Del 5602, where the Court held that likelihood of confusion is
not to be easily presumed. The Appellant therein had established that it was
using various marks with suffix 'KIND' since 1986 and the use of the mark
was affiliated to the Appellant, especially with regard to goods falling under
Class 05. Appellant had over 210 registered trademarks in Class 05 alone
with suffix 'KIND' and had amassed significant goodwill. The cited mark in
the Examination Report would thus not lead to rejection of the subject
trademark considering the overwhelming use and registrations of marks with
suffix 'KIND' by the Appellant.
I Am The Ocean, Llc vs Registrar Of Trade Marks, Trademark ... on 14 June, 2023
11. However, as rightly flagged by the Appellant, the impugned order
does not deal with any of these submissions and merely proceeds on the
ground that the applied trademark is similar to the cited trademark
DESOPILL and the goods in question are also similar. Time and again, this
Court has emphasised that even a quasi-judicial authority must apply its
mind to the submissions made before it and take into consideration all
material brought before it, prior to taking a decision. The importance of
passing a reasoned and speaking order indicating cogent reasons, which
weighed with the authority to come to the decision, needs no reiteration. The
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 14/2025 Page 5 of 7
Signing Date:05.02.2026
16:21:03
Bombay High Court in I Am The Ocean (supra) has observed that albeit
detailed submissions were placed on record by the Petitioner in support of
its plea to register the applied mark but the impugned order makes no
reference to them while holding that the cited marks were identical/similar.
The impugned order also lacked cogent reasons. Significantly, the Court
also noted that in several matters in the past, submissions and documents,
which form part of the replies before the Registrar of Trade Marks, were not
considered. The least expected of an adjudicating officer is to peruse the
reply and extend the bare courtesy of application of mind and not doing so is
complete abdication of quasi-judicial functions vested in the Registrar under
1999 Act and 2017 Rules.
1