principle that exclusivity cannot be claimed
over individual parts of a composite mark, which are not separately
individually registered under the Trade Marks ... Similarities
[1] The Anti-Dissection Rule
[a] Compare composites as a Whole :
Conflicting composite marks are to be
compared by looking at them
said trade mark.
*****
12. That the applicant's trade mark namely
QUANTUM-HI-TECH-QHMPL GROUP being the
composite trade mark represented in very ... said
composite mark was in no way similar to the marks used by Quantum
USA and that, therefore, the registration of the mark in the
appellant
respondents marks".
28. The Registrar of Trade Marks granted registration. He held that,
though the rival marks were device marks, they were composite marks ... Similarities
[1] The Anti-Dissection Rule
[a] Compare composites as a
Whole : Conflicting composite marks
are to be compared by looking at
them
Similarities
[1] The Anti-Dissection Rule
[a] Compare composites as a Whole : Conflicting
composite marks are to be compared by looking ... competing
marks are deceptively similar by examining a
portion of one mark and comparing it with the
portion of another mark, if the composite marks
untenable pleading. Each mark must be assessed independently, and
cherry-picking generic or unregistered features from multiple marks
to fabricate a composite case of infringement ... registered
mark 'WOW! MOMO' and Defendant No. 1's mark.
Plaintiff's mark Defendant's mark
Signature Not Verified
Signed
case set up by the
respondent. He further submits that a composite mark „PAPERBOAT
SWING‟ cannot be bifurcated to grant exclusivity to the respondent
over ... mark, with the mark
„PAPERBOAT‟ being the other dominant part which defines all its
products, including the juices for which the mark „SWING‟ is being
which would follow if each of the marks is used
in the normal way as the trade mark for the goods of the respec-
tive ... part of the words forming the competing
marks may not be decisive. The overall similarity of the composite
words is required to be seen, having
mark/device/label in dispute is the
defendants' use of the mark "Dindayal Ayurved Bhawan" as it
prominently reproduces the mark "DINDAYAL ... defendants' impugned marks
incorporate only the mark "DINDAYAL" from the plaintiff's
registered composite trademarks. Therefore, the rival marks
composite marks, of which a part was dominant. Even in a situation
in which the mark of the plaintiff was a composite mark, capable ... plaintiff's mark, and not to the defendant's mark, where the
plaintiff's mark is composite. In the present case, Saurabh
Marks Act, 1999 the generic or non distinctive element within a
composite mark cannot be monopolized individually and the prayers
seek relief against infringement ... marks. It noted the
observation from Granada Trade Mark 1979 (13) RPC 303 that a
disclaimer does not affect the significance which a mark conveys
