import of such words is that the registration of the composite
mark will not confer any exclusive right as to the part of the composite ... nature of the marks i.e. whether the marks are word marks or label
marks or composite marks, i.e. both words and label works
applied for registration and
the Trade Mark Registry had registered the trade mark with
the condition that Trade Mark shall give no right ... plaintiff
has no right in trade mark FOCUS and mark of the plaintiff
which is registered is a composite mark consisting of
device of optical
said mark, the
Registrar of Trade Marks refused them the registration and
the only mark registered in favour of the defendants was a
composite mark ... registration of the said mark but the Registrar of Trade Marks
refused the registration and the only mark registered in
favour of the defendants
Versus
Similarities
[1] The Anti-Dissection Rule
[a] Compare composites as a Whole
Conflicting composite marks are to be compared by
looking at them ... anti-dissection rule
to view the component parts of conflicting composite
marks as a preliminary step on the way to an ultimate
determination of probable
registered owner in respect of the prominent part of the
composite mark. If such prominent part is per se not registrable or can be
said ... import of such words is that the registration of the composite
mark will not ipso facto confer any exclusive right as to the parts
Registrar had raised the objection to the
registrability of the said composite mark under Section 9 of
the Act on the ground that the word ... Registrar raised the objection to the registrability of the said
composite mark under Section 9 of Trade and Merchandise
Marks Act, 1958 on the ground
marks. If the plaintiff is able to prima facie establish that the two marks are
either identical or very similar, that the impugned mark concerns ... such cigarettes sold under the "WILLS"
formative marks, classic formative marks, including sub-marks such as
"GOLD FLAKE" and "NAVY
mark was registered in 1979; ROMA's "ROKA" mark was registered in 1996. It is an
undisputed fact that the rival marks ... nature of the marks i.e. whether the marks are word marks or label marks or
composite marks i.e. both words and label works
provides that the registration of a
composite mark confers on its proprietor the exclusive right to use it only as
a whole. The registration does ... mark registered.
Consequently, the registration granted to the TELCO of its composite mark
did not give it any right to the exclusive use over
seen is the similarity not the dissimilarity between the competing marks to determine whether there is deception or likelihood of causing confusion ... nature of the marks i.e., whether the mars are word marks or label marks or composite marks i.e., both words and label works
