being T.M. No. 3491374 would show
that it is a device mark for a poster having several features and the
word 'KHILADI ... only one part of the device mark. Plaintiff has
itself claimed exclusivity and distinctiveness in the device mark as a
whole before the Registrar
applied for registration of the mark in 1994 under Class 09 with user
date of 1988 and the mark (device) was registered under ... infringing of the plaintiff's registered
work mark 'KEI' word mark and device mark,
within the meaning of Section
cited mark and the applied mark by
drawing an incorrect comparison between the applied mark, which is a word
mark and the cited mark, which ... device mark. For ready reference, comparative of the two
marks is as follows:-
Particulars Cited mark Appellant's mark
Mark
GrowinAct
9. Appellant
trademarks 'Indiabulls', 'Dhani', 'Potli' (device mark)
' ', logo and the domain name
www.indiabullsdhani.com, separately ... Plaintiffs' registrations for
'DHANI' and/or bearing the device mark are furnished in the plaint.
4. It is further averred that Plaintiffs
Plaintiffs' trademarks 'Indiabulls', 'Dhani', 'Potli (device mark)
' ', logo and the domain names www.indiabulls ... Plaintiffs' registrations for
'DHANI' and/or bearing the device mark are furnished in the plaint.
4. It is further averred that Plaintiffs
urged that despite being a device mark, the subject mark was
examined as a word mark, limiting the consideration to the words FIT and
CLUB ... violations in examining the applied mark for the purpose of registration.
Indisputably, the mark in question is a device mark and while the impugned
order
stated that in order to protect its right in the SUN (Device) mark,
Plaintiff No.1 obtained trademark registrations in India as well ... emphatic 'no'. Defendants' registered mark is a
composite mark consisting of: (a) a circular device with four spheres, which
are not interlocking
device
as a whole and was an important feature of the device.
The Supreme Court observed that registration of a trade
mark as a whole ... mark would be immaterial;......
"When once the use by the defendant of the mark which is
claimed to infringe the plaintiff's mark
from
using Carlton's registered trademark/name CARLTON/ CARLTON
LONDON/ (device mark) and CARLTON formative marks as
well as from using any other mark ... registration of the mark
CARLTON LONDON was obtained on 28.09.1998 in UK.
Subsequent thereto, several registrations were obtained for the
mark/device CARLTON in various
mark MINDA and its derivatives are
registered in various classes including device marks UNO MINDA and
Signature Not Verified CS(COMM) 51/2022 Page ... perspective
the actual label/mark MINDAUTO is nowhere close to the
device mark of the Plaintiffs. The rival trademarks are
registered for goods falling
