required to
examine the cardinal principles and classifications applicable to marks, viz.
generic, descriptive, suggestive, and arbitrary/fanciful. Such legal
principles, as applicable to infringement ... case, as would be clear from their pleadings, that
such mark was generic. It is difficult to fathom as to how the Trial Court
Pallavi
different classes of goods / services and the mark
'ANANDA' was a well-known mark. However, the mark 'ANANDA' was
held ... pirator and a subsequent user of the
Subject Mark?
Whether the Subject Mark is generic and descriptive in nature?
12. The Plaintiff has contended that
granted. It is his contention that a part of a mark which is
generic/ non distinctive must be discounted in over all
assessment with ... comparison and
the likelihood of confusion of the competing marks, prima facie
viewed the marks visually and phonetically were found to be
dissimilar
registration of the mark CHACHA CLOTH HOUSE, the
respondent was estopped from contending that the mark CHACHA
was generic and incapable of monopolisation and cites ... trade mark Respondent's trade mark
Primary Word CHACHA SAREE BAZAR Chacha Cloth House
Mark PVT. LTD
Primary Logo
mark
Other marks CHACHE
REGISTRAR OF TRADE
MARKS:
10. The learned Counsel for the Registrar of Trade Marks submitted that
the Registrar of Trade Marks is a formal party ... Marks pan India.
In order to protect its proprietary rights, Impressario has obtained Trade
Mark registrations for various Marks with the Mark 'SOCIAL
prefix "PANTO". It is the appropriation of the mark
substantially from generic word which is descriptive and incapable of
registration ... supra), the marks in question were NETROMYCIN vs. NETMICIN. This
Court noted that the rival trade marks were coined from the generic
drug "Netilmicin
Plaintiff's Marks and the Impugned Mark. Consumers will
not associate the Impugned Mark with the Plaintiff's Marks. The
differences in concept ... Plaintiff's Marks and the Impugned Mark. The dominant element
of the Plaintiff's Marks as well as the Impugned Mark are the letters
Mark and the Impugned Mark
9. The Plaintiff's Mark and the Impugned Mark are not deceptively
similar as the Impugned Mark ... between the Plaintiff's
Mark and the Impugned Mark. As the Plaintiff's Mark and the Impugned
Mark are not deceptively similar
Mark and the Impugned
Mark
9. The Plaintiff's Mark and the Impugned Mark are not deceptively
similar as the Impugned Mark ... rival Marks are not identical/deceptively similar, the
Plaintiff's Mark and the Impugned Mark comprises of generic
words, which cannot be monopolised
original
Mark Ex DW1 to DW4 collectively.
39.Ld Counsel further contended that there is no deceptive
similarities in the label mark also ... distinct trade-mark. However, Jagran used in
isolation is merely a generic mark. Ld Counsel further
contended that the sole motive of the plaintiff
