The principles of trademark law in India permit any trader to adopt a mark that consists of numerals. But are the principles of likelihood of confusion for word marks applicable to numerals as well? The Delhi High Court had to recently decide on these lines in the case of Mona Aggarwal & Anr vs. Glossy & Piants Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
In this case the Plaintiff i.e. Glossy Colour Paint Pvt. Ltd, claimed that it had prior use over the mark "1001" because of its adoption since 1946, it was also claimed that the mark was distinctive because of the unique presentation of the number '1001' with the zeroes having eyes. Furthermore, the mark was used in relation to paints, distempers, varnishes, etc. There was a clear disconnect between the mark and the goods (thereby establishing the distinctiveness of the mark).
[Respondent's Trademark]
The Respondent claimed that it had adopted the impugned mark "6004" since 2011 and the color scheme, get-up and packaging in respect of its trademark for similar line of goods was coincidental.
[Appellant's Trademark]
The learned Single Judge Bench after comparing the two trademarks and applying the test of "a man of average intelligence with imperfect recollection" observed that prima facie the mark of the Respondent was indeed deceptively similar to that of the Plaintiff. The similar 'Eye Device' and the color combination were likely to confuse the consumers. As a result an order was passed, restraining the Respondent from making use of the impugned trademark for any further trade purposes. The Respondent filed an appeal. At the same time the Respondent proposed to change its mark to prevent further litigation. The Plaintiff continued to object to the Respondent's mark and claimed that the numeral '6004' of the Respondent's mark would still be considered as deceptively similar to its '1001' mark and as a result would cause confusion.
The Court assessed the case and held that one party's adoption of a numeral as a trademark for its products does not in itself bar another party from adopting different numerals as a trademark for their goods. The Respondent was granted the leave to change its mark so as not to cause any confusion with the Plaintiff's mark. The Court directed both parties to the suit, to proceed to trial. The Court's move of permitting alteration of the Respondent's trademark is a step in the right direction, as it will prevent continuing infringement on one hand and yet allow a trader to legitimately trade in its goods.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
