The Bombay High Court allowed the petition seeking quashing of the order passed by the Registrar of Trade Marks by which it had dismissed the application of the petitioner for granting of the trademark.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner had filed an application before the Registrar of Trade Marks for registration of the TradeMark “ARJO-GUARD.” This application was rejected by the Registrar of Trade Marks, the respondent in the present case.
The Respondent Authority, in refusing the trademark, invoked Section 11(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. It rejected the application on the ground that the mark that was applied for registration was identical with/similar to earlier trademarks on records, as mentioned in the Examination report and by similarity of marks as well as similarity of goods and serves covered under such marks, there exists a likelihood of confusion in the mind of public.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner argued that the impugned order is unsustainable as the respondent failed to consider the mark in respect of which the application was made, as a whole. Further, the counsel argued that the Respondent was not justified in referring to applications made in respect of the trademark ARJOI and holding that there was a likelihood of confusion amongst the public/probable consumers.
The Counsel for Petitioner argued that the detailed submissions made by the Petitioner were not taken into consideration by the Respondent while passing the impugned order.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned Counsel of the Respondent argued that Section 11(1) was correctly invoked by the Respondent while refusing the application submitted on behalf of the Petitioner.
Observations of the Court
The Court considered the reasoning adopted by the Respondent and observed that the Respondent failed to give reasoning for its order and neither did it give consideration to the detailed submission made by the petitioner. The contention of the petitioners ought to have been considered in detail and a proper reasoned order ought to have been passed by the Respondent.
The Court observed that the order passed by the Respondent was “cryptic and without detailed reasons.”
The decision of the Court:
The Bombay High Court, allowing the petition, quashed and set aside the order passed by the Respondent. The Court ordered the matter to be remanded to the Respondent for proper consideration and disposal in accordance with the law. The Court held that the petitioner would be at liberty to make additional submissions before the Respondent.
Case Title: Arjo IP Holdings AB vs The Registrar of Trademarks
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Manish Pitale
Case no.: COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO. 1244 OF 2022
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Nitin Masilamni
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. R.V. Govilkar and Ms. Shaba N. Khan
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
