The bench was seized of a plea filed by Pidilite taking exception to the use of the mark ‘R-Seal Jhat Pat’ by the defendants, which it claimed was deceptively similar to its product ‘M-Seal Phataphat.’
The bench noted from the records that the plaintiff firm proved that it adopted the said mark in 1968 and has been using it since then, however, the defendants could not bring anything on record except a document showing it adopting the mark R-Seal in 2005.
“Thus, I am of the prima facie view that the Defendant is not the prior adopter or user of the marks in question and not entitled to any rights thereon. I am further of the prima facie view that upon comparison of the rival products and features, the Defendant’s adoption of the impugned mark and its representation etc. are violative of the rights of the Plaintiff and this is not a matter of co-incidence,” the judge said.
The Court was of the view that the defendants made no attempt to explain or justify the adoption of the mark/ features or deceptive similar colour combination, its representation (including with an identical under lining of the mark beginning from the end of the first alphabet), identification mark as well as tagline.
“I find no substance in the Defendant’s contention that the colours used by the Defendant in respect of its packaging label are natural colours and would not cause any confusion amongst the public at large,” the bench opined.
Source: Barandbench
