In its order, the Court held,
“The mark of the petitioner ‘NIMA’ is identical to that of the respondent no.1. Though registered as a device mark, the word ‘NIMA’ is the only and pre-dominant part of the mark of the respondent no. 1, excepting that it is in a stylized version,” the Court observed.
It also noted that the respondent’s mark ‘NIMA’ was also phonetically and deceptively similar to the petitioner’s mark ‘NIRMA’.
Further, the Court acknowledged that the petitioner’s mark ‘NIRMA’ had been declared as a “well-known trade mark‟ under Section 2(1)(zg) of the Trade Marks Act.
With regards to the question of prior use and adoption of the mark, the Court said,
“The petitioner is also a prior adopter and user of the mark ‘NIMA’ and ‘NIRMA’ as compared to the respondent no.1.”
Thus, the Court held that Nirma is the prior, uninterrupted user as also prior registration holder of the marks ‘NIRMA’ and ‘NIMA’, and found that it was able to establish the goodwill and reputation of its marks.
Source: Barandbench
