It was also held that since the word ‘Afza’ is not descriptive of the sharbat but signifies an increase in deep enjoyment either of ‘Rooh’ or ‘Dil’, in order to claim exclusivity on the word ‘Afza’, the plaintiff had to show that it has built a reputation whereby the word would only mean Rooh Afza, which was not done in the present suit.
“Since ‘Afza’ is not descriptive of the sharbat, but may signify, in keeping with the exposition of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs, an increase in deep enjoyment, either of the ‘Rooh’ or the ‘Dil’, in order to claim exclusivity to the word ‘Afza’, the plaintiffs would have to also show that they had built a reputation leading to the acquisition of a secondary meaning whereby ‘Afza’ would denote only ‘Rooh Afza’, being the product of the plaintiffs. Thus, while ‘Rooh Afza’, that is the complete word, may have acquired a secondary meaning, indicative of sharbat produced by the plaintiffs, ‘Afza’ by itself does not appear to be of that category,” the Court held.
Source: Barandbench
