Recovery Of Excess Payment Made By Mistake Is Permissible When Employee Furnished An Undertaking To Refund: Supreme Court Anticipatory Bail Application Under Sec 482 BNSS Is Maintainable Even If No Formal Order Of Arrest Is Passed By CGST Authorities: Allahabad High Court Consensual Physical Relationship Following Three-Year Courtship Does Not Amount To Rape If Marriage Promise Fails: Supreme Court Criminalization Of Civil Disputes | Courts Must Not Engage In Speculative Reasoning While Dealing With Quashing Petitions Under Section 482 CrPC: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money In The Absence Of Proof Of Demand Is Insufficient To Sustain Conviction Under Section 7 And 13 PC Act: Supreme Court High Court Cannot Quash NDPS Proceedings Merely Relying On Jurisprudence Regarding Evidentiary Value Of Confessional Statements: Supreme Court Extra-Judicial Confession Made While In Police Custody Is Inadmissible In Evidence: Supreme Court Taxing Authorities Must Levy Tax Based On The Form Of Goods At The Time Of Sale, Not On Potential End Use: Supreme Court Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders CBI Probe Into State Corruption Scams After Punjab Police Fails To Act On ED’s Section 66(2) PMLA Referral Section 482 CrPC | FIR Based On Consensual Relationship Gone Sour Cannot Be Sustained To Coerce Marriage: Supreme Court CISF Personnel Soliciting Bribes For Employment Is Guilty Of 'Gross Misconduct' Under Section 18 CISF Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court PIL | State Cannot Use Demolition Powers To Silence Whistleblowers Or Deflect Accountability: Punjab & Haryana High Court Criminal Proceedings Against In-Laws Without Specific Allegations Of Overt Acts Constitute Abuse Of Process: Supreme Court Order 22 Rule 9 CPC | Admission In An Abated Suit Does Not Constitute Estoppel Against Landlord In A Fresh Eviction Proceeding: Calcutta High Court Arbitral Award Cannot Be Set Aside For Non-Adjudication Of Claims Specifically Abandoned By Parties: Delhi High Court Mere Long Possession Is Not Adverse Possession; Defendant Must Prove Hostile Animus To Deny Title Of True Owner: Himachal Pradesh High Court Reopening Of Assessment Under Sec 148A(d) Income Tax Act Cannot Be Based On 'Change Of Opinion' Without Fresh Tangible Material: Gujarat High Court Municipal Authorities Must Initiate Formal Proceedings And Grant Opportunity Of Hearing Before Sealing Premises:  Jharkhand High Court Court Cannot Compel Third-Party To Undergo DNA Test Unless Necessary For Just Adjudication: Madhya Pradesh High Court Trial Court Cannot Defer Bail Application Merely Because A Transfer Petition Is Pending In High Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 108 BNS | Mere Taunts Or Harassment Regarding Not Bearing A Male Child Do Not Constitute Abetment To Suicide: Rajasthan High Court Daily-Wage Employees Treated As Permanent Under 1988 Government Resolution Entitled To Annual Increment Benefits: Supreme Court

Distinctive Dissimilarities in Marks; No Monopoly Over ‘KWIK’ and Its Variations: Delhi High Court Rejects Pidilite’s Rectification Application Against ‘KWIKHEAL’

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Delhi High Court, in a significant trademark law ruling, dismissed Pidilite Industries Ltd.’s application for rectification against the ‘POMA-EX KWIKHEAL’ trademark, registered by Sanjay Jain & Anr.

The judgement focused on whether the respondent’s ‘POMA-EX KWIKHEAL’ device mark infringed upon or was deceptively similar to Pidilite’s ‘FEVIKWIK’ mark. Key considerations included the distinctive characteristics of both trademarks, the limitation on the exclusive use of the word ‘KWIK’, and the application of the ‘anti-dissection rule’ in trademark comparison.

Pidilite, known for its ‘FEVIKWIK’ product, objected to the ‘POMA-EX KWIKHEAL’ mark, claiming deceptive similarity and potential confusion. Earlier, the Bombay High Court granted an injunction against Sanjay Jain & Anr.’s use of ‘KWIKHEAL’ but this case related to their subsequent, altered packaging and mark.

Justice Anish Dayal noted substantial dissimilarities between the marks and packaging of ‘FEVIKWIK’ and ‘POMA-EX KWIKHEAL’, including differences in color schemes, layout, and visual elements. The court also highlighted that the word ‘KWIK’ in ‘FEVIKWIK’ was not given exclusive use in its registration, thus undermining Pidilite’s claim to exclusivity over it. Furthermore, the court ruled that the comparison of device marks should be viewed in totality, not in isolation, citing precedents from South India Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. General Mills Marketing Inc. & Anr. and other cases.

The Delhi High Court dismissed the rectification petition, stating, “Distinctive dissimilarities in respondent’s new device mark post the earlier injunction… Petitioner cannot have monopoly over the mark ‘KWIK’ and all its variations.” It was concluded that the petitioner’s rectification petition did not demonstrate sufficient grounds for cancellation of the respondent’s trademark registration.

Date of Decision : March 22, 2024.

PIDILITE INDUSTRIES LTD. v. SANJAY JAIN & ANR,

Latest Legal News