CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High 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