Married Daughter Cannot Be Excluded From Compassionate Appointment Solely On The Ground Of Marriage: Chhattisgarh High Court Allahabad HC Condemns Lawyers Seeking Adjournments To Attend District Courts Inherent Powers Under Section 151 CPC Cannot Be Invoked For Restoration Of Possession When Statutory Remedy Of Restitution Exists: Calcutta High Court Invoke Preventive Detention Laws Against Sand Mining Kingpins: Supreme Court Directs ED Probe To Protect Chambal Sanctuary Res Judicata Bars Pendente Lite Purchaser From Re-Agitating Impleadment Under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC If Rejected Under Order I Rule 10: Supreme Court Consumer Complaints Can Continue Against Promoters & Co-Developers Even If Corporate Debtor Is Under IBC Moratorium: Supreme Court IBC Moratorium Protects Only Corporate Debtor, Does Not Bar Consumer Complaints Against Promoters & Directors: Supreme Court Vehicle Registration Certificate Relevant But Not Conclusive For Deciding Interim Custody Under Section 451 CrPC: Supreme Court Lawyer Has No Unqualified Right To Continuous Presence During Entire Interrogation Under Section 38 BNSS: Supreme Court Mandating Continuous Videography Of Accused During Transit Is Unworkable, May Lead To Unfounded Allegations: Supreme Court Centre Introduces FCRA Amendment Bill 2026: Proposes Vesting Of Defunct NGO Assets In 'Designated Authority', Mandates Prior Nod For Probe Written Communication Of Grounds Of Arrest Not Mandatory For Arrests Prior To SC's 'Mihir Rajesh Shah' Judgment: Orissa High Court Passing Ex-Parte Maintenance Order Without Verifying Status Of WhatsApp Or Email Notice Violates Natural Justice: Madhya Pradesh High Court Training ChatGPT On Copyrighted News Is 'Fair Dealing', Does Not Amount To Infringement: Delhi High Court Refuses To Enjoin OpenAI Mere Reproduction Of Evidence Can Never Be Equated With Appreciation: Karnataka High Court Quashes Penalty Against Govt Employee Accused Cannot Repeatedly Send Cheque To FSL Till Favourable Report Is Obtained: Kerala High Court In NI Act Case Succession Certificate Cannot Be Issued For Gold Jewels Pledged With Bank, Applies Only To Debts And Securities: Madras High Court Order 11 Rule 14 CPC | Court Cannot Direct Production Of Documents Without Ascertaining They Are In Party's Possession: Calcutta High Court Undertrial Prisoners Don't Suffer 'Civil Death', Retain Fundamental Right To Alienate Property From Jail: Rajasthan High Court Direction For Reasonable Annual Enhancement Of Maintenance Under Section 125 CrPC Merely Preserves Its Real Value Against Inflation: Delhi High Court Testimony Of Sole Interested Witness Must Be Of 'Sterling Quality' To Base Conviction: Patna High Court Acquits Murder Convict Failure To Communicate Written Grounds Of Arrest Renders Arrest Constitutionally Infirm, Accused Entitled To Bail: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 482 CrPC Petition Not Maintainable Against Order Framing Charge Under SC/ST Act, Appeal Lies Under Section 14A: Tripura High Court Disputed Questions Of Fact Regarding Title And Forged Documents Cannot Be Decided Under Article 226: Telangana High Court Matter To Be Enquired By Bar Council: Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Lawyer's PILs With Costs For Suppressing Attorney-Client Relationship BDA Cannot Arbitrarily Reverse Resolutions Passed To Comply With Judicial Directives: Karnataka High Court Section 52A NDPS Act: Mere Non-Compliance Does Not Automatically Vitiate Trial Unless Evidence Is Doubtful: Punjab & Haryana High Court Rethinking Access to Justice: Proposing a Client-Choice Bar-Integrated Model as a Viable Alternative to the LADC System Delhi Police Grants Permission To Advocates To Protest At Jantar Mantar On August 7 Over LADC Concerns Seniority Must Be Determined From Date Of Substantive Appointment, Not Ad-Hoc Service: Allahabad High Court Uncorroborated Testimony Of Drug Inspector Cannot Form Sole Basis For Conviction Under Drugs Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Suppression Of Adverse Facts Strikes At Root Of Equitable Jurisdiction: Bombay High Court Denies Injunction In HUF Property Dispute

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