Distinctive Dissimilarities in Marks; No Monopoly Over ‘KWIK’ and Its Variations: Delhi High Court Rejects Pidilite’s Rectification Application Against ‘KWIKHEAL’
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.
Legal Point of Judgement:
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.
Facts and Issues:
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.
Court’s Assessment:
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.
Decision:
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,
