Question

The Plaintiff is a world-renowned company, carrying on business in the field of sealants and adhesives, construction and paint chemicals, art materials, industrial adhesives, industrial and textile resins and organic pigments and preparations since at least 1969. The mark M-SEAL was conceived and adopted by the Plaintiff’s predecessors in title… in or about the year 1968, and has been continuously, extensively and in an uninterrupted manner used since then.
The said mark and the artistic representation thereof have been acquired by the Plaintiff pursuant to agreement dated 27 March 2000, together with the goodwill thereof and the Plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the mark M-SEAL and/or marks consisting of M-SEAL as one of its leading, essential and distinctive features.
Plaintiff’s earliest trade mark registration bearing no. 282168 [is] in respect of the mark M-SEAL, dated 16th August 1972, claiming use from 1st December 1968… The registrations are valid and subsisting and the entries appearing on the register of trade marks including the dates of use thus constitute prima facie evidence of such facts.
It is stated that the Plaintiff's M-SEAL registration bearing No. […] contains a disclaimer with regard to the word PHATAPHAT, however the mark as a whole is registered and to that extent all features taken as a whole stand protected by the registration. Further, it is stated that registration bearing no. […] contains a disclaimer with regard to the word SEAL and the registrations bearing nos. […] have a condition imposed on it viz “Registration of this trade mark shall give no right to the exclusive use of all other descriptive matters appearing on the label”. However, the Plaintiff states that these conditions do not limit the rights of the Plaintiff including for reasons set out hereinafter and in any event the rest of the M-SEAL registrations have no conditions/limitations.
The unique and distinctive artistic representation of M-SEAL i.e., (including in particular the unique line below the mark which is an extension from the first letter of the mark) as well as the M-SEAL Labels are original artistic works in respect of which copyrights subsist and such copyrights are owned by the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff states that in or about December 2020, the Plaintiff was shocked and surprised to come across sealant products of the Defendant being sold under the mark R-SEAL, which mark is deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s registered trade mark M-SEAL... The said product of the Defendant is identical to the M-SEAL product of the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s product also bears an impugned packaging/labels/ trade dress which is a reproduction of and/or in appearance, almost identical or deceptively similar to the M-SEAL products of the Plaintiff, and the M-SEAL Labels… The impugned products of the Defendant also bear the impugned identification mark JHAT-PAT that is deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s identification mark PHATAPHAT.
In comparing rival marks / labels to consider whether they are similar, the Supreme Court in Cadilla Healthcare Limited v. Cadilla Pharmaceuticals Limited, 2001 (2) PTC 541 SC10 lays down that attention and stress is to be given to the common features in the two rather than on differences in essential features.
[Source: Pidilite Industries Limited v. Riya Chemy 1-IA (L) 15502 of 2021 in Comm. IP. Su. 147 of 2022. Decision of Justice R. I. Chagla of the Bombay High Court, 11 November, 2022]