Delhi High Court Refuses To Cancel Registration Of 'Kwikheal' Trademark In Plea By 'Fevikwick'
The Delhi High Court has refused to cancel the registration of the “Kwikheal” trademark and dismissed a plea filed by Pidilite Industries Limited, an Indian adhesives manufacturing company based in Mumbai.Justice Anish Dayal observed that even though Pidilite has a statutory right in its registered mark “Fevikwik”, it does not confer an exclusive right over part of the mark...
The Delhi High Court has refused to cancel the registration of the “Kwikheal” trademark and dismissed a plea filed by Pidilite Industries Limited, an Indian adhesives manufacturing company based in Mumbai.
Justice Anish Dayal observed that even though Pidilite has a statutory right in its registered mark “Fevikwik”, it does not confer an exclusive right over part of the mark in “Kwik.”
“Having no such exclusive right on 'KWIK' there cannot be a right of rectification against 'KWIKHEAL',” the court said while rejecting the plea.
Pidilite sought the removal of the mark “Kwikheal” which was registered as a trademark in December 2014. Pidilite claims to be the registered proprietor of the mark “fevikwik” since January 1987.
While dismissing the plea, Justice Dayal said that the common and dominating part of various marks of Pidilite is “Fevikwik” which is suffixed with a sub-brand depending on the nature of the product.
“The fact that respondents registered device mark has the word 'KWIK' as part of 'KWIKHEAL' would not estop the respondent from claiming commonality in the word KWIK,” the court said.
It added that “kwik” would not be the dominant portion of Pidilite's marks and that it would be difficult to accept that “kwikheal'” mark be removed from the Register of Trade Marks.
“The petitioner cannot have monopoly over the mark 'KWIK' and all its variations. The petition for rectification has to stand on its own legs and not take the crutch of the Bombay High Court's prima facie findings in a suit for infringement/passing off against the respondent's earlier packaging, now superseded by a new device/packaging. The petitioner never opposed the registration of the respondent's new device, which was granted after the Bombay High Court injunction, despite the suit being still pending,” the court said.
Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Manish Dhir, Adv
Counsel for Respondents: Mr. Mrinal Litoria, Adv. for R-1; Mr. Harish Vaidyanathan, CGSC along with Mr. Srish Kumar Mishra, Mr Alexander Mathai Paikaday, Mr. Lakshay Gunawat, and Mr. Krishnan V. for R-2
Title: PIDILITE INDUSTRIES LTD v. SANJAY JAIN & ANR
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 366