| The Supreme Court has posted Godrej Sara Lee’s trademark case against a Delhi-based company for hearing on November 21.
|
| |
| Godrej has sought to restrain Knight Queen Industries from using the trademark Knight Queen, which it says is deceptively similar to its trademark Good Knight.
|
| |
| Godrej had challenged the Bombay High Court order dismissing its petition for lack of any similarity between the trademarks in terms of writing style and label.
|
| |
| Alleging that “it is a clear case of similarity between the two trademarks,” Godrej said the Delhi firm had copied the mark Knight Queen in a similar manner with same spelling, writing style and fonts as that of Good Knight.
|
| |
| “The present case is one of “triple identity” where the trademarks were deceptively similar, the goods were identical and the customers were also the same,” Godrej said.
|
| |
| A bench headed by Justice S H Kapadia posted the matter for final hearing on November 21.
|
| |
| According to the petitioner, the high court had failed to appreciate that it was the prior adopter of the trademark Good Knight in respect of mosquito mats, liquid and machine since 1984 and “the use of the trademark was dishonest”.
|
| |
| However, Knight Queen in its rejoinder opposed the petition, saying Good Knight and Knight Queen were distinct trade names and were not liable to be confused in any manner.
|
| |
| Both Godrej and Knight Queen started manufacturing around the same time in 1985-86 and the two marks were adopted independently, the respondent stated, adding that both the trade names were phonetically dissimilar.
|
| |
| “If at all the business of the petitioner was really hit by the respondent’s goods, it could have used legal remedy way back in 1986 when the respondent advertised and sold its goods instead of waiting for more than a decade to oppose its application,” the Delhi firm said. |
| |
|
| |
Content Guide
