We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. Learn more here.Close Me
In the case of Jain Electronics v Cobra Cables P. Ltd &
Ors, aggrieved by the order of the Intellectual Property Board
(IPAB) which dismissed his appeal against an order passed by the
Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks, who rejected his application for
registration of the trade mark "COBRA", the Petitioner
(Jain Electronics) appealed before the High Court in Delhi
challenging the aforementioned Orders.
A brief account of the case is as follows:
On 19th November 1987, Jain Electronics applied to
register the mark "COBRA" in respect of voltage
stabilizer and parts and fittings thereof included in Class 9 of
the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, the said mark was
subsequently advertised in the trademarks journal dated 1 February
1992.
Consequently, Cobra Cables Pvt Ltd (Respondent No1) filed a
notice of opposition against such registration. In their grounds
for opposition, Cobra Cables stated that they were engaged in the
business of manufacturing electrical apparatus and instruments,
electric cables and electric conductors under the trademark
"Cobra" which was part and parcel of their trading style.
The mark Cobra was registered in their favour and was being renewed
from time to time. The said trademark was originally owned by
M/s.M.P Electric Company and was transferred to M/s.Cobra Cables
who in turn had assigned the mark to Cobra Cables Pvt Ltd by an
instrument of assignment.
They further objected that the mark "COBRA" sought to
be registered by Jain Electronics, being identical to their
registered mark would cause confusion and deception and as such
should not be registered under Sections 9, 11(a), 12(1) and 18(1)
of the TM Act, 1958. Jain Electronics in reply contended that they
had been using the mark since 1978, however, they failed to produce
any evidence in support of such contention. They relied on the
statement of annual sales from the year 1978-79 to 1992-93 and
certain unattested photocopies of bills.
The Deputy Registrar refusing to register the trademark
"Cobra" in favour of Jain Electronics held that apart
from the fact that they had not produced any evidence to prove user
since 1978, the mark "Cobra" was not distinctive of the
goods. Further, because of non-use of the mark it was not
registrable under Section 12(3) of TM Act, 1958. It was also held
that the goods of Jain and Cobra Cables were of the same
description falling in Class 9. The Registrar further stated that
because of the similarity in the two marks, allowing registration
to Jain would lead to confusion and thus such registration should
not be allowed. The triple identity test i.e. the mark being
identical, the goods being of same description and the area of sale
or the sales channel being the same stood satisfied.
The IPAB considered whether the evidence produced by Jain
Electronics established their use of the mark "COBRA".
Upon a perusal of the sales statistics, the IPAB stated that it was
a statement of Jain Electronics without any reference to any of the
returns submitted to the statutory authorities and not
authenticated by the Auditor, as such they were not valid evidence.
With regard to the unattested photocopies of invoices, the IPAB
observed that in the description of goods sold by the appellant;
only "Automatic Voltage Stabilizer" was mentioned without
any reference to the trademark. The trademark was even not
mentioned in the invoice and the bills. Based on the above grounds,
the IPAB rejected Jain Electronics' appeal.
The case finally came before the Delhi High Court , which
observed that on the basis of the evidence produced by Jain
Electronics, the findings of the Registrar of Trademarks and the
IPAB, it was clear that Jain Electronics had not been able to
establish use since 1978. The Court concurring with the views of
the IPAB and the Registrar with regard to the "Triple
Test" being satisfied stated that the use of the mark with
regard to "Electric cables" and "Voltage
stabilizers" essentially meant that the trade channels were
the same and as such allowing Jain Electronic to register the
identical mark would lead to confusion in the market.
Thus, the Court dismissed Jain Electronics petition.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
This suit filed by Fiat Chrysler appears to be an attempt to safeguard its sales and profits in the American market, rather than a design infringement case.
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
