MANKIND PRIME LABS PRIVATE LIMITED vs REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS

Judgment text excerpt

* I N T H E H I G H CO U RT O F DE L H I AT NE W DE L H I Reserved on: April 08, 2025 % Pronounced on: April 16, 2025 + C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 7/2024, I.A. 1990/2024-Stay & I.A. 1991/2024-Exp MANKIND PRIME LABS PRIVATE LIMITED .....Appellant Through: Mr. Hemant Daswani, Ms. Saumya Bajpai, Ms. Pranjal and Mr. Kunal Prakash, Advs versus REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS .....Respondent Through: Ms. Nidhi Raman, CGSC with Mr. Debasish Mishra, Adv CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE JUDGMENT Preface: 1. The appellant, by the present appeal under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 1 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and read with Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, seeks to assail the impugned order dated 17.10.2023 passed by the learned Examiner of Trade Marks, Trade Mark Registry, New Delhi 2, whereby its application no.4804262 for the registration of mark “CROSSRELIEF” in Class 5 of the Act has been rejected. 1 Hereinafter referred as “the Act” 2 Hereinafter referred as “impugned order” Signature Not Verified C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 7/2024 Page 1 of 10 Digitally Signed By:BABLOO SHAH Signing Date:16.04.2025 16:50:34 Brief Factual Matrix: 2. The appellant is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 2013 and is a subsidiary of Mankind Pharma Limited, the fifth-largest pharmaceutical company in India. 3. The appellant, on 02.01.2021, applied for registration of the mark “CROSSRELIEF” (word) in Class 5 of the Act on a ‘proposed to be used’ basis. The respondent, on 13.01.2021, issued an Examination Report raising an objection under Section 11(1) of the Act to the effect that “…the mark is identical with or similar to earlier marks in respect of identical or similar description of goods and because of such identity or similarity there