Mazda Motor Corporation vs Assistant Registrar Of Trade Marks And Ors

Trade Mark of the Appellant,Trade Mark of the Respondent

(Editor: The text of the vernacular matter has not been

reproduced. Please write to contact@manupatra.com if

the vernacular matter is required.)","(Editor: The text of the vernacular matter has not been

reproduced. Please write to contact@manupatra.com if

the vernacular matter is required.)

In TA/321/2004/TM/DEL (supra) in the second round again the board held that the adoption of the mark 'PHILIP' was manifestly dishonest.,

In AIR 1994 Del 239 Daimler Benz Aktiegesellschaft and Anr. v. Hybo Hindustan, the mark was BENZ.. The adoption was held to be dishonest.",

This is very similar to this case, for there the foreign company had collaborated with TATA. The learned judge held that no one can plead ignorance",

of the mark ""BENZ""",

In 2003 (26) PTC 1 (Del) Honda Motors Company Ltd. v Mr. Charanjit Singh and Ors., the mark adopted was HONDA. An attempt was made",

that it was the name of Honda Singh. The learned judges rejected this contention and held that the adoption was not honest but intended to create a,

subtle connection with the Plaintiff which had a global reputation.,

In MIPR 2009 (2) 125 Sony Kabushiki Kaisha v. Mahaluxmi Textile Mills the Full Bench of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court held ""that similarity",

of the goods.....this factor."" There again the mark was SONY.",

In AIR 1969 Bom 24 Sunder Parmanand Lalwani and Ors v. Caltex (India) Ltd., the mark was Caltex, the Division Bench held ""On the facts of",

this case, we have no hesitation in holding that a large number of persons, if they see or hear about the mark ""Caltex"" in connection with watches,",

would be led to think that the watches were in some way connected with the opponents, or they would at least wonder whether they were in any way",

connected with the opponents. Persons seeing the mark attached to watches, which is a new class of goods, would assume, or are most likely to",

assume, that they originated from the proprietor of the mark, namely, the opponents"".",

In Vazir Sultan case the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in the case of two proprietors of the same mark, the orders of the Registrar limiting the",

registration to particular goods, was not unjustified. The Respondent cannot take advantage of this decision since we find that the adoption of the mark",

is tainted.,

There is a common thread in almost all the above cases. The adopted mark has a global reputation and there is a modest manufacturer who had,

adopted the mark allegedly honestly. It is a matter of regret that the small manufacturers appear to think that they can hijack any famous mark for,

their goods, which are or may be unconnected with the goods manufactured bearing the globally known mark. They do not seem to understand that",

honesty can neither be qualified nor compromised. and when the complainant is a foreign company, one feels that in some way the national prestige",

has been tarnished in the global arena.,

The Respondent may have established user from 1998, by producing invoices etc, and the Appellant has show no evidence of the user of the",

Mark, but there is no getting away from the fact that there is no honest adoption of the mark by the Respondent. There is no explanation either for the",

choice of the word Mazda, or for the choice of the font.",

The Appellant succeeds. The appeal is allowed. No order as to costs. © Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.,