HUNK V/S MOTORHUNK
In a recent order passed on October 29, 2025 by the office of Registrar of Trademarks, New Delhi, the registry again put emphasis on the principle of mark to be compared as a whole. Despite, the judgements of Supreme Court and High Courts, this principle have not been implemented judiciously before filing the opposition proceedings. In the present case the opponent “Hero MotoCorp Limited” filed opposition against the trademark application made by the applicant “Mr. Nitin Khanna” on January 17, 2020 for the mark “MOTORHUNK” under class 12 signifying Vehicles; apparatus for locomotion by land, air or water.
GROUNDS FOR OPPOSITION
The opposition in the present matter alleged that mark “MOTORHUNK” was deceptively similar to their registered trademark “HUNK” which was previously used by them for their motorcycle models. Hence, the word is in dispute was “hunk”. The opponents argued that applicant intentionally chosen the mark that incorporated their already established word “hunk”. The opponents stated that mere adding word “motor” as a prefix to the word “hunk” will not be a sufficient manner to distinguish “HUNK” from “MOTORHUNK”. The opponents also alleged that because the term “MOTOR” is a generic and descriptive word in the automobile industry and cannot function as a shield to distinguish the two marks. Therefore, the only distinctive feature which could be between the two marks was the term “hunk” which ultimately is similar to the opponent’s mark “HUNK” making the two identical.
The opponent additionally claimed that allowing the application of the impugned mark “MOTORHUNK” to be registered could deceive the public and give the appearance that the applicant’s products came from or were connected to Hero MotoCorp having trademark “HUNK”. Additionally, they asserted that allowing the registration would allow the applicant to unfairly profit from the goodwill and reputation attached to their mark.
APPLICANT’S DEFENSE
Advocate Naseem Sheikh on behalf of the applicant vehemently denied the accusations. The applicant stated that the mark was adopted honestly and in good faith and that, when compared overall, it differs noticeably in terms of visual identity, structure, and phonetic impression.
The applicant stressed that ‘MOTORHUNK’ has several design characteristics, such as a distinctive font style, colour combination, and diagonal lines, and is a device/logo mark rather than just a word mark. The applicant contended that accepted trademark comparison standards require that marks be evaluated in their totality rather than being broken down or analyzed in part.
The applicant also emphasized that there was no ongoing trade reputation associated with the mark at the time of filing opposition because Hero MotoCorp had discontinued the “HUNK” motorcycle model in 2017. Additionally, it was noted that the opponent was unable to provide any proof of real market uncertainty.
REGISTRAR’S FINDINGS AND REASONING
The Registrar declared that the most important legal principle in trademark comparison is the appraisal of marks as a whole also known as “principle of Anti-Dissection” rather than separating individual components of a mark. After, taking into account the arguments made by both parties and examining supporting documentation. The Registrar acknowledged that both marks had the word “HUNK” in common, but determined that this one similarity was not enough to prove confusion or deceptive likeness.
The order identified distinct and significant variations in the mark’s phonetic impact, typography, structure, and visual presentation. The applicant’s device mark was very different from the opponent’s straightforward word mark to its use of color, design features, and layout.
The registrar also relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Corn Products Refining Co. vs. Shangrila Food Products Ltd. (AIR 1960 SC 142), “Now it is a well-recognized principle, that has to be taken into account in considering the possibility of confusion arising between any two trademarks, that, where those two marks contain a common element which is also contained in a number of other marks in use in the same market such a common occurrence in the market tends to cause purchasers to pay more attention to the other features of the respective marks and to distinguish between them by those features.”
The registrar also stated that both marks differ when we compare the entire score. The rival markings differ both phonetically and visually. As a result, neither the public nor the trade will be confused. The applicant counsel’s filings make it clear that the opponent’s main claim of similarity is that the word “HUNK” appears frequently in competing marks. There is no trouble in concluding that the applicant’s mark differs from the opponent’s mark in terms of appearance, structure, and phonetics since there is no documentation demonstrating that the applicants have either copied or dishonestly adopted the contested mark.
As a result, the opposition was rejected, allowing the “MOTORHUNK” trademark application to move forward with registration without any cost to any parties.
Mark Shield was pleased to assist the Applicant in this matter.
