The matter arose from Opposition No. 1276638 filed by the Opponent, Mr. Chutraram Nemaram Gehlot filed by Ankit Agarwal (Individual/Sole Proprietor) under Application No. 5951297, against the registration of the Applicant’s mark MINARA BEAUTY. The Opponent’s case was predicated on their prior use and/or registration of the mark NEERA. The core conflict was the alleged deceptive similarity between the two marks.
• The Opponent filed notice of opposition & evidence under Rule 45 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017, asserting that the mark MINARA BEAUTY was visually, phonetically, and structurally similar to NEERA, and that its registration would lead to public confusion and passing off of the Applicant’s goods as those of the Opponent.
• The Applicant filed a Counter Statement and evidence under Rule 46, arguing the mark was inherently distinctive, honestly adopted, and sufficiently different from NEERA. The Applicant also provided evidence of significant commercial use and promotion on e-commerce platforms and social media.
• Following the exchange of pleadings and evidence, the matter proceeded to a hearing. The Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks, Delhi, issued a final Order dated January 15, 2025, which dismissed the Opposition and allowed the registration of the trademark MINARA BEAUTY.
BASIS OF GRANTING THE TRADEMARK
The Assistant Registrar’s Order explicitly outlines the reasoning for dismissing the opposition and granting the trademark:
The Registrar found the crucial test of likelihood of confusion under Section 11(1) to be unmet. The Order states: “I have no hesitation to hold that the applicant’s mark is visually, structurally and phonetically different from the Opponent’s mark.”
The specific basis for the grant was twofold:
1. Lack of Deceptive Similarity: The marks are held to be sufficiently distinct. The average consumer, using imperfect recollection, is not deemed likely to confuse MINARA BEAUTY with NEERA.
2. Upholding Proprietary Claim and Bona Fide Adoption: In the absence of evidence demonstrating that the Applicant dishonestly adopted the mark or that any actual confusion was caused among the public, the Registrar upheld the Applicant’s proprietary claims under Section 18(1). The registration was, therefore, allowed as the application was deemed entitled to registration.
Conclusion
The Opposition No. 1276638 against the trademark application for MINARA BEAUTY (Class 03) was dismissed, and the mark was ordered to proceed to registration.
Mark Shield was pleased to assist the Applicant before the Assistant Registrar of Trademarks.
