Date of Filing of the Opposition : 13/04/2023
Date of Decision : 22/02/2024
Applicant : Nitin Garg
Opponent : Sunflame Enterprises (P) Ltd.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
The Opponent- Sunflame Enterprises (P) Ltd had raised an opposition against Trademark Application No. 5231450, filed by Nitin Garg for the mark ” 
” under Class 11. The crux of the matter lay in Sunflame Enterprises’ contention of deceptive similarity between “ ” and its registered trademark “
”
SUBMISSION BY OPPONENT:
Sunflame Enterprises (P) Ltd asserted that the Applicant’s adoption of the mark “ ” reeked of deception, strategically aimed at exploiting the established reputation and goodwill of its trademark, “SUNFLAME” Emphasizing its longstanding presence in the market for home appliances, since 1980, the Opponent underscored the visual and phonetic parallels between the two marks, sounding the alarm of consumer confusion.
Furthermore, the Opponent questioned the authenticity of the Applicant’s purported use of the mark, casting doubt on its genuineness.
SUBMISSION BY APPLICANT:
The Applicant vigorously denied the opposition against its trademark application for “ .” It asserted that the adoption of its mark was in good faith, devoid of any deceptive intent, and emphasized its unique features, particularly the flame-shaped element distinguishing it from ” ” Drawing on legal precedent, the Applicant argued that similar marks had been deemed distinct by the courts, challenging the opponent’s claim of exclusivity over the term “FLAME.”
Furthermore, the Applicant presented compelling evidence of genuine use of its mark since 2016, dismantling any indication of dishonest adoption. It refuted claims of potential confusion among consumers, highlighting the non-descriptive nature of its mark and its distinctiveness in the marketplace.
The Applicant’s submission served as a robust defence of “ ,” asserting its legitimacy and right to coexist alongside existing trademarks.
Judgement and analysis
The judgment by the Registrar of Trade Marks, Delhi, has set a precedent in a case revolving around the comparison of two marks: ” ” and “ “. The Registrar meticulously examined both the phonetic and visual aspects of the marks, highlighting key differences that contributed to their distinctiveness. Notably, emphasis on different syllables and variations in design elements were noted.
Moreover, the Registrar dismissed the Opponent’s argument regarding the Applicant’s adoption of the mark, finding no evidence of dishonesty. The Applicant’s longstanding use of the mark since 2016 provided substantial support for their claim of genuine adoption.
The Registrar of Trademark also found that the word ‘Flame’ is generic for stoves and no one can claim monopoly on the same. He also noted that the words i.e. SUN and GOOD have no association or similarity and underscored the absence of likelihood of confusion between the two marks and the lack of evidence indicating actual consumer confusion. This pivotal observation, coupled with the distinct phonetic and visual disparities between the marks, led to the approval of the Applicant’s mark “ ” in Class 11.
The Applicant was Represented by Mark Shield before Registrar of Trademarks.
