Date of Decision : 22.02.2024
Applicant : Mr. Mukesh Narang
Opponent : Kaleesuwari Refinery Pvt. Ltd.
Mark : Gold Choice v/s 
FACTS OF THE CASE:
The Opponent-Kaleesuwari Refinery Private Limited opposed the Registration of the trademark Application No. 4466783 for the Trademark ‘’ on the grounds of its alleged deceptive resemblance to its earlier trademark mark ‘GOLD CHOICE and its devices’ accusing the Applicant for attempting to exploit its established reputation and goodwill and for infringement of its registered trademarks.
SUBMISSION BY OPPONENT:
The Opponent mounted a robust case, alleging that the mark exhibited a troubling resemblance to its well-established mark ‘GOLD CHOICE/ 
’. The Opponent asserted that the Applicant’s adoption of the mark was not in good faith but rather driven by a desire to exploit the goodwill associated with Opponent’s earlier trademark. Highlighting the extensive history and widespread recognition of ‘GOLD CHOICE/’ since 2001, the opponent underscored the risk of confusion and deception in the marketplace, particularly for identical goods i.e. fats and oils. By vividly illustrating the potential consequences of registration, the Opponent advocated for the preservation of its brand identity and consumer trust, emphasizing the critical need to prevent any semblance of misrepresentation.
SUBMISSION BY APPLICANT:
The Applicant submitted that it is in the business of organic products and wishes to convey a message that ‘GOD’ wishes us to eat organic foods and therefore, it adopted the mark ‘GOD CHOICE/’. The Applicant fervently asserted that the selection of the mark ‘’ was guided by genuine intent, devoid of any deceptive motive. It emphasized the uniqueness of its mark as a distinctive device mark, distinguishing it prominently within its category. A careful examination revealed notable visual and conceptual disparities between ‘’ and the Opponent’s mark “GOLD CHOICE/” spanning elements like background shades, font types, and overall design, thereby underscoring the individuality of each mark.
Furthermore, the Applicant challenged the Opponent’s assertion of exclusive entitlement to the term ‘CHOICE’, demonstrating its prevalent usage across varied industries in diverse trademark contexts. By placing this term within its broader commercial context, the Applicant aimed to dismantle the notion of its sole association with the Opponent. Moreover, the adoption of ‘’ was not arbitrary but stemmed from a purposeful endeavor to advocate for nutritious dietary options that God wishes us to have. This strategic alignment underscored the unique attributes of the Applicant’s products, underscoring its dedication to quality and consumer well-being. Consequently, the adoption of ‘’ epitomized the Applicant’s brand ethos and distinct market positioning, further fortifying its eligibility and merit for registration.
JUDGEMENT AND ANALYSIS
The judgment by the Registrar of Trade Marks, Delhi, conducted a meticulous examination of the marks in question, scrutinizing them visually, phonetically, and conceptually. Notably, significant visual disparities emerged, particularly in background colors, font styles, and additional features like taglines, distinguishing the applicant’s mark from the Opponent’s. While acknowledging a slight phonetic similarity, the Registrar deemed it insufficient to engender confusion, especially when considering the comprehensive differences across the marks. Moreover, the Registrar emphasized the importance of assessing marks in their entirety and highlighted the absence of concrete evidence demonstrating actual confusion among the public. With no substantiated evidence of confusion or dishonest adoption by the Applicant, the Registrar dismissed the opposition, granting approval for the Applicant mark’s registration in class 29. This decision underscored the importance of comprehensive mark analysis and the necessity of tangible evidence in trademark disputes.
The Applicant was represented by Mark Shield before the Registrar of Trademarks.
