In the present case, Gemini Edibles and Fats India Limited (“Gemini”) filed a rectification petition under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, seeking the removal of the trademark “DREAM FREEDOM” (Trade Mark No. 3213226 in Class 29) registered in the name of Dream Freedom Herbal Pvt. Ltd. (“Respondent No.1”). The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Gemini Edibles, directing the removal of the impugned mark from the Register of Trade Marks.
Gemini Edibles, a subsidiary of Golden Agri-Resources Ltd., claimed that it had been using the “FREEDOM” mark in connection with edible oils and fats since 2009, with additional trade dress elements introduced in 2010. The company had made substantial investments in advertising and promotion and had obtained multiple trademark and copyright registrations for the “FREEDOM” marks. Gemini contended that the respondent’s mark “DREAM FREEDOM” was deceptively similar to its own mark, incorporating “FREEDOM” in its entirety with an identical green color, font, and style. The respondent also allegedly copied the trade dress of Gemini Edibles’ “FREEDOM” refined edible oil packaging, which Gemini claimed would lead to consumer confusion.
The images below shows a comparison of Gemini’s mark and that of the respondent’s.
Despite being served, the respondent did not appear or file a reply, leading the court to consider Gemini’s averments as admitted. The court observed that Gemini was the prior user and adopter of the “FREEDOM” mark and that the respondent’s registration dated back only to 2016. Referring to precedent, the court emphasized that minor variations in an infringing mark do not preclude a finding of deceptive similarity, particularly when the impugned mark incorporates the dominant element of the senior mark. Applying the Triple Identity Test—similarity in marks, goods, and trade channels—the court concluded that the respondent’s mark was likely to cause confusion among consumers.
The court found that the respondent had dishonestly adopted the impugned mark to trade upon the goodwill and reputation of Gemini Edibles. It held that the continued registration of the impugned mark contravened Section 11 of the Trade Marks Act and was liable for cancellation under Section 57. Consequently, the court allowed the petition and directed the Trade Mark Registry to remove the impugned mark from its records.
Citation: Gemini Edibles and Fats India Ltd. v. Dream Freedom Herbal Pvt. Ltd., C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 47/2024 (H.C. Delhi Dec. 19, 2024). Available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/93151906/
Disclaimer
The case note in this blog post has been generated using Artificial Intelligence (AI) and the same has been reviewed by the IP Attorneys at BananaIP Counsels. It may be noted that other IP attorneys and experts in the field may have different opinions about the cases or arrive at different conclusions therefrom. It is advisable to read the Judgments before making any decisions based on the case notes.
If you have any questions, or if you wish to speak with an IP expert/attorney, please reach us at: contact@bananaip.com or 91-80-26860414/24/34.
