The present case was filed by the Petitioner, Hatsun Argo Product Limited (“Hatsun”), owner of the trademark “ARUN” to cancel the trademark “VARUN” registered by the Defendant, B. Balakrishnan Nair. Hatsun claimed that it had been using the mark “ARUN” since 1970 for its ice cream products and the use of the phonetically similar mark “VARUN” for similar goods by Balakrishnan created confusion in the market.
Balakrishnan argued that the mark “VARUN” was a distinct personal name associated with the Hindu deity Varuna and had been in bonafide use since 2004, supported by registration in 2006. Further, Balakrishnan’s business primarily operated in Kerala, where Hatsun had no commercial presence at all. Therefore, there had been no confusion in the market and both trademarks had been coexisting for years without any evidence of consumer deception or confusion.
The court observed that both “ARUN” and “VARUN” are common Indian personal names, associated with Hindu deities, Aruna and Varuna, and neither of the parties could claim exclusivity over these names unless they proved extensive distinctiveness. Due to the lack of strong evidence of use of Hatsun’s mark “ARUN” from 1970, the Court was not convinced of the acquired distinctiveness of the mark “ARUN”. The Court also noted that even though the marks were phonetically similar, they were visually distinct. Further, Hatsun also failed to show confusion among consumers in Kerala, where Balakrishnan’s business operated.
In light of the above, the court decided the issue in favor of Balakrishnan and held that the mark “VARUN” was being used in an honest and concurrent manner for nearly two decades, and there was no likelihood of consumer confusion. Therefore, Balakrishnan was allowed to retain the trademark “VARUN,” as the court did not find sufficient grounds to cancel the registration. Ultimately, the Court dismissed Hatsun’s petition.
Citation: Hatsun Agro Product Limited vs B. Balakrishnan Nair, High Court of Madras, 20th September, 2024, [(T) OP (TM) No.187 of 2023 (ORA/267/2015/TM/CH)] Available on: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/69794784/
Authored by Bhavishya B, Associate, BananaIP Counsels
Disclaimer
The case note/s in this blog post have been written by IP Attorneys at BananaIP Counsels based on their review and understanding of the Judgments. 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.
