| Case ID |
1aca5c85-a5f7-4d42-95c5-7d7f9cadc486 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
MA. No. 9 of 1992 |
| Decision Date |
Nov 29, 1992 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The appellant, GRINNELL CORPORATION, sought registration of the trade mark 'GRINNELL' for 'CHEMICALS AND ADHESIVES' used in the fire extinguisher industry. The Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks denied the application, claiming phonetic similarity with the existing trade mark 'GRIND WELL.' The court found no merit in this reasoning, asserting that the sounds of consonants 'D' and 'W' are not likely to be slurred and that the two trade marks operate in different industries. The court overturned the Deputy Registrar's decision, allowing the registration of 'GRINNELL' and directing the respondent to proceed with its registration. |
| Summary |
In the case of MA. No. 9 of 1992, the Sindh High Court addressed the refusal of the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks to register the trade mark 'GRINNELL' for chemicals and adhesives. The refusal was based on a claimed phonetic conflict with the existing trade mark 'GRIND WELL.' The court, however, found no phonetic or industry-wise similarity between the two marks, stating that the consonant sounds in the English language do not typically slur in the manner suggested by the respondent. This case highlights the importance of clear distinctions in trade mark registration, especially in different industries. The decision reinforces the notion that registration should not be denied without substantial evidence of similarity. The court's ruling is significant for businesses seeking to protect their intellectual property, especially in competitive markets. The case emphasizes the necessity for a thorough examination of phonetic similarity, as well as the relevance of industry context to trade mark applications. This ruling is beneficial for entities aiming to secure unique branding in their respective fields, ensuring that descriptive terms do not hinder their ability to register distinctive trade marks. |
| Court |
Sindh High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
GRINNELL CORPORATION,
THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS
|
| Judges |
AHMED YAR KHAN, J
|
| Lawyers |
Mr. Irfan
|
| Petitioners |
GRINNELL CORPORATION
|
| Respondents |
THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS
|
| Citations |
1993 SLD 1026 = 1993 CLC 2201
|
| Other Citations |
Not available
|
| Laws Involved |
Trade Marks Act (V of 1940)
|
| Sections |
10
|