- \n
- \n
- \n
- \n
- \n
- Whether the Respondent\u2019s registered label mark \u2018Ragini\u2019 was deceptively similar to the Petitioner\u2019s prior labels \u2018Rani\u2019 and \u2018Rachna\u2019.<\/li>\n
- Whether the Respondent\u2019s label copied the artistic work of the Petitioner.<\/li>\n
- Whether the Petitioner, as a prior user, was entitled to cancellation of the Respondent\u2019s registered mark under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Petitioner’s Arguments<\/h2>\n
- \n
- \n
- \n
- \n
- \n
- The Petitioner had adopted and used the labels for \u2018Rani\u2019 and \u2018Rachna\u2019 since 2007.<\/li>\n
- The artistic features, writing style, colour scheme, taglines, and overall trade dress of the Respondent\u2019s label were copied from the Petitioner\u2019s label.<\/li>\n
- The Respondent\u2019s label was likely to cause confusion and amounted to copyright infringement and violation of the Trade Marks Act.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Respondent’s Arguments<\/h2>\n
- \n
- \n
- \n
- \n
- \n
- The Respondent adopted the label \u2018Ragini\u2019 in 2022 honestly and in good faith.<\/li>\n
- The Trade Marks Registry granted registration without objections.<\/li>\n
- The mark \u2018Ragini\u2019 was visually, phonetically, and conceptually different from \u2018Rani\u2019 and \u2018Rachna\u2019.<\/li>\n
- There was no likelihood of confusion or deception.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Court\u2019s Analysis<\/h2>\n
The court observed that the Respondent had slavishly copied the Petitioner\u2019s artistic label. It noted five specific similarities between the two labels:<\/p>\n
- \n
- \n
- \n
- \n
- \n
- Identical font and writing style for the mark.<\/li>\n
- Use of identical tagline “SMILE POLYSTER SAREE FALL”.<\/li>\n
- Same colour combination of red and yellow.<\/li>\n
- Similar placement and type of images (woman\u2019s image on the right side).<\/li>\n
- Use of identical taglines such as \u201cNew Pack\u201d and \u201cA QUALITY PRODUCT FROM THE HOUSE OF…\u201d.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
The court said these similarities made the two labels nearly identical in visual impression. It held that the Respondent\u2019s minor difference in name (\u2018Ragini\u2019 vs. \u2018Rani\u2019) did not remove the likelihood of confusion.<\/p>\n
![\"Side-by-side](\"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/Rachna-v.-Ragini-1024x239.png\")
<\/p>\nThe court relied on Colgate Palmolive Co. v. Anchor Health and Beauty Care<\/em>, observing that substantial imitation of trade dress and colour combination could mislead consumers even if trade names differ.<\/p>\n
The court also cited S. Syed Mohideen v. P. Sulochana Bai<\/em> and Neon Laboratories Ltd. v. Medical Technologies Ltd.<\/em>, reaffirming that prior user rights override subsequent registrations. According to the court, under Sections 34 and 28 of the Trade Marks Act, registration is subject to the rights of the prior user.<\/p>\n
It held that the Respondent adopted the impugned label with dishonest and mala fide intent and could not retain the benefits of registration.<\/p>\n
Conclusion<\/h2>\n
The court found that the Petitioner had proved prior and continuous use of the trademark labels since 2007. The Respondent\u2019s label was a copy of the Petitioner\u2019s label in all material aspects, and the Respondent’s trademark registration No. 5925080 dated 06.05.2023 was therefore liable to be cancelled. Accordingly, the Court directed the registry to remove the registration from the Trade Marks Register within four weeks.<\/p>\n
- \n
- \n
- \n
- \n
- \n
- \n
- \n