Y.

PRAKASH
Advocate
Attorney Code: 22327

Chennai Off: Flat No.129/6, Emerald Flats, Thirumangalam, Anna Nagar West, Chennai 600040
Madurai Off: Plot No.245, I Floor, 2nd East Cross Street, K.K.Nagar, Madurai 625020
(O) 044-26156335 (M) 8939687067; 9080556730
yplegal@gmail.com; info@marksandbrands.in

17.06.2022

To

The Registrar of Trademarks

The Office of the Trademark Registry
Chennai.

Reply to Examination Report

Respected Sir,

Re: Application No. 5354346 in Class 3

In the name of V.S.RAVI SANKAR

We write to you with reference to your Examination Report dated

23/04/2022 in respect of the above captioned Application Number.

Objections raised on Grounds under Section 11:

The objection is raised under Section:

 The objection is raised under S 11 (1) of the Trade Marks Act,

1999, as the mark is identical with or similar to earlier marks in
respect of identical or similar description of goods or services and
because of such identity or similarity there exists a likelihood of
confusion on the part of the public.

Please find below our response:

1. With reference to your above stated query regarding relative

grounds for refusal, we state that the objection raised under the
above-mentioned section is not tenable and maintainable.
2. The applicant has applied for registration of the trademark,

‘NEDDA’ under Class 3 for a definite

description of goods by which the applicant has altogether given a

new meaning to the mark. The mark has been

applied for registration in totality and is completely unique and
distinct. The captioned mark is extremely unique and different
as compared to the marks cited in the examination report.

3. It is submitted that the applicant’s trademark

is structurally, visually and conceptually different from the cited marks,

and or ‘NEEDA’, and any person with average

intelligence and imperfect recollection will be able to differentiate the
applicant’s trademark with that of the cited mark and shall never
confuse with the applicant’s trademark with that of the cited
trademark.

4. We submit that upon an overall comparison of the cited marks, a

distinction can be easily drawn between the applicant’s mark and
the cited mark such that no confusion will emanate on account of
their co-existence. We further submit that the true test of
registrability lies on the totality of the impression that the mark
produces.

5. The combination of the mark should be considered as a whole,

and it is not right to consider the mark in its component parts
with each component being viewed individually.

6. In view of the above, it is submitted that none of the relative

 grounds of refusal stipulated under the Trade Marks Act, 1999
applies to the subject mark and therefore, it ought to proceed
towards registration. Hence the trademark of the applicant
should not be refused registration or abandoned but it should be
ACCEPTED for registration under The Trade Marks Act, 1999.

Having regard to the above facts, we request you to waive the objection
and accept the trademark for registration or in the alternative, post a
hearing at an early date for personal representation of matters.

Yours faithfully

Y.PRAKASH
Advocate
Marks & Brands