SPLAKLR NO1LS - IN1LR CLASS MOO1

1. 1he trademark is not registerable.

2. Len i it is, respondent`s actions do not qualiy as inringement
1lL 1RADLMARK IS NO1 RLGIS1LRABLL.
1. Indian Vakil does not possess any distinctie character, is descriptie - not reigsterable.
2. Marks which are descriptie o the nature or characteristics o a good or serice cannot
be registered as trademarks under Section 9,b, o the 1rademarks Act 1994 on the basis
that such terms are commonly used by all inoled in the trade and do not distinguish
any speciic trader o the concerned goods or serices.
3. Inherently capable o distinguishing - Coabre, Pbitti. r. Cirvar ooa. c ererage..
4. ovetitiov Rerier Prirate ta. r. ^.^. O;ba ;ovetitiov vcce.. Rerier) wherein the Delhi
ligh Court obsered that 'Competition' was a generic term and in absence o similarity
in colour scheme, the plainti could not claim exclusie use o the word 'Competition'.
Similarly in Rvee Caiv. 1ete1ive. Prt. ta. r. Rvee 1ive., 1: P1 ;1:) 1, the Delhi
ligh Court held that the word 'Rupee' was synonym with money and all inancial
journals and publications hae been using the word business or inancial or money or
their journals and newspapers. Similarly in India labitat Centre.
5. Basis 1rademarks must be distinctie in that they denote a particular origin o the goods,
and don`t describe the goods or serice.
6. I Indian Vakil sold cars, cool. lere, Indian and Vakil describe the goods - tell
consumers the company deals with lawyers in India - descriptie o the serice.
. I you allow this, impact on competition and restrict use o the words Indian and Vakil in
the same sentence, as that may run aoul o Sec. 29.
8. JR Kapoor, Delhi lC: Descriptie mark is essentially words commonly used in trade and
hence gien the risk o conusion in the mind o the consumer and the lack o indication
o a speciic source o origin.
9. I a descriptie mark is one, which is, essentially a combination o common Lnglish
words the user o the marks has to bear the risk o, some amount o conusion. No
monopoly can be claimed by the user o the mark. |See aaita eattb are & ].R. Kaoor|

SLCONDAR\ MLANING:
1. I its descriptie, may be registerable i it has a secondary meaning - doesn`t here ,Coafre,
Pbiti. vaia ta. r. Cirvar ooa ava ererage. ;P) ta, 200: ;1) 1:, ].P. Kaoor r.
Microvi vaia, 11 vt. ;) 21:,
2. Indianakil not that amous to be hae created such an impression in the mind o the
releant public. 1hreshold or acquiring secondary meaning high, Court will look at ,1ata
. Manoj Dadia, 2011, and Section 11,:
,i, the extent o knowledge o the mark to, and its recognition by the releant
public, ,ii, the duration o the use o the mark, ,iii, the extent o the products and
serices in relation to which the mark is being used, ,i, the method, requency,
extent and duration o adertising and promotion o the mark, ,, the
geographical extent o the trading area in which the mark is used
3. 1o make things clearer, the court accepted that an undisturbed use o 60 years, as in the
200 Supreme Court case inoling Glucon-D, would qualiy as acquired distinctieness.
Marico`s use was only or about seen years, which wasn`t enough to make the cut.
LVLN II RLGIS1LRABLL, NO INIRINGLMLN1
Goerned by Section 29.

1. NO RLLLVAN1 USL
2. NO CONlUSION LVLN Il RLLLVAN1 USL IS lOUND 1O LXIS1
3. NO CONlUSION A1 1lL 1IML Ol SALL

1. NO RLLLVAN1 USL UNDLR SLC1ION 29,6,
a. Section 29,6, deines use - aix in packaging, or use the trademark as it is in
adertising - neither done.
b. Registered trademark is Indianakil
c. Question: las the respondent used this trademark, in any manner
d. Adocatehoondo has not used it in any portrayal to the public - search terms
Indian and akil are generic and relate to their businesss.
e. Bunny proides search results through an algorithm - does not use the trade
mark, not een in the same serice.
. In any eent, here the trademark itsel or any similar mark has not been used to
cause aitvtiov o the mark in question under Section 29,4,, either per se or
through conusion.

2. NO CONlUSION LVLN Il RLLLVAN1 USL IS lOUND 1O LXIS1, MISAPPROPRIA1ION PLR SL
IS NO1 AC1IONABLL.
a. Inringement can be under
i. 29,1,: Mark used must be identical to or deceptiely similar, in such a
manner so as to make the public beliee that it`s the same mark, or in
other words conusion.
ii. 29,2,: Speciically requires conusion
iii. 29,4,: lor dissimilar goods or serices, not applicable.
i. 29,8,: Residue section, 1ata . Manoj Dadia, para 20, incorporates the
element o conusion as is necessary under trade mark law generally
,Moorgate, Kellogg,
b. 1rademark is not an exclusie property right, can`t be conlated into that. Not or
businesses to exploit, but or consumer protection generally as a part o the larger
tort o deceit ,L`Oreal, Jacob,.
c. I no conusion, wrongly conlates into a larger unair competition tort: ego,
18-8, 28, 1arget, 2010 lCA 255.
d. L`oreal Jacob ,CoA, - competition.
e. 1est o conusion: LCJ: Adidas, O2 test adopted instead: 1he usage in the
present context does not create a perception o the tro .errice. covivg frov tbe .ave
vvaerta/ivg or frov ecovovicatt,tiv/ea vvaerta/ivg.`.
1 Iollowing this, no con1:sion
i. Releant public not conused in belieing that adocatehoondo.com is
indianakil.com - completely dierent names, no commonality in site
design or adertising.
ii. People looking or lawyers,legal serices are discerning - will conduct
inquiries.
iii. No association or connection
g. 1. 1evvgoat . |.boaa,a vterri.e. ,para 29, Bhandari,: Rejected dilution, undue
monopoly on words in the Lnglish language - case stronger i the words are
commonplace, as here.
h. Bona ide description o his own serices! ,Stokely Van Camp . leinz India Pt.
Ltd.,

3. NO CONlUSION A1 1lL 1IML Ol SALL
a. As relected in .tava 1raaivg and P .voco, potential or conusion must
speciically exist at tbe tive of .ate.
b. It is submitted that some consumer choices are preceded by detailed discussions
and inquiries.
c. 1hus conusion, i pre-existent, is dispelled at the time o sale. Similarly, here, a
situation where a person is conused at the time o enrollment is unlikely.