Article
Rule of anti-dissection v. Rule of dominant feature – A legal conundrum
By Anoop Verma, Garima Raonta, and Pulkit Doger
The article in this issue of IPR Amicus discusses the puzzle in choosing between the ‘Rule of Anti-Dissection’ and the ‘Rule of Dominant Feature’, both being used at present while adjudging the deceptive similarity between two composite trademarks. While the spirit of the former rule is in Sections 15 and 17 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the latter is a product of many judicial pronouncements and has its reflection in Section 11(b). Elaborating upon the meanings of these rules and the judicial viewpoint, the article points out that though as per the letter of law, the rule of dominant feature is arbitrary, in practice, the same is being applied and relied upon often. Discussing plethora of case law on either side, the authors note that the Courts in India appear to be in conflict and have also at times recognized that the rule of dominant feature is not in violation of the rule of anti-dissection. They are of the view that there is no one straight-jacket rule that can be relied upon to assess the confusion and that it would lead to arbitrariness and absurdity if one rule is given prominence over the other...
Ratio decidendi
- Copyrights – Statutory licence under Section 31-D read with Rule 29 – Strict compliance is prima facie mandatory – Bombay High Court
- Territorial jurisdiction of Court in a trade mark infringement suit – Self-generated sales by plaintiff cannot per se be labelled ‘trap sales’ – Delhi High Court
- Patents – Cherry picking out of multiple choices available in earlier patent, in order to plead invalidity or obviousness, not correct – Delhi High Court
News Nuggets
- Intellectual Property Division (IPD) created at Delhi High Court
- Sound as a trade mark – EU’s General Court rejects registration of sound made by opening of a drinks can
- WTO dispute brewing as Russia prohibits use of ‘Champagne’ in Cyrillic by foreign producers, instead asks to add ‘sparkling wine’
- Online platform operators when liable in respect of illegal posting of copyrighted material on the platform
- Trade marks – No confusion between figurative mark ‘ROLF’ and word mark ‘WOLF’
- Amul gets relief from Canadian Court against Amul Canada
- Intellectual property has its own sanctity – Delhi HC rejects application seeking disposal of pending stock
- Trade mark injunction suit – Investigation of plaintiff’s title to the mark
