The Delhi High Court recently highlighted that while a party may possess a trademark registration for a particular mark or shape, it shouldn't have the right to monopolize every single variation of that shape. This perspective reflects the court's stance on preventing excessive control over similar shapes under the guise of a single trademark registration.

The bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan pointed out that allowing a party with a registration for one specific mark or shape to dominate every possible variant of that shape isn't reasonable, particularly when the similarity is based on a shared characteristic like both being flowers. If such a broad argument were accepted, it would imply that the concerned party could potentially claim injunctions against any confectionery manufacturer simply because they produce flower-shaped sweets. This stance highlights the need to balance trademark rights without excessively restricting the use of common shapes or symbols.

In this case, Counsel Raunaq Kamath and Counsel Sauhard Alung represented the appellants, while Counsel Shailen Bhatia, alongside other legal representatives, appeared for the respondents. 

The appeal in question pertained to M/s. Suman International challenging a decision made by a commercial court. This decision granted an application filed by the respondents under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). The application resulted in the appellants being restrained from various activities, including manufacturing, selling, and advertising goods that featured a mark considered to infringe on the registered trademark of Respondent No. 1. Both parties involved in this legal dispute operate within the confectionery industry.

In this legal dispute, Respondent No. 1, Mahendra Gulwani, laid claim to exclusive rights over a distinct rose-shaped lollipop and associated trademarks. The respondents contended that the appellants' product, 'SWEET ROSE LOLLIPOP,' bore a deceptive similarity, leading to confusion among consumers. The Court, in its October 2021 ruling, sided with the respondents. It cited resemblances in both the shape of the product and its packaging. Additionally, the Court took note of the recent launch of the contested lollipop by the appellants, which bolstered the respondents' argument regarding trademark infringement.

The High Court emphasized that when a party takes the risk of registering a generic word or shape as a trademark, they inherently risk others using it. In line with this perspective, the Court noted that the respondents failed to demonstrate usage that would render their mark or shape distinctive or have acquired a secondary meaning. Conversely, the appellants presented sufficient evidence suggesting that the product, specifically a lollipop in the shape of a 'Rose' or flower, had been manufactured and sold by multiple producers prior to the case in question. This evidence supported the contention that such a shape wasn't uniquely associated with the respondents' brand alone.

In light of the same, the impugned judgment was set aside.

Case Title: M/s Suman International & Anr. vs Mahendra Gulwani & Anr.