High CourtsSingle Bench(2023) 07 DEL CK 3960

Acko Technology And Services Pvt Ltd vs Bal Kishan & Anr.

Delhi High Court · Decided on 31 July 2023

HON’BLE JUDGES
Prathiba M. Singh, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 143/2023

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

23 paragraphs · 714 words

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)

1.

This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2.

The present petition has been filed by Acko Technology and Services Pvt. Ltd. seeking cancellation of the trademark No. 5320418 registered in the name of the Respondent- Mr. Bal Kishan in Class 11 (hereinafter ‘impugned mark’). The said mark is set out below:-

Exhibit reproduced from the original judgment
3.

The Petitioner’s case is that ‘ACKO’ is a mark which has been adopted by it as a trademark/service mark and is also part of its corporate name in respect of insurance services. The Petitioner provides insurance for various sectors including automotive, mobile products, household appliances, electronic or mechanical gadgets etc. The insurance products of the Petitioner also extend to travel insurance, group personal accident insurance etc.

4.

The mark ‘ACKO’ was adopted by the Petitioner in the year 2016 and has been in use in India since then. The mark ‘ACKO’ is used by the Petitioner both as a word mark as also in a logo style. The mark ‘ACKO’ is also used as a permanent part of the corporate name of the Petitioner. The various trademark registrations of the Petitioner would show that the mark was applied for in December, 2017 in Classes 42 and 38. The details of the registrations of the Petitioner are set out in paragraph 12 of the petition. The said marks are extracted as under:

Trade MarkApplication Date of Class No.Date of Class No. Application/ User ClaimClass
ACKO3691827December 01, 201 7 Proposed to be Used42
ACKO3691829December 01, 20 17 Proposed to be Used38
Judgment image4636749September 02, 2020 Use Since September 27, 201735,36 and 37
ACKO TECHNOLOGY & SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED3491654February 23, 2017 Use Since September 07, 201642
ACKO TECHNOLOGY & SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED3491656February 23, 2017 Use Since September 07, 201638
ACKO TECHNOLOGY & SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED4741592November 11, 2020 Use Since September 07, 201635
ACKO TECHNOLOGY & SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED4741595November 11, 2020 Use Since September 07, 201637
ACKO TECHNOLOGY & SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED4741597November 11, 2020 Use Since September 07, 201644
ACKOHEALTH4755011November 24, 2020 Proposed to be Used9, 35, 36 and 44
Judgment image4760008November 27, 2020 Use Since35 and 37

December 0 1 , 20 19

5.

The Court has heard ld. Counsel for the Petitioner. The Petitioner’s turnover in India is stated to be over Rs. 1,300/- crore. The Petitioner has also won several awards. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the registration of the mark ‘ACKOLITE’ by the Defendant for household appliances and installations in Class 11. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the impugned mark registered by the Respondent would severely impinge upon the Petitioner’s rights. Clearly, in the present facts and circumstances, in light of the rights of the Petitioner in the mark ‘ACKO’ as also other similar marks, the Petitioner would be a person aggrieved by the Registration of the impugned mark. The registration of the impugned mark is also contrary to the principles emanating from Section 11 of the Trade Marks Act, 199.

6.

Mr. Bal Kishan, the Respondent has appeared virtually today and submits that he does not wish to continue with the registration of the impugned mark. Even otherwise, considering that the Petitioner offers insurance for household appliances, the use of the mark ‘ACKOLITE’ in respect of household appliances would undoubtedly be a fit case for exercise of powers under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 as the impugned mark would also cause confusion as to association of the Defendant with the Petitioner.

7.

In view of the submissions made on behalf of the ld. Counsel for the Petitioner and Respondent in person, the mark bearing no. 5320418 in Class 11 is cancelled. The existence in the impugned mark in the register would also be contrary to law. Accordingly, the impugned mark is directed to be removed from the Register of Trademarks.

8.

The present order be given effect to within eight weeks by the Registrar of Trademarks. Ms. Nidhi Raman, ld. CGSC, who is present in Court, is requested to accept notice for the Registrar of Trademarks.

9.

The Registry is directed to supply a copy of the present order to the office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trademarks of India on the e- mail- [email protected] for compliance.

10.

The petition is disposed of with all pending applications.