<p>The Supreme Court on Thursday allowed ‘Nandhini’ chain of restaurants to use its name and trademark, discarding the objections made by Karnataka’s Cooperative Milk Producers Federation which sold its milk and allied products by the brand name of ‘Nandini’.</p>.<p class="bodytext">“The proprietor of a trademark cannot enjoy a monopoly over the entire class of goods and, particularly, when he is not using the said trademark in respect of certain goods falling under the same class,” the top court said.</p>.<p class="bodytext">A bench of Justices A K Sikri and Ashok Bhushan said the use of ‘Nandhini’ in respect of its different goods would not be detrimental to the purported distinctive character or repute of the trademark of ‘Nandini’.</p>.<p class="bodytext">“Nandini/Nandhini is generic, it represents the name of Goddess and a cow in Hindu mythology. It is not an invented or coined word of the respondent (milk cooperative),” the court said.</p>.<p class="bodytext">The court also said it is to be kept in mind that the appellant, Nandhini Deluxe, had adopted the trade mark in respect of items sold in its restaurants way back in 1989 which was four years after the respondent, Karnataka Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Ltd (KMF), had started using the trademark ‘Nandini’.</p>.<p class="bodytext">“Though there is a phonetic similarity in so far as the words Nandhini/Nandini are concerned, the trademark with logo adopted by the two parties are altogether different,” the bench said, adding the manner in which both are written is also totally different.</p>.<p class="bodytext">“It is difficult to hold that the mark adopted by the appellant (Nandhini) will cause any confusion in the mind of consumers, what to talk of deception. We do not find that the two marks are deceptively similar,” the bench added.</p>.<p class="bodytext">The court said it is difficult to imagine that an average man of ordinary intelligence would associate the goods of the appellant as that of the respondent as not only appearance of the two marks is different, they even relate to different products.</p>.<p class="bodytext">The court allowed a civil appeal by Nandhini Deluxe against the Karnataka High Court judgement of December 2, 2014. The high court had confirmed an order by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board of October 4, 2011, which had allowed objections by KMF against registration of the name ‘Nandhini’ by deputy registrar, trademarks.</p>.<p class="bodytext">The top court restored the order granting registration in favour of Nandhini Deluxe with a modification that it will not be given for the milk and milk products.</p>
<p>The Supreme Court on Thursday allowed ‘Nandhini’ chain of restaurants to use its name and trademark, discarding the objections made by Karnataka’s Cooperative Milk Producers Federation which sold its milk and allied products by the brand name of ‘Nandini’.</p>.<p class="bodytext">“The proprietor of a trademark cannot enjoy a monopoly over the entire class of goods and, particularly, when he is not using the said trademark in respect of certain goods falling under the same class,” the top court said.</p>.<p class="bodytext">A bench of Justices A K Sikri and Ashok Bhushan said the use of ‘Nandhini’ in respect of its different goods would not be detrimental to the purported distinctive character or repute of the trademark of ‘Nandini’.</p>.<p class="bodytext">“Nandini/Nandhini is generic, it represents the name of Goddess and a cow in Hindu mythology. It is not an invented or coined word of the respondent (milk cooperative),” the court said.</p>.<p class="bodytext">The court also said it is to be kept in mind that the appellant, Nandhini Deluxe, had adopted the trade mark in respect of items sold in its restaurants way back in 1989 which was four years after the respondent, Karnataka Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Ltd (KMF), had started using the trademark ‘Nandini’.</p>.<p class="bodytext">“Though there is a phonetic similarity in so far as the words Nandhini/Nandini are concerned, the trademark with logo adopted by the two parties are altogether different,” the bench said, adding the manner in which both are written is also totally different.</p>.<p class="bodytext">“It is difficult to hold that the mark adopted by the appellant (Nandhini) will cause any confusion in the mind of consumers, what to talk of deception. We do not find that the two marks are deceptively similar,” the bench added.</p>.<p class="bodytext">The court said it is difficult to imagine that an average man of ordinary intelligence would associate the goods of the appellant as that of the respondent as not only appearance of the two marks is different, they even relate to different products.</p>.<p class="bodytext">The court allowed a civil appeal by Nandhini Deluxe against the Karnataka High Court judgement of December 2, 2014. The high court had confirmed an order by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board of October 4, 2011, which had allowed objections by KMF against registration of the name ‘Nandhini’ by deputy registrar, trademarks.</p>.<p class="bodytext">The top court restored the order granting registration in favour of Nandhini Deluxe with a modification that it will not be given for the milk and milk products.</p>