Trademark disputes often hinge on the usage and interpretation of specific words or phrases. In a recent case, the plaintiff, who claimed trademark rights in the word "SILK" for paints and allied products, filed a suit against the defendant for using the term "HALO SILK" in relation to similar products. However, the court declined to grant an interim injunction to the plaintiff, citing the defendant's use of the word "SILK" in a non-trademark manner. This article delves into the legal intricacies surrounding the use of words in a non-trademark significance and its implications in trademark litigation.

Background:
The plaintiff asserted ownership over the trademark "SILK" for paints and allied products since 1980, with various trademark registrations obtained since 2006. Additionally, the plaintiff used variations of the mark, such as "BURGER SILK" and "LUXOL SILK." The defendant, on the other hand, used the term "HALO SILK" for similar products, albeit with the word "SILK" displayed in a smaller font to denote a specific finish of their product.

Legal Analysis:
The crux of the dispute lies in whether the defendant's use of the word "SILK" constitutes trademark infringement or if it is merely descriptive or indicative of a product feature. Trademark law protects distinctive marks that serve as source identifiers, distinguishing the goods or services of one party from those of others. However, descriptive or generic terms that merely describe the characteristics or qualities of a product are not afforded trademark protection.

In this case, the court considered the context and manner in which the word "SILK" was used by the defendant. While "HALO" was prominently displayed, "SILK" was presented in a smaller font and was associated with a specific product feature or finish. The court concluded that the word "SILK" was used descriptively to denote a particular attribute of the defendant's product rather than as a source identifier.

Furthermore, the court likely assessed the likelihood of confusion among consumers. Given the prominent display of the distinctive term "HALO" and the descriptive nature of "SILK," consumers are less likely to be misled into believing that the defendant's product originates from the same source as the plaintiff's.

Implications:
This case underscores the importance of context and usage when assessing trademark disputes. The mere presence of a word in a mark does not automatically confer trademark protection if it is used in a non-trademark manner. Courts examine the overall impression created by the mark, considering factors such as prominence, size, and context, to determine whether it functions as a source identifier or merely describes a product feature.

Trademark owners must exercise caution when asserting rights over common or descriptive terms, especially when they are used in conjunction with distinctive elements. Conversely, businesses should be mindful of the potential implications of using descriptive terms in their branding and marketing efforts to avoid infringement claims.

Conclusion:
The case highlights the nuanced approach taken by courts in trademark disputes involving words used in a non-trademark significance. By considering factors such as prominence, context, and consumer perception, courts strive to strike a balance between protecting legitimate trademarks and preventing undue restrictions on competition and innovation.

Case Title: Burger Paints India Ltd. Vs JSW Paints Pvt. Ltd.
Order Date: 12.12.2023
Case No. CS 64 of 2020
Name of Court: Calcutta High Court
Neutral Citation:N.A.
Name of Hon'ble Judge: Krishna Rao H.J.

Disclaimer:
Ideas, thoughts, views, information, discussions and interpretation expressed herein are being shared in the public Interest. Readers' discretion is advised as these are subject to my subjectivity and may contain human errors in perception, interpretation and presentation of the fact and issue involved herein.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor - Patent and Trademark Attorney
Email: [email protected], Ph no: 9990389539