Curse of Biscuit Cases

Posted on by Rudrajyoti Nath Ray

It is now settled, proprietor of one registered trade mark can sue proprietor of another registered trade mark [Raj Kumar Prasad v. Abbott Healthcare Pvt Ltd., (2014) 60 PTC 51, Corza International v. Future Bath Products Pvt Ltd., 2023 SCC OnLine Del 153].

Cookie

It is trite, Court has to tread cautiously when it has to psychoanalyze. I am unable to subscribe, there is similarity in biscuit design. A comparison of surface designs reveals, designs are almost totally dissimilar.

But why, even while using ‘FAB!’ for its other biscuits, did Parle Product Private Limited choose to add an ‘O’ solely for its cream filled chocolate sandwich biscuit? ‘!’ is merely ‘I’ in disguise – promotional material bears this out. ‘FAB!O’ is meaningless. Are ‘FABIO’ and ‘OREO’ phonetically similar? Rhyming word marks have been held to be phonetically similar. A customer of average intelligence and imperfect recollection may legitimately be expected to draw an association between ‘FAB!O’ and ‘OREO’ marks. A customer of average intelligence and imperfect recollection cannot be a person who is a devotee of either cookie.

– Hon’ble Justice C. Hari Shankar of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, Intercontinental Great Brands v. Parle Product Private Limited, [CS(COMM) 64/2021] decided on 10.02.2023.

'The Last Word' seeks to include not only wise and witty sayings but also curiosities. These words are not of obligation but of delight. I am not alone in my refusal to believe, law is tedious. For all who escaped these percipient eyes, mea culpa maxima. History, after all, has many cunning passages, contrived corridors and issues.