{"id":5642,"date":"2025-07-01T11:31:52","date_gmt":"2025-07-01T11:31:52","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?p=5642"},"modified":"2025-07-01T11:31:55","modified_gmt":"2025-07-01T11:31:55","slug":"there-is-difference-between-a-trademark-being-common-on-the-register-and-common-to-trade","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/there-is-difference-between-a-trademark-being-common-on-the-register-and-common-to-trade\/","title":{"rendered":"There is difference between a trademark being common on the register and common to trade"},"content":{"rendered":"<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Case_Analysis_Apex_Laboratories_Pvt_Ltd_Vs_Knoll_Healthcare_Pvt_Ltd\"><\/span>Case Analysis: Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. Vs Knoll Healthcare Pvt Ltd.<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<div class=\"case-details\">\n<p><strong>Case Title:<\/strong> Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. Vs Knoll Healthcare Pvt Ltd.<\/p><div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_82_2 counter-hierarchy ez-toc-counter ez-toc-grey ez-toc-container-direction\">\n<div class=\"ez-toc-title-container\">\n<p class=\"ez-toc-title\" style=\"cursor:inherit\">Table of Contents<\/p>\n<span class=\"ez-toc-title-toggle\"><a href=\"#\" class=\"ez-toc-pull-right ez-toc-btn ez-toc-btn-xs ez-toc-btn-default ez-toc-toggle\" aria-label=\"Toggle Table of Content\"><span class=\"ez-toc-js-icon-con\"><span class=\"\"><span class=\"eztoc-hide\" style=\"display:none;\">Toggle<\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-icon-toggle-span\"><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" class=\"list-377408\" width=\"20px\" height=\"20px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\"><path d=\"M6 6H4v2h2V6zm14 0H8v2h12V6zM4 11h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2zM4 16h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2z\" fill=\"currentColor\"><\/path><\/svg><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" class=\"arrow-unsorted-368013\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" width=\"10px\" height=\"10px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" version=\"1.2\" baseProfile=\"tiny\"><path d=\"M18.2 9.3l-6.2-6.3-6.2 6.3c-.2.2-.3.4-.3.7s.1.5.3.7c.2.2.4.3.7.3h11c.3 0 .5-.1.7-.3.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7zM5.8 14.7l6.2 6.3 6.2-6.3c.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7c-.2-.2-.4-.3-.7-.3h-11c-.3 0-.5.1-.7.3-.2.2-.3.5-.3.7s.1.5.3.7z\"\/><\/svg><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n<nav><ul class='ez-toc-list ez-toc-list-level-1 ' ><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-1\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/there-is-difference-between-a-trademark-being-common-on-the-register-and-common-to-trade\/#Case_Analysis_Apex_Laboratories_Pvt_Ltd_Vs_Knoll_Healthcare_Pvt_Ltd\" >Case Analysis: Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. Vs Knoll Healthcare Pvt Ltd.<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/there-is-difference-between-a-trademark-being-common-on-the-register-and-common-to-trade\/#Factual_Background\" >Factual Background<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/there-is-difference-between-a-trademark-being-common-on-the-register-and-common-to-trade\/#Procedural_Background\" >Procedural Background<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/there-is-difference-between-a-trademark-being-common-on-the-register-and-common-to-trade\/#Legal_Issue\" >Legal Issue<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-5\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/there-is-difference-between-a-trademark-being-common-on-the-register-and-common-to-trade\/#Discussion_on_Judgments\" >Discussion on Judgments<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-6\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/there-is-difference-between-a-trademark-being-common-on-the-register-and-common-to-trade\/#Courts_Observations\" >Court\u2019s Observations<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-7\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/there-is-difference-between-a-trademark-being-common-on-the-register-and-common-to-trade\/#Reasoning_and_Analysis_of_the_Judge\" >Reasoning and Analysis of the Judge<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-8\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/there-is-difference-between-a-trademark-being-common-on-the-register-and-common-to-trade\/#Final_Decision\" >Final Decision<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-9\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/there-is-difference-between-a-trademark-being-common-on-the-register-and-common-to-trade\/#Law_Settled_in_This_Case\" >Law Settled in This Case<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n\n<p><strong>Date of Order:<\/strong> 19 June 2025<\/p>\n<p><strong>Case Number:<\/strong> C.S. No.355 of 2020<\/p>\n<p><strong>Neutral Citation:<\/strong> 2025:MHC:1441<\/p>\n<p><strong>Name of Court:<\/strong> High Court of Judicature at Madras<\/p>\n<p><strong>Name of Judge:<\/strong> Hon&#8217;ble Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<p>This case explores the nuanced distinction in trademark law between a mark being merely common on the register and truly common in actual trade. The High Court of Madras, in deciding the dispute between Apex Laboratories\u2019 mark \u201cZINCOVIT\u201d and Knoll Healthcare\u2019s mark \u201cZINOLVITA,\u201d examined whether the plaintiff\u2019s mark, although derived from descriptive elements, had acquired distinctiveness in real-world commerce that merited protection, despite the presence of similar marks on the register.<\/p>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Factual_Background\"><\/span>Factual Background<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>Apex Laboratories coined and adopted the trademark \u201cZINCOVIT\u201d in 1988 for vitamin and mineral supplements, combining the words zinc and vitamins. The mark was registered under registration number 487453 and had been used continuously and extensively across India for decades, supported by high sales turnover and strong brand recall. The plaintiff also obtained copyright registration over the artistic work of the product\u2019s packaging.<\/p>\n<p>In or about 2014, the defendant Knoll Healthcare adopted the mark \u201cZINOLVITA,\u201d which also combined references to zinc and vitamins, and initially used packaging closely resembling that of the plaintiff. Apex Laboratories alleged that this created confusion among consumers and amounted to infringement and passing off, particularly given the similar phonetic structure and identical market segment.<\/p>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Procedural_Background\"><\/span>Procedural Background<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>Apex Laboratories instituted <strong>C.S. No.355 of 2020<\/strong> seeking a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from infringing its registered trademark and copyright, along with rectification proceedings <strong>O.P.(TM) No.1 of 2023<\/strong> to remove \u201cZINOLVITA\u201d from the register.<\/p>\n<p>The defendant filed <strong>O.P.(TM) No.2 of 2023<\/strong> seeking to impose a limitation on the plaintiff\u2019s mark by disclaiming exclusivity over the prefix \u201cZIN,\u201d arguing it was descriptive and common in the trade.<\/p>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Legal_Issue\"><\/span>Legal Issue<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The central legal issue was whether \u201cZINCOVIT,\u201d despite containing descriptive elements, had through use and reputation acquired distinctiveness that warranted protection against \u201cZINOLVITA,\u201d and whether the defendant could defeat the infringement claim by arguing that similar marks were common on the register, even if not common in active trade.<\/p>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Discussion_on_Judgments\"><\/span>Discussion on Judgments<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The plaintiff cited <em>Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd.<\/em>, (2001) 5 SCC 73, to stress the stricter standard for medicinal products, where even small similarities can deceive due to public health implications.<\/p>\n<p>They also referred to <em>Pidilite Industries Ltd. v. Jubilant Agri &amp; Consumer Products Ltd.<\/em>, (2014) 57 PTC 617 (Bom), to assert that long-standing and exclusive use can make a coined mark distinctive, even if it is partly descriptive.<\/p>\n<p>The defendant relied on <em>Marico Ltd. v. Agro Tech Foods Ltd.<\/em>, 2010 SCC OnLine Bom 470, arguing that common descriptive elements cannot be monopolized. They also invoked <em>J.R. Kapoor v. Micronix India<\/em>, (1994) Supp (3) SCC 215, where the Supreme Court held that words which are essentially descriptive of the product\u2019s quality or content are generally ineligible for exclusive rights.<\/p>\n<p>Both parties discussed <em>Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma v. Navaratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories<\/em>, AIR 1965 SC 980, on the classic test of deceptive similarity, and <em>Corn Products Refining Co. v. Shangrila Food Products Ltd.<\/em>, AIR 1960 SC 142, emphasizing phonetic and visual similarity.<\/p>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Courts_Observations\"><\/span>Court\u2019s Observations<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The Court in its discussion highlighted that merely pointing to the presence of similar marks on the register is insufficient unless it is shown that such marks are actively used in the market and recognized by consumers. The real question is whether the mark is common in actual trade, not just on paper.<\/p>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Reasoning_and_Analysis_of_the_Judge\"><\/span>Reasoning and Analysis of the Judge<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The Court carefully analyzed evidence of the plaintiff\u2019s extensive and continuous use of \u201cZINCOVIT\u201d since 1988, substantial sales figures, and the market\u2019s association of the mark with the plaintiff\u2019s goods. It distinguished between a mark being common on the register \u2014 which might only reflect the presence of other registrations that are dormant or unused \u2014 and being genuinely common in the trade, meaning widespread and active use by multiple traders leading to dilution of distinctiveness.<\/p>\n<p>The defendant failed to show evidence that marks similar to \u201cZINCOVIT\u201d were widely used in the market and recognized by consumers, rather than being merely registered.<\/p>\n<p>The Court observed that the defendant\u2019s adoption of \u201cZINOLVITA,\u201d which not only reproduced similar phonetic elements but also initially copied the plaintiff\u2019s packaging design, suggested a deliberate intent to trade on the plaintiff\u2019s goodwill.<\/p>\n<p>The judge held that \u201cZINCOVIT\u201d had acquired distinctiveness as a composite mark through decades of use, and that the defendant\u2019s arguments based on descriptiveness and presence of similar marks on the register could not override evidence of actual consumer association with the plaintiff\u2019s mark.<\/p>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Final_Decision\"><\/span>Final Decision<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The Court decreed the suit in favour of Apex Laboratories by granting a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from using \u201cZINOLVITA\u201d or any deceptively similar mark. It also directed removal of the defendant\u2019s mark from the trademark register, dismissed the defendant\u2019s rectification plea seeking to disclaim exclusivity over \u201cZIN,\u201d and awarded costs to the plaintiff.<\/p>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Law_Settled_in_This_Case\"><\/span>Law Settled in This Case<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The judgment reaffirmed that to weaken a claim of infringement, it is not enough for a defendant to show that similar marks are common on the register; it must be proved that such marks are genuinely common in trade and actively used in the marketplace.<\/p>\n<p>The Court clarified that even descriptive or partially descriptive marks can acquire distinctiveness through long, exclusive, and extensive use, making them protectable under trademark law.<\/p>\n<p><b>Disclaimer: <\/b>The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.<\/p>\n<p><b>Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman<\/b>, IP Adjutor &#8211; Patent and Trademark Attorney<br \/>\nEmail: ajayamitabhsuman@gmail.com, Ph no: 9990389539<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Case Analysis: Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. Vs Knoll Healthcare Pvt Ltd. Case Title: Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. Vs Knoll Healthcare Pvt Ltd. Date of Order: 19 June 2025 Case Number: C.S. No.355 of 2020 Neutral Citation: 2025:MHC:1441 Name of Court: High Court of Judicature at Madras Name of Judge: Hon&#8217;ble Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy This case<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":56,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"two_page_speed":[],"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"_joinchat":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[24],"class_list":{"0":"post-5642","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-intellectual-property","7":"tag-just-in"},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5642","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/56"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5642"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5642\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5642"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5642"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5642"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}