In the competitive world of fast-moving consumer goods, trademarks are not just identifiers but powerful tools that encapsulate brand identity and consumer trust. The case of Procter & Gamble Manufacturing (Tianjin) Co. Ltd. & Others vs. Anchor Health & Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd., decided on May 30, 2014, by the Delhi High Court, is a landmark dispute that underscores the complexities of trademark law in India. This case revolves around the alleged infringement of the trademark "ALLROUND" and the expression "ALLROUND PROTECTION" by Procter & Gamble's use of "ALL-AROUND PROTECTION" and "ALLROUNDER" in their toothpaste products. The dispute highlights critical issues of trademark distinctiveness, the descriptive nature of marks, and the principle of approbate and reprobate, offering valuable insights into the protection of slogans and taglines under Indian trademark law.

Detailed Factual Background:
Anchor Health & Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd., part of the Anchor Group, is a prominent player in the Indian FMCG sector, known for its dental care products, including toothpaste, under the brand "ANCHOR." Since 2005, Anchor has used the trademark "ALLROUND" and the expression "ALLROUND PROTECTION" for its toothpaste, claiming that these have acquired secondary meaning and distinctiveness. The trademark "ALLROUND" was registered on August 26, 2008, under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, following an application filed on September 2, 2005. Anchor asserted that "ALLROUND PROTECTION" was extensively used in advertising, including in regional languages through transliteration, and had become synonymous with its brand.

Procter & Gamble (P&G), a global conglomerate, entered the Indian toothpaste market in July 2013 with its "ORAL-B" brand, launching products labeled with "ORAL-B ALL-AROUND PROTECTION" and "ORAL-B ALLROUNDER." Anchor alleged that P&G's use of these terms infringed its registered trademark "ALLROUND" and the well-known expression "ALLROUND PROTECTION," accusing P&G of attempting to capitalize on Anchor's established goodwill. P&G, comprising Procter & Gamble Manufacturing (Tianjin) Co. Ltd., Procter & Gamble Business Services Canada Company, and Gillette India Ltd., countered that "ALLROUND" was a descriptive term, incapable of trademark protection, and that their use of "ALL-AROUND PROTECTION" was merely descriptive of their product's qualities.

• Detailed Procedural Background:
  • Anchor filed a suit (CS(OS) No. 1431/2013) in the Delhi High Court, seeking a declaration that "ALLROUND PROTECTION" was a well-known mark, a permanent injunction against P&G's use of "ALL-AROUND PROTECTION" and "ALLROUNDER," and ancillary reliefs like delivery up and rendition of accounts.
  • Anchor applied for an interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to restrain P&G pending the suit's outcome. No ex-parte interim relief was granted.
  • The Single Judge, on May 9, 2014, allowed Anchor's application, granting an interim injunction against P&G, effective after four weeks to allow compliance.
  • P&G filed an appeal (FAO(OS) No. 241/2014) under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the CPC, challenging the interim injunction.
  • The Division Bench, comprising the Chief Justice and Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, heard the appeal at the admission stage with consent and delivered its judgment on May 30, 2014.
     
• Issues Involved in the Case:
  • Whether Anchor's registered trademark "ALLROUND" and the expression "ALLROUND PROTECTION" were distinctive or merely descriptive, and thus entitled to protection?
  • Whether P&G's use of "ALL-AROUND PROTECTION" and "ALLROUNDER" infringed Anchor's trademark rights or constituted a bona fide descriptive use?
  • Whether P&G's prior applications for registration of "ALLROUNDER" in India and "ALL-AROUND PROTECTION" in the United States estopped them from claiming these terms as descriptive?
  • Whether Anchor's use of "ALLROUND PROTECTION" instead of "ALLROUND" constituted non-use of the registered trademark, thereby weakening its claim?
     
• Detailed Submission of Parties:
  • Anchor's Submissions:
    • Anchor argued that "ALLROUND" was a distinctive trademark, registered since 2008, and "ALLROUND PROTECTION" had acquired secondary meaning through extensive use since 2005.
    • They pointed out that P&G's application for "ALLROUNDER" faced objections, and their U.S. registration disclaimed "PROTECTION," suggesting distinctiveness.
    • Anchor relied on several precedents:
      • Wander Ltd. vs. Antox India (P) Ltd., 1990 (2) SCC 399
      • Automatic Electric Ltd. vs. R.K. Dhawan, (1999) (19) PTC 81
      • Indian Hotels Company Ltd. vs. Jiva Institute of Vedic Science & Culture, 2008 (37) PTC 468 (Del)
      • Ruston & Hornsby Ltd. vs. The Zamindara Engineering Co., (1969) 2 SCC 727
      • Ruchi Pvt. Ltd. vs. Indian Flame Enterprises, (2001) PTC 876 (Del)
      • Amar Singh Chawal Wala vs. Shree Vardhman Rice and Genl. Mills, 2009 (40) PTC 417 (Del) (DB)
         
  • P&G's Submissions:
    • P&G contended that "ALLROUND" was descriptive and incapable of protection under Section 9 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
    • They asserted "ALLROUND PROTECTION" described product features and was not used standalone as a trademark by Anchor.
    • P&G challenged reliance on Automatic Electric Ltd., citing it was overruled by:
      • Marico Limited vs. Agro Tech Foods Ltd., 2010 X AD (Del) 214
      • Veerumal Praveen Kumar vs. Needle Industries (India) Ltd., 93 (2001) DLT 600 (DB)
      • Fedders Lloyd Corporation Ltd. vs. Fedders Corporation, 2005 (30) PTC 353 (Del) (DB)
      • Rhizome Distilleries P. Ltd. vs. Pernod Ricard S.A. France, 2010 (42) PTC 806 (Del) (DB)
         
• Detailed Discussion on Judgments and Citations:
  • Wander Ltd. vs. Antox India (P) Ltd., 1990 (2) SCC 399
  • Automatic Electric Ltd. vs. R.K. Dhawan, (1999) (19) PTC 81
  • Indian Hotels Company Ltd. vs. Jiva Institute of Vedic Science & Culture, 2008 (37) PTC 468 (Del)
  • Marico Limited vs. Agro Tech Foods Ltd., 2010 X AD (Del) 214
  • Ruston & Hornsby Ltd. vs. The Zamindara Engineering Co., (1969) 2 SCC 727
  • Ruchi Pvt. Ltd. vs. Indian Flame Enterprises, (2001) PTC 876 (Del)
  • Amar Singh Chawal Wala vs. Shree Vardhman Rice and Genl. Mills, 2009 (40) PTC 417 (Del) (DB)
  • Veerumal Praveen Kumar vs. Needle Industries (India) Ltd., 93 (2001) DLT 600 (DB)
  • Fedders Lloyd Corporation Ltd. vs. Fedders Corporation, 2005 (30) PTC 353 (Del) (DB)
  • Rhizome Distilleries P. Ltd. vs. Pernod Ricard S.A. France, 2010 (42) PTC 806 (Del) (DB)
  • Pankaj Goel vs. Dabur India Limited, 2008 (38) PTC 49 (Del) (DB)
  • Castrol Limited vs. A.K. Mehta, 1997 (17) PTC 408 (DB)
  • Prakash Roadline vs. Prakash Parcel Service, 1992 (2) Arbitration Law Reporter 174
  • Stokely Van Camp, Inc. vs. Heinz India Private Limited, 171 (2010) DLT 16
     
• Detailed Reasoning and Analysis of Judge:
  • Distinctiveness of "ALLROUND": The court found "ALLROUND" distinctive as no Registrar objections were raised under Section 9, and P&G's own application faced objections.
  • Slogans as Trademarks: The court recognized that slogans like "ALLROUND PROTECTION" fall within the definition of a trademark under law.

Case Title: Procter & Gamble Manufacturing (Tianjin) Co. Ltd. & Others Vs. Anchor Health & Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd.
Date of Order: May 30, 2014
Case No.: FAO(OS) No. 241/2014
Name of Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Name of Judge: Chief Justice and Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw

Disclaimer:
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.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor - Patent and Trademark Attorney
Email: ajayamitabhsuman@gmail.com, Ph no: 9990389539