In early June, I had covered the Single Judge and Division Bench decision of the Delhi High Court in the trademark dispute between Anchor Health and Beauty Care Pvt Ltd and Procter and Gamble Manufacturing Co Ltd. (available here and here). The Division Bench ruled on two issues, first, whether the plaintiff’s mark ‘ALLROUND PROTECTION’ was descriptive and secondly, whether ‘ALLROUND PROTECTION’ was the primary trademark of the plaintiff. On the first issue, the Division Bench ruled that ‘ALLROUND PROTECTION’ cannot be stated to be descriptive because it possibly describes the quality or property or functionality of the toothpaste, as such description is specific to the product. On the second issue, the Division Bench stated that an argument based on primary trademark renders the process of advertising redundant. Therefore, it ruled that the plaintiff can have two trademarks ‘ANCHOR’ and ‘ALLROUND PROTECTION’ which co-exist in relation to the same product.
Procter & Gamble filed a Special Leave Petition against the Division Bench decision to the Supreme Court. The Apex Court upheld the Division Bench’s order as it is and dismissed the Special Leave Petitions. The full Judgment of the Supreme Court is not available as of now. We will come out with a full analysis once we get our hands on the same!