Objection Reply

Date: 25/10/2022
To,
The Registrar of Trade Marks Mumbai
Subject: Reply to Examination report TMR/MUMBAI/EXM/2022/ for Application

Number 5498723 in Class- 9 for the Mark- Micronfiber in the name of
Minhaj Yasin Loriya.
Respected Sir/Madam,
Examination report uploaded on 14/10/2022, the official website of the Trademarks

Registry, a copy of the same is enclosed herewith. Our response to the objections raised
in the examination report is as follows, with reference to the paragraph 1 of the said
examination report we submit that the Applicants subject trademark no way similar to
the conflicting cited mark under section 11 of the trademark act the reasons for the same
are as follows:
1. It is submitted, that the mark “Micronfiber” is a fresh mark created by the

Applicant. This trade mark is proprietor’s own conception and creativity. The
mark is made for a particular purpose; an invention or contrivance a plan or
scheme for effective purpose.
2. It is further submitted, that proprietor is willing to acquire an ingenious respect in

the field of the goods/services which specifically comes under Class- 9 which
includes, Electric Junction Boxes, Electric Distribution Boxes, Electric
Concealed Boxes, Electric Deep Boxes, Electric Fan Boxes, Fan Road And
Electric Modular Boxes, Electric Switch Boxes, Electrical Fluorescent Lamps,
Chokes, Transformers, Electric Switches, Cut Outs, Electric Connectors, Box,
Switch Gears And Boards, Plugs, Sockets, Contact Devices, Cut-Outs, Electrical
Outlet Plates, Electric Switch Plates, Electrical Outlet Plates, Electronic
Regulators, Electric Light Regulators , Controllers And Regulators Fuses, Fuse
Indicators, Fuse Holders, Holders For Electric Coils Condensers, Electric Starters
For Use In Radio Receiving Sets, And Transistorized Radios, Calculators And
Television Sets, Electric Bells And Buzzers, Electric Flats Irons And Electric
Wires And Cables, Electrical Surge And Spike Protection Units, Miniature
Circuit Breakers, Fuse Holders, Distribution Board, Electrical Wiring
Installations And Other Accessories, Computers, Their Peripherals, Software,
Scientific, Nautical, Surveying, Electric, Weighing, Measuring, Photographic,
Cinematographic, Optical, Signaling, Checking (Supervision), Lifesaving And
Teaching Apparatus And Instruments; Apparatus For Recording, Transmission
Or Reproduction Of Sound Or Images; Magnetic Data Carriers, Recording Discs;
Mechanisms For Coin-Operated Apparatus; Cash Registers, Calculating
Machines And Data Processing Equipment; Fire Extinguishing Apparatus, by
virtue of proposed to be used. The Applicant has taken remarkable efforts to
establish the said business and also to promote it under the said mark.
3. It is submitted that, the marks reflected in the Examination Search Report are
very different from the Applicant’s Mark. Thus, no conflicting marks matched
with the Applicant’s mark in the ESR now. It is evident from a single glance at
the word mark that, it is inherently distinctive and therefore, the mark is capable
of being registered as a trade mark. That, said mark therefore is sufficiently
distinctive and imparts to it the best credentials for registration.
4. Firstly “Micronfiber” which is a Word Mark under Application no. 5498723 in

the Applicant’s name Minhaj Yasin Loriya., And the very similar Cited Mark’s
Application details are given in below table:
APPLICATION CONFLICTING PROPRIETOR TYPE OF STATUS
NUMBER MARK NAME MARK
1104861 MICRON MICRON WORD REGISTERED
TECHNOLOGY, MARK
INC.
1294899 MICRON SANJAY WORD ABANDONED
AGGARWAL MARK
1303246 MICRON SUDHIR JAIN WORD REGISTERED (for
MARK wire and cables)
5. The Cited Marks are totally different from the Applicant’s Word Mark as the
subject mark is the combination of the words ‘Micron and Fiber’ which thus
should be considered as a whole.
6. It is also submitted that the Cited Marks are applied in Chandigarh whereas the
Applicant’s mark is applied in Maharashtra, which makes the trade area different
and doesn’t create any kind of confusion in the minds of public., And therefore
the objection must kindly be waived.
7. In assessing the similarity of the Trademarks, all relevant factors relating to the
services should be taken into account. The factors include, inter alia, their nature,
their end-users and their method of use and whether they are in competition with
each other etc. While assessing the similarity of a mark an overall assessment
must be made about the degree of similarity and difference between the marks;
not just the individual concepts of aural and visual differences and similarities.
The respective marks must be compared as a whole, because the average
consumer normally perceives a mark as a whole, The Applicant’s Mark is a
combination of the words Micron and fiber which altogether is a single word
when seen in its entirety i.e ‘Micronfiber’
8. In light of aforesaid, it is submitted that the Cited Mark cannot be a ground for
objection to the registration of the Applicant's Mark.
9. There are various case laws in which courts had specifically dealt with the Issue
of similar marks. Some of the relevant case laws are stated below:
In Cadila Health Care Ltd. Vs. Cadila Pharma Ltd., reported in 2001 (2)
GLH 53 (SC): 2001 (2) GLR 1419 (SC), there was a dispute between the two
brand names i.e. "FALCITAB and "FALCIGO".
The general well settled principles for comparison of trademarks are:
 The trademark must be considered as a whole. It is not right to take a part

of the trademark and compare it with part of the other trademark
 No meticulous or letter by letter comparison is required. Side by side
comparison is not the correct test.
 Comparison should be made from the point of view of a person of average
intelligence and of imperfect recollection.
 The overall structural, visual & phonetic similarity and similarity of the
idea in the two marks and the fact as to whether it is reasonable likelihood
to cause confusion should be taken into account.
10. We respectfully submit that since our mark is highly non-descriptive, it should be
taken as a whole. For this, we need to overlook the definition of the term ‘Mark’
that has been defined under Section 2(m) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. It says
“MARK includes a device, brand, heading, label, ticket, name, signature, word,
letter, numeral, shape of goods, packaging or combination of colors or any
combination thereof”. So it is clear from the above section that a trade mark
should be taken as a whole. The trade mark is a novel innovation and is capable
of establishing its identity in the trade. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Amritdhara Pharmacy vs. Satya Deo Gupta has clearly expressed its view as
“The trade mark is the whole thing-the whole word has to be considered.
Reference was also made to an English decision Willian Bailey (Birminghan)
Ltd's application (1935) 52 RPC 136 wherein a view was taken that ‘it is not
right to take a part of the word and compare with a part of the other word; one
word must be considered as a whole and compared with the other word as a
whole as it is a dangerous method to adopt to divide the word up and seek to
distinguish a portion of it from a portion of the other word’. So our mark is
entitled to be registered.
11. Since the Applicant’s Mark is altogether different from the Cited Marks, there is
no comparison of the Applicant’s Mark with the Cited Marks and hence no
possibility to cause any confusion between them., Therefore, no objection is
maintainable under section 11 of the Trade mark act, 1999
12. It is to be noted that, the reply to the letter is submitted as per section 132 of the
Trade Marks Act, 1999. It is requested to waive the objection raised under section
11 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and accept the application for registration.
Hence, the Honorable Registrar of Trade Marks is kindly requested to accept the
Mark and make it published into Journal of Trade Marks or give us date of
Hearing in the interest of justice.
Yours Faithfully,
Advocate Nidhi Nandu,
For NRN SUITS AND
LAWS.

Objection Reply

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Objection Reply

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Objection Reply

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Date: 25/10/2022

Subject: Reply to Examination report TMR/MUMBAI/EXM/2022/ for Application

Examination report uploaded on 14/10/2022, the official website of the Trademarks

1. It is submitted, that the mark “Micronfiber” is a fresh mark created by the

2. It is further submitted, that proprietor is willing to acquire an ingenious respect in

4. Firstly “Micronfiber” which is a Word Mark under Application no. 5498723 in

 The trademark must be considered as a whole. It is not right to take a part

You might also like