The Delhi High Court found in a case before it, ruled that the packaging of the

respondents product was a brazen and slavish imitation of the petitioners well
known international mark Jolen and therefore it could not be allowed to be
continued. The respondents depicted the word Jolen within an oval ring with
lettering and front identical to that of the petitioner and even copied the word
Jolen. The mark used by the respondents was slavish imitation of the mark of the
petitioner. There being no doubt that an average customer would mistake the
respondents products as that of the petitioner or as counterfeit of the petitioners
obviously more expensive foreign branded products. Its use by the respondents was
not allowed to be continued. The petitioners mark was there in 40 different
countries of the world as a registered trademark. The owners of Jolen had
international reputation whereas the challenger was trying to flourish only an
imitation. Keeping this in mind, Petitioner, which is first both in the international and
the domestic market as its products with the mark JOLEN are shown to be available
in India and prior to the use of the mark JOLEN on cosmetic products by
Respondents in India, the court ruled in favour of the petitioner.

Registration in case of Honest

Concurrent Use Section 12
For instance, one partys educational institution was started in 1995 and the others
in 1994. One of them applied Goenka and the other as GD Goenka Public
School. It could not be said that in one years time the institution had acquired
such a high name and fame that the other could divert students by using the word
Goenka which was the surname of both the parties. Thus, it was a case of honest
concurrent use.