FORM TM-O

TRADE MARKS ACT, 1999

Attorney Code:1822

FORM OF COUNTERSTATEMENT
(Section 21(2), 47, 57, 59(2); Rules 44, 98, 103 and 105)

IN THE MATTER OF OPPOSITION APPLICATION NO. AMD-

1281073 by Royal Classic Mills Private Limited Address at No. 31,

Puliyamara Thottam, Manglam Road, Tripur-641 604, Tripur, Dist

Tamilnadu, India.

To

TRADEMARK APPLICATION No. 5980117 for the trademark

BRUN CLAIR BY NIYATI RAVANI in Class 35 in the name of Niyati

Ravani Address at Survey No. 645-Plot No. 3, Kusum Villa, B/h.

Karnavati Club, Mamatpura, Makarba, Ahmedabad, Gujarat-380051,

India.

I, Niyati Ravani is an Individual Person address at Survey No. 645-Plot No. 3,

Kusum Villa, B/h. Karnavati Club, Mamatpura, Makarba, Ahmedabad, Gujarat-

380051, India hereby gives the reply of Notice of opposition that the followings are:

THE GROUNDS ON WHICH THE APPLICANT RELY:-

1
1. That the Applicant is an Individual Person having principal place of the business

at Survey No. 645-Plot No. 3, Kusum Villa, B/h. Karnavati Club, Mamatpura,

Makarba, Ahmedabad, Gujarat-380051, India.

2. That the applicant is lawful and legitimate proprietor of the trademark of

“BRUN CLAIR BY NIYATI RAVANI ” in class 30 and 35 (hereinafter referred to

as the said trademark of the opponent) details of which are as below:

Sr. Application Trademark Class Status

No. No.
01 5980116 BRUN CLAIR BY 30 Accepted and
Advertised
NIYATI RAVANI
02 5980117 BRUN CLAIR BY 35 Pending

NIYATI RAVANI

3. That the applicant has been carrying on an established and reputed business

inter alia manufacturing and/or marketing and/or selling goods “That the

applicant has been carrying on an established and reputed business inter alia

manufacturing and/or marketing and/or selling goods “Bakery Goods,

Preparations for making Bakery products, Mixes for making bakery products,

Chocolate filling for bakery products, pastry, pastry mixes, Frozen Pastry, Pastry

Dough, Bread, Ice Cream, Cookies Pastries, Cakes, Tarts and biscuits (Cookies),

Confectionery, Chocolates, Prepared Desserts (Pastries)” and services for

providing “ Retail sale services of bakery products, Retail services provided by

bakery shops, Retail Shop Window display arrangement services, Biscuits

management for shops, Retail services provided through Shop-at-home parties”

(hereinafter referred to as the aforesaid goods and services of the Applicant).

2
4. It is submitted that the BRUN CLAIR is one word and its French name that mean

“Light Brown in colour” and also “Carmel” in respect of the above mentioned

goods and services. Therefore, applicant is honest and bonafide adopter of

trademark “BRUN CLAIR BY NIYATI RAVANI”. That the applicant is prior

user adopter and applicant of the trademark BRUN CLAIR BY NIYATI

RAVANI in respect of provide above mentioned services. It is submitted that the

Applicant is genuine adopter and the lawful proprietor of the said mark. The

applicant has accrued an enormous amount of goodwill and reputation by

constantly and consistently delivering quality products and services in the

market.

5. The applicant submits that since the date of adoption, the applicant is

continuously, extensively, openly and honestly using said mark for the aforesaid

goods/products and provided services in the market.

6. That the mark of the Applicant was advertised in the Trade Marks Journal No.

2129 Regular dated 06th November, 2023 (made available to public on 06/11/2023)

at Page No. 11870 upon which the present opposition is based.

7. That by virtue of its honest and bonafide use and adoption the said trademark

BRUN CLAIR BY NIYATI RAVANI of the Applicant has gained immense

reputation and goodwill amongst the trade segment and market. Moreover, by

virtue of continuous, extensive and exclusive use coupled with the sales

promotion activities and propaganda, the Trademark BRUN CLAIR BY NIYATI

RAVANI is extensively associated and identified with the applicant only. The

Applicant has been continuously, regularly and by spending enormous amounts

3
 of monies, efforts and skills has been promoting and advertising their goods and

provided services and business under the said trade mark through various

means and modes. The Applicant till date has spent a significant amount of

money in publicity, advertisements and promotions. That in consequence of the

aforesaid and the Applicant extensive use of its said trademark and the high

standards and quality of the Applicant’s said goods and provided services there

under, the Applicant’s said trade mark BRUN CLAIR BY NIYATI RAVANI

enjoys an excellent and enviable reputation in the market and trade.

8. It is submitted that the Opponent has filed the present Notice of Opposition

solely with the view to create hurdles and/or obstacles to the registration of the

Applicant mark. The Notice of Opposition is sought to be dismissed and/or

rejected. The present Notice of Opposition does not contain any valid reason. The

onus is therefore on the Opponent to prove each and every contention thereof.

9. At the outset the Applicant deny all and any single averment/s, claim/s,

contention/s and allegation/s contained in the Notice of Opposition except those

which are specifically admitted herein. Without prejudice to the foregoing

contentions the Applicants answer the averments contained in the Notice of

Opposition in seriatim, while craving leave not to refer to the averments in

verbatim for the sake of brevity.

A. That the contentions made in the paragraph 1 to 13 of the Notice of Opposition

by the opponent are not admitted by the applicant and are hereby denied. It is

denied that the opponent is in the business of manufacture and sale of wide

range of Provision of information and advisory services relating to e-commerce,

Wholesale And Retail Trading Of hosiery and readymade garments, textile

4
products, garment accessories, Marketing, Advertisement, Retail Outlets And

Providing Assistance in the field of product commercialization within the

framework of a franchise contract thereto for a long time. It is submitted that the

opponent has no knowledge about the difference between the trademark and

registered trademark. It is submitted that the opponent has applied the

trademark application No. 5924804 on 06/05/2023 as proposed to be use which

status is advertised and accepted not registered in Hon’ble Trademarks Registry

since 2023. Hence the contention of the opponent that the opponent is the

present Registered Proprietor of the trademark BRUN in respect of provides

above mentioned services is denied by the applicant. It is denied that the mark

“BRUN” has been in use since 2023 with the goodwill of the user right and the

privilege attached with the mark, with effect from 06-05-2023. It is submitted that

the opponent has applied the trademark on 06/05/2023 as proposed to be used

which proves that the applicant has even not started to use the impugned mark

in the market. Further the opponent is called upon to produce cogent legal

documents to prove all his confident claims regarding his use the mark on

06/05/2023. It is pertinent to note that the opponent has adopted and applied the

mark on 06/05/2023 as proposed to be used and on other hand the opponent has

claimed that the trademark being used by the opponent through continuously,

extensively and bonafidely ever since 06-05-2023 in respect of the aforesaid

goods and the said trademark has become popular and has attained a high

reputation which create contradiction of the opponent’s mark and their user

such varied contradictions in the statement of the opponent and the opponent

has tried to mislead and misguide the Hon’ble Trade Marks Registrar to acquired

goodwill and reputation. It is submitted that the opponent is required to prove

his sky-high contentions regarding acquired the so-called reputation and

goodwill under the trademark BRUN in respect of provide the above

5
mentioned services by way of submitting cogent evidences. Further the applicant

has applied the trademark BRUN CLAIR BY NIYATI RAVANI in respect of

provide above mentioned good and services which is totally different to the

opponent’s mark and their provide goods and services and trading channel.

Therefore the applicant is not concern with the alleged use and reputation of the

opponent’s mark. Hence the contention of the paragraph No. 5 is denied by the

applicant. Further the opponent has mentioned trademark application No.

5924804 for the trademark BRUN in respect of the provide above mentioned

services in class 35 which is applied on 06/05/2023 as proposed to be used as well

as applied the same trademark BRUN vide application No. 6158848 and 6158850

in respect of provide the above mentioned same services in class 35 on 21/10/2023

as proposed to be used which proves that the opponent has even not started to

use the said trademark in the market. Further the opponent has adopted and

applied the trademark BRUN in respect of he provide services “Provision of

information and advisory services relating to ecommerce, Wholesale And Retail

Trading Of hosiery and readymade garments, textile products, advertisement,

Marketing, Retail Outlets And Providing Assistance in the field of product

commercialization within the framework of a franchise contract’ whereas the

applicant has adopted and applied the trademark “BRUN CLAIR BY NIYATI

RAVANI” in respect of provide of goods ““Bakery Goods, Preparations for

making Bakery products, Mixes for making bakery products, Chocolate filling

for bakery products, pastry, pastry mixes, Frozen Pastry, Pastry Dough, Bread,

Ice Cream, Cookies Pastries, Cakes, Tarts and biscuits (Cookies), Confectionery,

Chocolates, Prepared Desserts (Pastries)” and services for providing “ Retail sale

services of bakery products, Retail services provided by bakery shops, Retail

Shop Window display arrangement services, Biscuits management for shops,

Retail services provided through Shop-at-home parties” which is totally different

6
than the opponent’s mark as well as different trading channel therefore the

applicant is not at all concern with the alleged information of opponent’s mark.

It is submitted that the opponent has applied the trademarks on 2023 as

proposed to be used and the other hand the opponent has claimed that the

Opponent has gained impeccable reputation and immense goodwill for his

trademark BRUN, owing to the continuous and extensive usage since 2023 which

create contradiction of the opponent’s statements and mark which create

surprise. Further the opponent is called upon the contention that the opponent

has also promoted and popularized the said trade mark by wide spread

advertisement and publicity in various means and spent a substantial amount for

making such sales promotional campaign during several years by documentary

evidences. It is surprised that the opponent has adopted the trademark BRUN as

proposed to be used on 2023 and other hand said trade mark has already

acquired distinctiveness through secondary meaning. The opponents are hereby

called upon to prove the said contentions by producing proof thereof. It is

submitted that the applicant has applied the trademark BRUN CLAIR BY

NIYATI RAVANI” in which BRUN CLAIR is one word and its French name that

mean “Light Brown in colour” and also “Carmel” and NIYATI RAVANI is the

proprietor name of the applicant. Further the applicant has adopted and applied

the trademark BRUN CLAIR BY NIYATI RAVANI in respect of services

“Bakery Goods, Preparations for making Bakery products, Mixes for making

bakery products, Chocolate filling for bakery products, pastry, pastry mixes,

Frozen Pastry, Pastry Dough, Bread, Ice Cream, Cookies Pastries, Cakes, Tarts

and biscuits (Cookies), Confectionery, Chocolates, Prepared Desserts (Pastries)”

and services for providing “ Retail sale services of bakery products, Retail

services provided by bakery shops, Retail Shop Window display arrangement

services, Biscuits management for shops, Retail services provided through Shop-

7
at-home parties” which is totally different to the opponent’s mark and their

services as well as trading channel of both the marks are totally different hence

the claim of alleged prior adopter and user of the mark by the opponent has no

legs to stand in this present matter. It is denied that the opponent has also been

adopting and using several trademarks comprising inter alia the essential feature

“BRUN” for his vast range of products as a key, leading, prominent and essential

portion of its, house mark, trade name in respect of various aspects of its

operation and activities. The opponents are hereby called upon to prove the said

contentions by producing proof thereof. It is denied that Due to such long,

extensive and continuous use coupled with wide publicity, it has become

distinctive and exclusively associated with opponent and recognized by the trade

and public as well- known trade mark. It is submitted that the opponent applied

the trademark application on 06/05/2023 as proposed to be used and other hand

the opponent has claiming that the said trademark has become well-known

trademark such varied contradiction statement of the opponent. It is submitted

that the opponent is claiming so-called well knownness of his mark which

creates big surprise to the applicant. That the opponent is not properly aware

about the concept as well as criteria to prove the trade mark as a well known. It is

submitted that just by making an averment of well known ness of a mark, a

trademark does not become well known, proving the same becomes mandatory.

At this juncture, such conduct of the opponent clearly shows the opponent as self

proclaimed expert. That the well-knownness claimed by the opponent has to be

supported by way of strict documentary proof recognized by law as provided

under the provision of section 2(1) (zg) of the Act. The confident claims of the

opponent regarding the well-knownness of its marks cannot be accepted without

cogent proofs. It is submitted that the opponent has continuously bragged about

that the Opponent has alleged continuous and uninterrupted use from 2023, the

8
said trademark has gained immense goodwill and reputation with respect to

providing of the said services but has failed to prove the reason behind filing

this obnoxious opposition. It is further submitted that the opponent is called

upon prove to the statement by cogent documentary evidences. It is submitted

that the applicant has applied the mark BRUN CLAIR BY NIYATI RAVANI is

totally different as well as provide different services and trading channel of both

the parties are totally different hence the contention of the opponent that the

trademark BRUN has been used since 2023 and has entitled the Opponent with

the right to use the said trademark in relation to the said goods and also prevent

others from using the same or deceptively and confusingly similar trademark to

that of the Opponent is denied by the applicant. It is denied that the opponent

has widely advertised the trademark through different media, and the opponent

as such has already spent substantial sum of money on the publicity of the said

trade mark and in consequence thereof solid and enduring in the market. It is

submitted that the opponent is called upon to prove the contentions by

producing authentic and strong documentary evidences in support thereof. IT is

submitted that the applicant has adopted and applied the trademark BRUN

CLAIR BY NIYATI RAVANI in respect of the goods “Bakery Goods,

Preparations for making Bakery products, Mixes for making bakery products,

Chocolate filling for bakery products, pastry, pastry mixes, Frozen Pastry, Pastry

Dough, Bread, Ice Cream, Cookies Pastries, Cakes, Tarts and biscuits (Cookies),

Confectionery, Chocolates, Prepared Desserts (Pastries)” and services for

providing “ Retail sale services of bakery paroducts, Retail services provided by

bakery shops, Retail Shop Window display arrangement services, Biscuits

management for shops, Retail services provided through Shop-at-home parties”

which is totally different to the goods and providing services of the opponent.

Further the opponent are not dealing in applicant’s products and not provide

9
 the similar services as that of the applicant having no common customer

therefore the consumer can easily purchase the products of the applicant by

viewing the trademark of the applicant. Hence the contention of the opponent

that the members of trade and public invariably associate the said trademark

with his products alone and none else and his trademark has become a synonym

of quality, reliability and authenticity in respect of the aforesaid goods sold by

the opponent and the trademark BRUN has become distinctive of and

exclusively identified with the opponent is denied by the applicant.

B. That the contentions made in the paragraph 14 to 25 of the Notice of Opposition

by the opponent are not admitted by the applicant and are hereby denied. It is

denied that the trademark “BRUN CLAIR BY NIYATI RAVANI” of the applicant

in respect of provide above mentioned services is identical and /or deceptively

similar to the honestly adopted prior and alleged highly used, alleged well-

known trademark of the opponent and denied that the services in respect of

which the applicant is seeking registration and the goods in respect of which the

opponent’s trademark is used, are the similar and /or allied or cognate goods. It

is submitted that the applicant applied the trademark BRUN CLAIR BY NIYATI

RAVANI in which the BRUN CLAIR is one word and its French name that mean

“Light Brown in colour” and also “Carmel” which is connected with applicant’s

bakery products and their business and NIYATI RAVANI is the owner/trade

name of the applicant, hence the applicant is honestly adopted the trademark

BRUN CLAIR BY NIYATI RAVANI which is totally different to the opponent’s

mark. Further the applicant has applied the trademark in respect of goods

“Bakery Goods, Preparations for making Bakery products, Mixes for making

bakery products, Chocolate filling for bakery products, pastry, pastry mixes,

Frozen Pastry, Pastry Dough, Bread, Ice Cream, Cookies Pastries, Cakes, Tarts

10
and biscuits (Cookies), Confectionery, Chocolates, Prepared Desserts (Pastries)”

and services for providing “ Retail sale services of bakery paroducts, Retail

services provided by bakery shops, Retail Shop Window display arrangement

services, Biscuits management for shops, Retail services provided through Shop-

at-home parties” where as the opponent has adopted the mark in respect of

provide the goods/services in “Provision of information and advisory services

relating to ecommerce, Wholesale And Retail Trading Of hosiery and readymade

garments, textile products, advertisement, Marketing, Retail Outlets And

Providing Assistance in the field of product commercialization within the

framework of a franchise contract “ which is totally different and the opponent

are not dealing/trading in applicant’s products and not provide the similar

services as that of the applicant having no common customer therefore the

consumer can easily purchase the products and rendering services of the

applicant by viewing the trademark of the applicant. Therefore it is respectfully

submitted that the both the trademarks and goods/products as well as services

of the applicants and the opponent are totally different and the opponent cannot

claim the exclusive rights over the wide classification of good and provide

services under the mark. The applicant submits that in the very well-known case

of Nandhini Deluxe vs. Kamataka Co-Operative Milk Producers Federation

Ltd. (AIR 2018 SC 3516) “Where it was held that the Nandini and Nandhini both the

parties were allowed to use the mark; in which one party was in the business of Milk

Products and the other for the Restaurant services”. Hence the contention of the

opponent that the origin of good, area of operation is similar and the trade

channel of the opponent and the applicant is similar, attracting the provisions of

TRIPLE IDENTITY is denied by the applicant. It is submitted that the BRUN

CLAIR is one word and its French name that mean “Light Brown in colour” and

also “Carmel”. Hence the applicant has adopted the mark BRUN CLAIR BY

11
NIYATI RAVANI distinguishing the products of the Applicants’ from the other.

Further the applicant has applied the said trademark in respect of said services

and the opponent do not trade and provide services for the services of the

applicant provides and has sought registration for the goods and services. It is

further strongly submitted that the opponent’s mark does not give monopoly to

the traders to restrict dissimilar/different marks for registration for different

products under the same. Hence, the contention of the Opponent that the trade

marks of the Applicant is devoid of distinctive character and not capable of

distinguishing the Applicant’s goods” is baseless and meaningless. That the

opponent is not properly aware about the concept as well as criteria of the trade

mark as a well known. It is submitted that just by making an averment of well

known ness of a mark, a trademark does not become well known, proving the

same becomes mandatory. The confident claims of the opponent regarding the

well-knownness of its marks cannot be accepted without cogent proofs. It is

submitted that the applicant has adopted and applied the trademark BRUN

CLAIR BY NIYATI RAVANI in respect of above mentioned goods/services for

distinguishing the trade mark as well as products and services of the applicant

from those of others therefore the consumer are easily purchasing the goods of

the applicant merely by viewing the mark. It is submitted that the trademark

BRUN CLAIR BY NIYATI RAVANI as well as products and provided services

are much too different to each other. Hence there can be no confusion among the

consumers regarding the two marks. That the applicant’s mark is totally

dissimilar and disparate visually as well as structurally than the opponent’s

mark. Even the provide services are much too different as well as trading

channel of the applicant and opponent are totally different. Hence the opponent

are not dealing/trading in applicant’s products and services as that of the

applicant having no common customer therefore the consumer can easily

12
purchase the products and rendering the services of the applicant by viewing

the trademark BRUN CLAIR BY NIYATI RAVANI of the applicant. Further,

since the date of adoption, the applicant has been using the said trade mark

continuously and uninterruptedly in the market and has acquired tremendous

reputation and goodwill as well as inherent distinctiveness through the same.

Moreover it is settled by the Hon’ble Court vide its judgment that “the opponent

cannot claim monopoly right on the wide description of goods and provide

services. The applicant submits that if the manufacturers have no bonafide

intention to trade or manufacturers all goods or articles and provide services

falling under separate classification cannot be permitted to enjoy monopoly in all

articles carrying under such classification”. Therefore The applied mark of the

applicant shall be registered by the Hon’ble Trade Marks Registry as there can be

no prohibition under Section 9(1) and 9(2)(a) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. It is

denied that the trademark “BRUN CLAIR BY NIYATI RAVANI” and its identity

with an earlier trade mark and similarity of goods covered by the trade mark,

hence, there exists a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public, which

includes the likelihood of association with the earlier trade mark. It is submitted

that the applicant has applied the trademark BRUN CLAIR BY NIYATI RAVANI

is totally different to the opponent’s mark. Further services of both marks are

totally different as well as trading channel of the applicant and opponent are

totally different. It is submitted that the opponents have to compare the marks as

a whole and not simply cut and paste in terms of the opponent’s personal

convenience, for a skewed representation of the applicant’s mark. Further it is

submitted that it is well settled principle of law that the mark has to be seen as a

whole and the opponent has just hand pick the word BRUN of the applicant’s

mark and trying to claim monopoly over the word BRUN which has been used

by many of the manufacturers their trade marks. The Applicant submits that

13
there is a well-established judicial principal on hand of “ENTIRETY”. The said

proposal envisages that the rival marks ought to be considered as a whole and

should not be split into parts. The Applicant further submits that the marks

should be compared as a whole and they should not be seen or judge by parting.

The general well settled principal for comparison of trademarks as laid down in

CADILA HEALTHCARE LIMITED Vs. CIDILA PHARMACEUTICAL LIMITED

AIR (2001) SC 1952, 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 imperfect recollection.

 The overall structural, visual & phonetic similarity and similarity of the idea

in the two marks and fact as to whether it is reasonable likelihood to cause

of confusion should be taken into account.

 Goods and provided services of the applicant and opponent are totally

different.

 Trading channel and trade segment are totally different.

In presence of aforesaid circumstances, it is clear that the rival marks as well as

provide services are totally dissimilar and different to each other. Further the

applicant has been using the trademark for provide goods and services in bakery

products where as the opponent has used the trademark for hosiery and

readymade garments, textile products and provide their services. That the

applicant has applied the trademark is dissimilar and disparate to the opponent’s

14
mark as well as provide services are totally different as well as trading channel of

the applicant and opponent are totally different Therefore, the question of

alleged confusion does not arise. Further, since the date of adoption the applicant

has been using the said mark in the market. Therefore, the purchasing public are

recognized the goods merely by viewing the mark of the applicant. The applicant

submits that in the very well-known case of Vishnudas Kishendas v. Vazir

Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd., 1996 PTC 512 – “CHARMINAR” it is very clearly

mentioned that “ One cannot claim monopoly of a mark in respect of the

goods of general nature falling under any of the classes of Schedule IV of the

Rules. The registration of trade mark can be restricted to a particular category of

the general class.” Hence the applicant’s application is fully liable to be

registered under section 11(1) of the Act. It is submitted that the BRUN CLAIR is

one word and its French name that mean “Light Brown in colour” and also

“Carmel” which is connected with applicant’s bakery products and their

business and NIYATI RAVANI is the owner/trade name of the applicant, hence

the applicant is honestly adopted the trademark BRUN CLAIR BY NIYATI

RAVANI which is totally is dissimilar and disparate to the opponent’s mark

therefore; there arises no question of alleged passing off action. Further the

opponent has adopted and applied the mark BRUN in respect of provide the

goods and services Provision of information and advisory services relating to

ecommerce, Wholesale And Retail Trading Of hosiery and readymade garments,

textile products, Advertisement, Marketing, Retail Outlets And Providing

Assistance in the field of product commercialization within the framework of a

franchise contract” where as the applicant has been using the trademark BRUN

CLAIR BY NIYATI RAVANI in respect of the goods “Bakery Goods,

Preparations for making Bakery products, Mixes for making bakery products,

Chocolate filling for bakery products, pastry, pastry mixes, Frozen Pastry, Pastry

15
Dough, Bread, Ice Cream, Cookies Pastries, Cakes, Tarts and biscuits (Cookies),

Confectionery, Chocolates, Prepared Desserts (Pastries)” and services for

providing “ Retail sale services of bakery products, Retail services provided by

bakery shops, Retail Shop Window display arrangement services, Biscuits

management for shops, Retail services provided through Shop-at-home parties”

Hence the services and trading channel of both the parties are totally different

and the opponent are not dealing in the business of the applicant’s products and

provided services as that of the applicant having no common customer therefore

the consumer can easily purchase the products and rendering the services of the

applicant by viewing the trademark applicant. That the opponent has totally

failed to prove actual instance of any passing off between the goods of the

parties. Therefore the mark of the applicant is not against the provisions of

section 11 (3) of the Act. It is submitted that just by making an averment of well

known ness of a mark, a trademark does not become well known, proving the

same is mandatory. The confident claims of the opponent regarding the well-

knownness of its marks allegedly cannot be accepted without cogent proofs. The

opponent is called upon to put strict proof thereof. That the opponent is totally

failed to show the alleged well-knownness under the said trade mark BRUN.

Therefore, alleged sections mentioned by the opponent i.e. section 11(10) is no

way helping the opponent in the present opposition matter. It is submitted that

the applicant’s trademark BRUN CLAIR BY NIYATI RAVANI which is

dissimilar and disparate to the opponent’s mark. Even provide services are much

too different. Moreover since the date of adoption the applicant has been using

the said trade mark continuously and uninterruptedly in the market and has

acquired tremendous reputation and goodwill as well as inherent distinctiveness

through the same. Therefore the contention of the opponent that the applicant

has adopted the impugned mark in bad faith, therefore the applicant’s mark is in

16
violation of section 11(10) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 is denied by the

applicant. It is submitted that the BRUN CLAIR is one word and its French

name that mean “Light Brown in colour” and also “Carmel” which is connected

with applicant’s bakery products and their business and NIYATI RAVANI is the

owner/trade name of the applicant, hence the applicant is honestly adopted the

trademark BRUN CLAIR BY NIYATI RAVANI which is totally dissimilar and

disparate to the opponent’s mark BRUN. Further the since the year 2023 the

applicant has been using the said trademark continuously, openly and

extensively in respect of the above mentioned goods and provide above

mentioned services in the market. That the applicant being an honest and true

legal adopter and user of his trademark BRUN CLAIR BY NIYATI RAVANI

therefore the applicant’s mark is fully entitled for registration under section 12 of

the Act. It is submitted that the opponent has applied the trademark on 2023 as

proposed to be use and which status is advertised and accepted not registered in

Hon’ble Trademarks Registry. It is submitted that the opponent applied the

trademark application as proposed to be used which proves that the applicant

has even not started to use the impugned mark in the market and other hand the

opponent has claiming that the said trademark has become well-known

trademark such varied contradiction statement of the opponent. It is submitted

that the opponent is claiming so-called well-knownness of his mark which

creates big surprise to the applicant. That the opponent is not properly aware

about the concept as well as criteria of the trade mark as a well known. It is

submitted that just by making an averment of well known ness of a mark, a

trademark does not become well known, proving the same becomes mandatory.

The confident claims of the opponent regarding the well-knownness of its marks

cannot be accepted without cogent proofs. Further the applicant has applied the

trademark BRUN CLAIR BY NIYATI RAVANI in respect of provide above

17
mentioned services which is totally different to the opponent’s mark and their

services and trading channel. Therefore the applicant is not concern with the

alleged prior adopter and user and reputation of the opponent’s mark. It is

submitted that the applicant and opponent has doing totally different business in

different services and different trading channel in the market. It is submitted that

the BRUN CLAIR is one word and its French name that mean “Light Brown in

colour” and also “Carmel” which is connected with applicant’s bakery products

hence the applicant honestly adopted and applied the trademark BRUN CLAIR

BY NIYATI RAVANI in respect of the above mentioned goods and provide

services in the market. Further the opponent is not doing business in the

applicant’s products and provided services as that of the applicant having no

common customer therefore the consumer can easily rendering the services and

purchase the products of the applicant by viewing the trademark of the

applicant. Further, the applicant has been using the said trade mark in respect of

provide above mentioned goods and services since the year 2023 in the market

therefore the services/goods of the applicant is well recognized amongst the

consumers under the said trademark. Further the applicant has been using the

trade mark BRUN CLAIR BY NIYATI RAVANI since the year 2023 in the

market and has acquired his own tremendous reputation in respect of the said

services under the said distinctive trade mark. If the impugned application for

registration of the said trade mark is refused by this Hon’ble Tribunal, it would

cause irreparable loss and damage to the applicant and also the interest of trade

and public. Further the Opponent must have gone through the Application of the

Applicant and must have noticed that the business circle of the Opponent and

the Applicant Company is completely different including the goods as well as

the trade channel; hence the question of deception or confusion does not arise in

this case. Further the applicant has been using the mark since the year 2023 in the

18
market under the said mark BRUN CLAIR BY NIYATI RAVANI but till today

not a single instance of alleged confusion or deception is noted. It is submitted

that the trademark BRUN CLAIR BY NIYATI RAVANI has acquired its own

reputation in the market and trade segment and is adopted with honest and

bonafide intentions in respect of provide the above mentioned services. It is

submitted that the applicant’s trademark and the opponent’s trademark have no

association structurally, visually or phonetically and hence there cannot be any

chance of cause embarrassment, loss or hardship to the opponent in any way. It

is denied that the trademark for which the applicant is seeking registration is an

imitation of his well-known trademark BRUN. It is submitted that the opponent

applied the trademark application on 06/05/2023 as proposed to be used and

other hand the opponent has claiming that the said trademark has become well-

known trademark such varied contradiction statement of the opponent. It is

submitted that the opponent is claiming so-called well knownness of his mark

which creates big surprise to the applicant. That the opponent is not properly

aware about the concept as well as criteria of prove the trade mark as a well

known. It is submitted that just by making an averment of well known ness of a

mark, a trademark does not become well known, proving the same becomes

mandatory. The confident claims of the opponent regarding the well-knownness

of its marks cannot be accepted without cogent proofs. It is submitted that the

applicant has honestly adopted and applied the trademark BRUN CLAIR BY

NIYATI RAVANI in respect of provide above mentioned services which is

totally different to the opponent’s mark and their services. Further since the date

of adoption the applicant has been using the said trademark in the market under

the aforesaid good / services; till this date there is not a single instance of

confusion or deception is noted. Even the provide services are much too

different therefore the consumers are always purchasing the goods and

19
rendering the services of the applicant merely by viewing the trademark. That

the trademark BRUN CLAIR BY NIYATI RAVANI of the applicant and the

provide services and trading channel are distinct and disparate and all and any

claims of similarity or resemblance are hereby abjured in entirety. It is

furthermore submitted that the applicant’s said trademark has reached the

current stage from having proven distinctiveness and uniqueness. The same,

therefore, definitely entitles the applicant to file application for registration of the

mark under the provisions of section 18 (1) of the Act. That the applicant has

gained immense and valuable goodwill in the market and Hon’ble Trade Marks

Registry has carefully examined the application of the applicant as well as rightly

allowed the applicant’s application for publication in the Trade Marks Journal

therefore the applicants are the true, lawful and bonafide adopter, user and

proprietor of the impugned trade mark within the meaning of section 18 (1) of

the Trademarks Act, 1999. Further the Opponent must have gone through the

Application of the Applicant and must have noticed that the business circle of

the Opponent and the Applicant is completely different including the provide

services as well as the trade channel; hence the question of deception or

confusion does not arise in this case. Hence there shall be no chance of loss or

hardship to the opponent in any way. The opponent has no sufficient reason for

making such frivolous opposition and the use of the applicant’s mark has no way

in past harmed or damaged the so-called goodwill and reputation of the

opponent and considering that the Hon’ble Registrar has also not cited any

conflicting similar trademark of the opponent in its search report. It is submitted

that the registration of the impugned mark in the name of the Applicant is not

contrary to any of the provisions of Sections 9(1)(a), 9(2)(a), 11(1), 11(3), 11(10),

12, 18(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 It is also submitted that the contending

marks are totally dissimilar, distinct and disparate and all and any claims of

20
similarity or resemblance are hereby abjured in entirety. Even the provide

services are much too different and the opponent are not dealing/trading in

applicant’s products and not provide the similar services as that of the applicant

having no common customer therefore the consumer can easily purchase the

products and rendering the services of the applicant by viewing the trademark

of the applicant. It is submitted that the rival marks are visually as well as

structurally much too different. Moreover the provide services and trading

channel as well as business circle of both the marks are different enough hence,

hardly create confusion and deception on the part of public and in the mind of a

common consumers. The applicant submits that he has been using the said trade

mark since the year 2023 and the opponent has not taken any legal action against

the applicant except to file this hopeless and baseless opposition. That the

applicant has acquired his own reputation and goodwill through the prolonged

user. Further, the applicant has adopted the said trade mark honestly and

bonafidely and the services of the applicant is very well recognized amongst the

public for the same services. It is further submitted that the Hon’ble Trade Marks

Registry has not cited the opponent’s mark as conflicting mark to that of the

applicant’s mark. Moreover, it is clear that the Hon'ble Registrar who is the

highest authority and whose decision can not be taken lightly has not stated that

the mark of the applicant and the opponent are identical and/or deceptively

similar. The Hon'ble Apex Court has also stated and laid down the principle in

various judgments that the decision of the Registrar has to be given high weight.

In the present case the mark of the opponent is very much distinct to the mark of

the applicant. Both the marks are phonetically, structurally and visually very

dissimilar therefore the applicant has all the rights of getting his application

registered under section 18 (4) of the Trademarks Act. The applicant is bonafide,

honest and concurrent user and also lawful owner and proprietor of the Trade

21
 Mark BRUN CLAIR BY NIYATI RAVANI. Moreover BRUN CLAIR BY NIYATI

RAVANI the mark of the applicant is much too different than that of the

opponent’s mark BRUN and their services as well as trading channel and

business circle of the applicant and opponent are totally different. Hence the

balance of convenience is entirely in favour of the applicant. That the opposition

is a vainglorious proceeding filed only to harass the applicant and delay the

registration of the applicant’s mark. It is submitted that the opponent is suffering

from the trade jealousy and it is only the frivolous attempt to harass the

applicant and ruin the status of the applicant in the trade segment. It is submitted

that the applicant has painstakingly developed his business and therefore the

opponent has with malafide motives tried to create the hurdles in the registration

of the applicant’s application. The opponent has no locus standi to file the instant

opposition. It is submitted that the applicant is an honest adopter of application

for registration; The Hon’ble Registrar should exercise his discretion and allow

the applicant’s mark to proceed for registration and dismiss this frivolous

opposition.

C. The opponents have failed to provide a single legal, tenable argument such that

would substantiate the current notice of opposition; thereby deserving dismissal.

The opponent is not entitled to the relief as prayed for or otherwise, mainly the

equitable reliefs, as the opponent has not come with clean hands before the

Hon'ble Tribunal.

D. It is to be submitted that the opponent has made a flurry of allegations without

any merits whatsoever; furthermore that, with a view to paralyze the business of

the applicant and to create hurdles in the registration procedure of the

applicant’s mark, the opponent has filed this baseless and frivolous Notice of

22
 Opposition. The applicant also submits that the Notice of Opposition is

misconceived, vexatious and is ultimately an unhealthy endeavor in ruthless

business practices

PRAYER
In these aforementioned circumstances the applicant invokes the discretion of the

Hon’ble Registrar of Trade Marks on account of the Following:-

(A) That the applicant prays that the Notice of Opposition should therefore be

dismissed as the entire opposition application is vague, misleading,

unmeritorious and baseless; and the application no. 5980117 in class 35 be

proceeded further to grant registration.

(B) That the applicant is entitled to have the discretion of the learned Registrar of

Trade Marks be exercised in his favor in all the premises herein.

(C) That the opponent is not entitled for the relief stated in the application, the

applicant prays to dismiss the opposition application with exemplary cost.

(D) That the applicant craves the leave to add, amend, rescind, substitute or alter

all or any of the aforesaid grounds and/or reasons at and during the hearing

of the said Opposition application as and when occasion demands.

All communication in relation to these proceedings may be sent to the

following address in India:

H K Acharya and Company

Advocate, Patent and Trade Marks Attorney,

23
 N R House, Nr. Popular House, Ashram Road,
Ahmedabad 380009, INDIA
Phone: 9586875302, Fax: 91 079 -26425263
E-mail: hkmark@hkindia.com

Dated this day of May, 2024

For, Niyati Ravani

By their Attorney and Agent of

H K ACHARYA & COMPANY
To,
The Registrar of Trade Marks
The office of the Trade Marks Registry,
At, Ahmedabad.

24