Trademark Dispute Between Lenovo and RPD
Key Issues Raised by Lenovo
- Lenovo, a globally reputed technology brand and the exclusive proprietor of the “THINK Family of Marks”, initiated this petition asserting that:
- It had prior adoption and registration of its trademarks such as THINKPAD, THINKBOOK, THINKCENTRE, and others in India and internationally.
- The trademark ‘THINBOOK’ was phonetically, visually, and conceptually similar to its “THINK” series, posing a significant likelihood of confusion in the minds of consumers.
- The impugned mark, by its deceptive resemblance, could easily be mistaken by the public as an extension of Lenovo’s THINK brand, which has been in continuous use since 1992 in India and since 1920 globally.
- The first respondent, RPD Workstations, showed malafide intention by imitating the font style and naming structure of the THINK brand family.
- The impugned registration under Class 9 (Laptops and electronic devices) was in direct conflict with Lenovo’s registered trademarks in the same class.
Court’s Observations and Reasoning, The court took into account the following critical points:
- Lenovo presented undisputed evidence of its longstanding use, reputation, and multiple trademark registrations.
- Despite being duly served, the first respondent failed to appear in court, and was set ex parte, which further strengthened Lenovo’s case.
- The second respondent (Trademark Registry) acknowledged the registration process but failed to apply due diligence, which led to the erroneous registration of ‘THINBOOK’.
- The phonetic and conceptual similarity between THINK and THIN was deemed sufficiently deceptive, leading to potential consumer confusion and brand dilution.
- Given Lenovo’s global standing and strong goodwill, the court opined that allowing ‘THINBOOK’ to exist in the Register would cause commercial injury and misrepresentation.
Principle Settled in This Judgment, The judgment lays down a critical principle in trademark jurisprudence:
A registered trademark can be canceled under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, if it deceptively resembles an existing well-known mark, especially when the latter has acquired distinctiveness and goodwill due to long and continuous usage.
Additionally, it reinforces the legal interpretation that phonetic similarity and conceptual overlap are sufficient grounds to invoke consumer confusion and are valid bases for cancellation.
Order of the Court, The Hon’ble Court ruled in favor of Lenovo and issued the following directions:
- The mark ‘THINBOOK’ bearing registration No. 3558396 in Class 9 was ordered to be cancelled and removed from the Register of Trademarks.
- The second respondent (Trademark Registry) was directed to carry out the cancellation within four weeks from the receipt of the court’s order.
- The court observed the petitioner’s reputation must be protected against small-scale imitators who ride on the goodwill of established global brands.
- The petition was allowed with no costs.
Related Precedents Cited
While the judgment itself did not extensively cite external precedents, it aligns with a consistent line of rulings in Indian trademark law. Here are some relevant judicial decisions that bolster the reasoning:
- Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (2001)
This Supreme Court case emphasized that phonetic similarity alone could lead to a likelihood of confusion, especially when the products are of similar nature. - Amritdhara Pharmacy v. Satya Deo Gupta (1963)
Held that similar sounding marks, even if spelled differently, may cause deception among the average consumers, especially those with imperfect recollection. - Satyam Infoway Ltd. v. Siffynet Solutions (P) Ltd. (2004)
The Apex Court recognized the importance of domain names and branding, reinforcing the notion of exclusive ownership of a brand identity developed over time. - Milmet Oftho Industries & Ors v. Allergan Inc (2004)
This judgment emphasized that foreign companies with global trademarks are entitled to protection in India even if their products are not marketed there, given the transborder reputation.
The Lenovo decision continues in this spirit, ensuring that well-known marks are protected against deceptive and dishonest registrations, especially when such marks enjoy transborder reputation and wide consumer recognition.
Read Meanwhile: TikTok Well known Trademark Dispute in India: TikTok Limited vs Registrar of Trademarks: A Landmark Legal Battle in India
Conclusion:
A Strong Signal for Brand Owners. This case sets a powerful legal precedent affirming that:
Trademark exclusivity is not limited to exact word matches—phonetic and conceptual similarities are equally potent grounds for cancellation.
Prior usage and registration, especially when backed by global reputation and goodwill, holds immense legal weight.
The responsibility of the Trademark Registry to apply due diligence during registration is critical, and any oversight may be corrected under judicial review.
Well-known trademarks, as defined under Section 2(1)(zg) of the Trade Marks Act, enjoy a higher degree of protection, regardless of the size or intent of the infringing party.
This decision also serves as a warning to smaller or opportunistic businesses that imitating an established brand, even subtly, can result in cancellation, litigation, and reputational damage.
Legal Takeaway for Businesses and Startups
Companies and entrepreneurs must:
Conduct thorough trademark searches before applying for registration.
Refrain from adopting names that are even remotely similar to existing well-known brands.
Understand that distinctiveness, goodwill, and reputation are protectable rights, and legal remedies under Section 57 are available to aggrieved trademark holders.
Consider legal vetting before launching product names in competitive segments like technology and consumer electronics.
Frequently Asked Questions – Lenovo vs RPD Workstations Trademark Case
1. What was the central issue in the Lenovo vs RPD Workstations case?
The main issue centered on whether the trademark ‘THINBOOK’, registered by RPD Workstations, should be canceled for being deceptively similar to Lenovo’s THINK Family of Marks under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
2. Who were the parties involved in the dispute?
- Petitioner: Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd.
- Respondents: RPD Workstations Private Limited (first respondent) & The Registrar of Trademarks (second respondent).
3. Under which legal provision was the petition filed?
Lenovo filed the petition under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which allows cancellation/removal of a registered trademark that is disparaging, deceptive, or infringes prior rights.
4. What trademark registrations does Lenovo own?
Lenovo holds multiple registrations in India and abroad for its THINK Family of Marks, including THINKPAD, THINKBOOK, THINKCENTER, THINKMATE, and THINKVANTAGE.
5. What factors did Lenovo cite to challenge “THINBOOK”?
Lenovo pointed to:
- Phonetic, visual, and conceptual similarity to its THINK marks
- Consumer confusion risk
- Malafide imitation of font and brand structure
- Overlapping product categories—laptops and electronics under Class 9
6. What was the court’s assessment of Lenovo’s claims?
The court found:
- Lenovo had substantial prior usage, reputation, and registrations
- RPD failed to appear in court and was deemed ex parte
- The Registry lacked due diligence in granting the mark
- ‘THINBOOK’ is deceptively similar and causes consumer confusion and dilution
7. What legal principle was established by this judgment?
A trademark with deceptive similarity to a well-known or distinctive mark, especially one documented with long use and goodwill, can be canceled under Section 57, based on phonetic and conceptual resemblance.
8. What did the court order as a result of the decision?
- Directed cancellation and removal of ‘THINBOOK’ (Reg. No. 3558396, Class 9)
- Ordered the Trademarks Registry to effect this removal within four weeks
- The petition was allowed without costs
9. Did the Court cite any previous landmark cases?
While not explicitly referencing precedents in detail, the judgment aligns with principles from:
- Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
- Amritdhara Pharmacy v. Satya Deo Gupta
- Satyam Infoway Ltd. v. Siffynet Solutions
- Milmet Oftho Industries v. Allergan Inc.
10. How does this decision impact trademark filings?
It underscores the need for:
- Thorough searches before filing
- Avoiding names that sound or look like well-known brands
- Registering only distinctive and non-confusing trademarks
11. Can phonetic similarity alone lead to cancellation?
Yes. This judgment reinforces that phonetic and conceptual similarity to an existing mark—especially a well-known one—can be sufficient grounds for consumer confusion and cancellation.
12. What is the significance of Section 2(1)(zg) in this case?
Lenovo’s THINK marks were recognized as well-known trademarks under Section 2(1)(zg) of the Act, granting them enhanced protection, even against deceptively similar imitations.
13. What duty does the Trademark Registry have per this judgment?
The Registry must exercise due diligence in examining applications. Failure to check for similarity or existing rights can lead to judicial intervention and removal of improperly registered marks.
14. What should startups and smaller businesses learn from this case?
- Always perform detailed trademark clearance searches
- Avoid choosing names similar to well-known brands, even inadvertently
- Understand that distinctiveness, reputation, and prior rights are legally protected
- Seek legal advice before naming products in competitive sectors
15. What broader message does this judgment send to brand owners?
It sends a clear warning: imitation—even partial—of famous trademarks invites legal consequences. Well-known brands enjoy strong protection, and deceptive similarities can result in mandatory cancellation under Indian law.
Trademark Dispute Between Lenovo and RPD, Trademark Dispute Between Lenovo and RPD. Trademark Dispute Between Lenovo and RPD, Trademark Dispute Between Lenovo and RPD, Trademark Dispute Between Lenovo and RPD, Trademark Dispute Between Lenovo and RPD, Trademark Dispute Between Lenovo and RPD, Trademark Dispute Between Lenovo and RPD, Trademark Dispute Between Lenovo and RPD, Trademark Dispute Between Lenovo and RPD, Trademark Dispute Between Lenovo and RPD, Trademark Dispute Between Lenovo and RPD, Trademark Dispute Between Lenovo and RPD, Trademark Dispute Between Lenovo and RPD, Trademark Dispute Between Lenovo and RPD
