Colgate vs Anchor. Tooth-and-nail fight over trademark colours

On May 28, the Delhi High Court quashed a ‘summoning order’ issued 12 years ago by a metropolitan magistrate. The order summoned the directors of the toothpaste giant Colgate-Palmolive in a longstanding dispute with Anchor Health and Beauty Care Pvt Ltd, over the use of a ‘red and white’ colour combination on Colgate’s toothpaste cartons.

According to Colgate, this is a registered trademark. The two companies have been fighting over the use of a red-and-white trademark for their respective toothpastes. Colgate has sued Anchor, alleging trademark infringement. Anchor, on its part, has alleged that Colgate had forged certain documents relating to trademarks.

Upon Anchor’s complaint that the registration certification of Colgate was forged, the metropolitan magistrate summoned Colgate’s directors as well as the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks Registry. Anchor’s stand was that the Trade Marks Registry had colluded with Colgate.

Colgate argued that in its application it had clearly mentioned ‘red and white’ colour combination. The Trade Marks Registry committed an error by publishing it as ‘black and white’ in its journal, it said.

The Delhi High Court observed that it was Anchor’s case that the copy of the registration certificate did not match with the application advertisement. Therefore, it was not as though Anchor believed that the seals used in the copy or the signatures of the issuing authority had been forged. Holding that there was no forgery, the court observed that the certified copy of the certificate of registration as well as the advertisement published in the Trade Marks Journal were both signed by the same person — the Deputy Registrar.

Also read

Upholding tenets of fairness in arbitration

‘Conscious acceptance’ necessary for arbitration agreements

New CCI regulations: Tightening the reins on confidential information

This judgement, while highlighting that procedural irregularities do not mean criminal forgery, also underscores the need for procedural correctness in trademark registration. Transgressions of procedural requirements without fraudulent intent do not constitute forgery.