Save and except those statements, averments and contentions that are specifically admitted

herein, rest of the other statements and averments are to be treated as denied specifically by
the opponent in toto and Applicant is put to strict proof of the same. Also, mere non
mentioning or non-denial of any statement should not be treated as admitted thereof.

1. The contents of Para 1 are denied for want of knowledge and the Applicant is called upon
to prove the same with strict proof thereof. It is denied that the applicant is a sole
proprietary concern carrying on business at Thirupathi, T.D. Road, North End, Ernakulam,
682035, Kerala since the year 2017, and is engaged in the business of manufacturing and
selling cosmetic and beauty products, enriched coconut oil, virgin coconut oil, products for
hair and skin care including oils, creams, shampoos, conditioners and soaps made using
virgin coconut oil
2. The contents of Para 2 are denied for want of knowledge and the Applicant is called upon
to prove the same with strict proof thereof. It is denied that in the year 2017, the applicant,
in order to distinguish their goods from that of others in the trade, bonafidely coined and
adopted the inventive mark "ANVI" and has adopted the distinctive Trade Mark "ANVI"
in respect of such cosmetic and beauty products, enriched coconut oil, virgin coconut oil,
products for hair and skin care including oils, creams, lotions, gels, shampoos, conditioners
and soaps including those containing coconut oil, under Class 3 of the Trade Marks Act,
1999.
3. The contents of Para 3 are denied for want of knowledge and the Applicant is called upon
to prove the same with strict proof thereof. It is denied that to ensure that the mark adopted
by the applicant is better protected, on February 22, 2017, the applicant applied for
registration of the same in the Trade Marks Registry on a 'proposed to be used' basis and
the said application was numbered 3489820 in Class 3. It is also denied that the applicant
also filed another application in Class 29 and the same got numbered as 3489821. This
application was registered on 8.8.2017.
4. The contents of Para 4 are denied for want of knowledge and the Applicant is called upon
to prove the same with strict proof thereof. It is denied that the said mark was duly
examined by the Trade Marks Registry upon such application. It is also denied that the
registry initially raised some preliminary objections, and subsequent to the hearing thereof,
 the Registrar was pleased to direct the mark to advertisement in the Trade Marks Journal
and the same was advertised in Journal No. 1889 dated 18.02.2019
5. The contents of Para 5 are denied for want of knowledge and the Applicant is called upon
to prove the same with strict proof thereof. It is denied that submissions that the opposition
filed is frivolous and vexatious and ought to be dismissed in limine as the marks are both
visually and structurally and phonetically completely different. It is also denied that the
word 'ENVY' is a generic word descriptive of an attribute of a product, whereas the term
ANVI' is a completely innovative term coined by the applicant to represent its goodwill in
the relevant trade. Further, it is also denied that the idea behind the mark ‘ANVI' is a unique
word inherently capable of distinguishing the Applicant's goods from that of others in the
market, whereas the opponent's mark is a mere term which can be used in relation to any
product, and does not distinguish it from that of others in the relevant trade. It is again
denied that the mark 'ENVY' is a dictionary word and has a meaning attached to it and
therefore whenever anyone recollects the mark of the Opponent it is associated with an
emotion whereas the mark of the Applicant has no such association. Therefore, even the
idea behind the mark is completely different. Not only that, even the goods are completely
different.(Therefore, neither the idea behind the mark is different. Nor the goods are
different as both the opponents and the applicants are dealing with cosmetic products
under Class 3)
6. The contents of Para 6 are denied for want of knowledge and the Applicant is called upon
to prove the same with strict proof thereof. Submission by the applicant that in contrast to
generic cosmetic products manufactured and sold by sellers including the opponent, the
applicant is engaged in the manufacture and sale of organic skincare and hair care products
using virgin coconut oil and other natural ingredients and that accordingly, the applicant
has, since the sale of its products in 2017, carved a niche for itself with respect to these
specific products in the relevant trade, is false and thus, the content of aforesaid para has
been denied. Therefore, the applicant's products in themselves are clearly distinguishable
from that of the opponent although they fall under the same class as per the Act.(Therefore,
the applicant’s products are clearly similar to that of opponent’s products.)
7. The contents of Para 7 are denied for want of knowledge and the Applicant is called upon
to prove the same with strict proof thereof. Submissions by the applicants that in contrast
 to the trade channels adopted by the opponent, the applicant sells its products on an
electronic platform and standalone select stores, fully disclosing its true identity, is
vehemently denied and are false. It is further denied that the customers and users who are
likely to purchase the applicant's products are reasonably well-educated consumers who
are extremely particular about the properties and quality of the product they purchase, and
are fully capable of ascertaining the true manufacturer of the same without any confusion
whatsoever. The aforesaid facts, coupled with the complete and utter lack of any similarity
between the two marks, indisputably proves that there is not an iota of confusion or
deception that is likely to arise by the concurrent use of "ENVY" & "ANVI" in the relevant
trade, aided by the fact that the Applicants are organic good. (Thus, many similarities
between the two marks, indisputably proves that there is confusion or deception that is
likely to arise by the concurrent use of "ENVY" & "ANVI" in the relevant trade)
8. Notwithstanding the aforementioned submissions the applicant files herewith its parawise
comments to the Notice of Opposition herein below:
9. That the denial made by the applicant in Para 9 are repudiated and contents of Paras 1 to 8
and 12 to 16 are denied as being beyond the knowledge of the applicant and the opponent
is put to strict proof of the same with regard to the assertions pertaining to user, extensive
use of the mark, distinctiveness of the mark, identity created in the minds of purchasing
public, extensive publicity of the mark, the mark allegedly being a well-known mark and
an inseparable part of the opponent's brand, etc., considering the mark is a common English
word. of notice of opposition are reiterated and reconfirmed. (The assertions pertaining to
user, extensive use of the mark, distinctiveness of the mark, identity created in the minds of
purchasing public, extensive publicity of the mark, the mark being a well-known mark and
an inseparable part of the opponent's brand, etc., are all true and correct to the knowledge
of the opponents.)
10. That the denial made by the applicant in Para 10 are repudiated and contents of Para 9 to
11 are denied as being beyond the knowledge of the applicant, and vague in respect of
certain applications, and the Opponent is put to strict proof of each registration obtained
by them in respect of the applications set out in the aforesaid paras. of notice of opposition
are reiterated and reconfirmed.
11. That the denial made by the applicant in Para 11 are repudiated and contents of Paras 18
and 19 of notice of opposition are reiterated and reconfirmed. are denied as being false and
false to the knowledge of the opponent and the opponent is put to strict proof of the same.
It is denied that the mark 'ANVI' is an inventive word, coined by the applicant is inherently
distinctive. Thus, it is not capable of being distinguished, and satisfies the requirements of
section 9(l)(a) of the Act. Further, it is also denied that the marks "ANVI" & "ENVY" are
not even in the wildest imagination identical or deceptively similar either visually or
phonetically. As elucidated in detail hereinabove, the consumers likely to purchase
cosmetic products are very reasonably well educated, and any such average consumer shall
be in a clear position to distinguish between the applicant's products and that of the others
in the relevant trade including the opponent, and hence, there is no confusion or deception
in the minds of the consumer regarding the origin of the products. (Thus, the customers are
likely to be deceived by the impugned trademark of the applicants if such trademark is
registered by the registrar. In present case, such impugned mark is likely to cause
confusion in the minds of public as both the marks are phonetically similar. Moreover, the
applicants have generalized that the consumers of cosmetic products are very reasonably
well educated. However, same is not the case in India as vast portion of Indian population
is illiterate or very less educated.) Therefore, it is submitted that the applicant's mark is
liable to be barred under section 9(2)(a) of the Act.
12. That the denial made by the applicant in Para 12 are repudiated and the contents of Para 20
of notice of opposition are reiterated and reconfirmed. are denied as being blatantly false
and unsubstantiated and the opponent is put to strict proof of all the allegations set out
therein. It is denied that the term 'ANVI' has been ingeniously coined by the applicant in a
bonafide manner in the year 2017, and is a unique word inherently capable of
distinguishing the applicant's goods from that of the opponent. Further, it is denied that the
marks are distinct and different, and thus, the applicant can be accused of malafide intention
with regard to adoption. It is denied that the applicant is the true proprietor of the mark
‘ANVI’ as per section 18(1) of the Act and all allegations raised by the opponent in respect
of the applicant's mark being deceptively similar in an attempt to usurp the goodwill of the
opponent, etc. are completely well founded, and vehemently denied.
13. That the denial made by the applicants in Para 13 are repudiated and the contents of the
Para 21 of notice of opposition are reiterated and reconfirmed. are denied as being
completely false and the opponent is put to strict proof of the same. In submission made
by the applicant (i) It is denied that the marks are completely different both visually and
structurally and no possibility of deception or confusion exists; (ii) It is also denied that
although the goods of the applicant and the opponent fall under the same class under the
Act, there is a clear distinction in the products manufactured and sold by the applicant in
that it is only involved in the sale of skincare and hair care products made using virgin
coconut oil as opposed to generic cosmetics sold by the opponent; (iii) It is denied that it
is preposterous to state that the class of consumers being serviced by the applicant and the
opponent is unwary, consumers using such products are reasonably educated and fully
capable of ascertaining the origin of each product without any confusion; and (iv) It is also
denied that the trade channel adopted by the applicant is different from that of the opponent
in that the applicant sells its products online, clearing mentioning the identity of the
manufacturer of the product. In light of the foregoing, it is submitted that the registration
of the applicant's mark is contrary to section 11(1) of the Act
14. That the denial made by the applicant in Para 14 are repudiated and the contents of paras
22, 25 and 26 of notice of opposition are reiterated and reconfirmed. expressly denied as
being completely unsubstantiated. It is denied and false that the opponent has not furnished
any substantial facts to claim that the mark is a well-known mark, and is put to strict proof
that its trade mark is a well-known mark. Accordingly, the question of the application of
section 11(4) and 11(10) of the Act does not even arise. Further, the applicant reiterates its
submissions made in the aforesaid para, and submits that the registration of its mark is not
contrary to section 11 (2) of the Act.
15. That the denial made by the applicant in Para 15 is repudiated and the contents of Para 23
and 24 of the notice of opposition are reiterated and reconfirmed. are denied as blatantly
false and the opponent is put to strict proof of such allegations. Submissions made by the
applicant that since the marks are in no way identical or deceptively similar to each other,
no allegation in respect of infringement or passing off can be made against the applicant
are vehemently denied by the opponents and thus, the registration of the mark is contrary
to section 11 (3) of the Act.
16. That the denial made by the applicant in Para 16 is repudiated and the contents of Para 27
of notice of opposition are reiterated and reconfirmed. and categorically denied.
Submissions that the adoption of the mark by the applicant is honest and that the
applicability of section 12 of the Act to the matter at hand does not even arise is false as (i)
the marks are identical and similar; and (ii) the goods of the applicant are clearly
deceptively similar to that of the opponent.
17. Submission that no false description has been adopted by the applicant and that no dilution
of the opponent's mark is conceivable due to the very fact that the marks are distinct and
different, is false and hereby denied. Accordingly, the registration of the applicant’s mark
is not banned under Section 9,11 & 18 of the Act, and the opponent is put to strict proof of
such allegations.