To, Date:30/12/2023

The Registrar of Trademark,

Trademark Registry, MUMBAI

Sub: REPLY TO EXAMINATION REPORT (MIS-R) Dated on: 06/12/2023 15:33:55

Ref.: Examination Report of Trademark

“ ” Application No. 6198376

Respected Sir/Madam,

We are in receipt of your examination report dated 6th December with Reference to above
mentioned Trademark Application. However, the Applicant through his registered agent
wants to reply to you under:

1)We submit that the applicant M/s: PRAGYA PANT has no mala fide intention, and the
applicant adopted the aforesaid trademark after conducting the complete search in the market
as per Class 40 filed an application on 27/11/2023.

2) Objection raised on our filed mark which is “ ” is under

2.1) Section 9(1) (b) of the Trade Marks Act 1999, as the mark consists exclusively of
words or indications which may serve in trade to designate the kind, intended purpose
of the goods;

2.2) The objection is raised under S 11 (1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, as the mark
is similar to earlier marks in respect of similar description of goods and because of
such similarity there exists a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public.
3) Our proposed mark INSTAPRINT is a Device mark and is proposed to be registered
under class 40 and includes:-

Name of trademark INSTAPRINT

Application number 6198376

Type of trademark Device

Logo

Description of goods Printing,T-shirt printing,Digital printing

services,Custom 3D printing services for
others,Customized printing of company
names and logos for promotional and
advertising purposes on the goods of
others,Portrait printing.

4) The conflicting marks according to the examination report has details as: -

Name of trademark Insta Printz INSTAAPRINT (DEVICE)

Application number 3769480 4738329

Type of trademark Device Device

Logo
Description of goods Printing, Digital Printing, CUSTOM PRINTING SERVICES
Wool Printing, 3D Printing, INCLUDED IN CLASS 40.
Textile Printing, Screen
Printing, Printing
Services, Portrait printing,
Photographic printing,
Lithographic printing,
Silkscreen printing, Pattern
Printing,
Intaglio printing, Transfer
printing, Titanium nitride
coating, Polishing of
stainless steel, Stainless
steel
polishing services and
Applying finish to stainless
steel sheets and coils.

Status Registered Registered

5) It is evident on the face of it that no two people can get confused between the conflicting
marks as they are not only written differently but have different colour combinations, use
of design, pattern, etc., are distinct by themselves.

6) The names of the trademarks themselves differentiate each other as our proposed mark is

“INSTAPRINT” “ ” WHEREAS on the other hand all of the

conflicting marks are 1. Insta Printz and 2. INSTAAPRINT (DEVICE) have completely
different names (as mentioned in above). So, there is no Chance of any Confusion between
the public.

7) Furthermore, all the conflicting marks have different Pronunciation as the first conflicting
mark INSTA PRINTZ is pronounced as “INSTA-PRINT-Z” and the second conflicting
mark is INSTAAPRINT which is pronounced as “INSTA-A-PRINT”, While our mark is just
INSTAPRINT used and do not resemble each other in any manner as the marks clearly
distinguish themselves.
8) The Proposed our differs from conflicting mark in many ways:-

Name of the INSTAPRINT Insta Printz INSTAAPRINT

Trademark (DEVICE)
(OUR MARK)

Application 6198376 3769480 4738329

Number

DEVICE

LOGO The device mark is of The device mark is in The device mark is in
DIFFER Blue and pink with Blue and yellow and
the colour Combination
Suffix “z” and Bulb there is a clear change in
that is YELLOW and over the “I”. the pronunciation as it
has double “a” in it.
BLACK with a printing
symbol.

Our Mark INSTAPRINT Differs from every other conflicting

mark, as the device is not same with any other mark even if we are talking about the colour
combination or combination of words.

9) We have also Attached the invoice of the Mark being used for quite a long time which has
made itself distinguishable by others and made its position in the public for over a year.Our
mark also has a domain name “www.instaprint.co.in” .

10) We further submit that while assessing the similarity or dissimilarity of the present mark
with an earlier mark, the “WHOLE” mark should be considered. A mark should be assessed
based on its structural and phonetic features.

11) Hence, our client humbly states the Mark to be accepted by the Trademark Registry and
to be published in the Trademark Journal.
12) We humbly pray to the Learned Registrar for kindly allowing us the opportunity of being
heard before pronouncing any adverse order for the above said application.

Adv. Meena Bhattad