Bombay High Court
Sopariwala Exports & Anr vs Kuber Khaini Private Limited on 9 August, 2012
Equivalent citations: AIR 2013 (NOC) 280 (BOM.), 2012 (5) AIR BOM R 865 2012 CLC 1108 (BOM), 2012 CLC 1108 (BOM)
Author: B.R.Gavai
Bench: B.R.Gavai
1/22 nmsl1441.12.sxw
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION (L)NO. 1441 of 2012
IN
SUIT(L) NO. 1120 of 2012
Sopariwala Exports & anr. ... Plaintiffs
V/s.
Kuber Khaini Private Limited ... Defendant
Shri Virag Tulzapurkar, Sr. Counsel a/w. Sanjay Kher i/b. Adhesh
Nargolkar and Smriti Yadav i/b. Khaitan & co. for the plaintiffs.
Shri Dr. Virendra Tulzapurkar with Mr. Amit Jamsandekar and Mr. H.J.
Engineers i/b. Gordhandas & Fozdar for the defendants.
CORAM : B.R.GAVAI, J.
9th August, 2012.
JUDGMENT :
The plaintiff no.1 is registered partnership firm and is engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing tobacco under the trade mark 'AFZAL'. The plaintiff no.2 is a company incorporated and registered under the Indian Companies Act.
2. The defendant no.1 is a private limited company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing chewing tobacco under the trade mark 'KUBER'. The defendant no.2 company is based in Nepal and is engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing chewing tobacco under the licence from defendant no.1. The plaintiffs have filed the present suit alleging that the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:58:03 ::: 2/22 nmsl1441.12.sxw defendants have infringed the plaintiff's registered trade marks bearing nos.
445798, 1230032 and 1530553, all in Class 34 and by using a label deceptively similar to that of the plaintiffs and, therefore, prayed for an injunction restraining the defendants from infringing the plaintiff's trade mark. Plaintiffs have also sought an injunction restraining the defendants from passing off their products as that of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have also sought an injunction restraining the defendants from infringing the plaintiff's copy right in the artistic works on the label.
3. Alongwith the Suit the plaintiffs have also filed a notice of motion for interim reliefs restraining the defendants in the aforesaid terms during the pendency of the suit. Though the plaintiffs had moved this Court for ad-interim injunction, the parties by consent have requested the Court to hear and dispose of the motion finally. As such I have heard Shri Virag Tulzapurkar, learned Sr. Counsel for the plaintiffs and Dr. Virendra Tulzapurkar, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of defendants.
4. Shri Virag Tulzapurkar, the learned Senior Counsel submits that the plaintiff has created, adopted and commenced its business using a distinctive trade mark 'AFZAL' in or about 1977. He submits that around the same time one Shri Jagdish Verma under the instructions of the Partners of the plaintiff no.1 authored an original artistic work, to be applied on a distinctive tobacco packaging, which came to be thereafter used along with the distinctive trade mark AFZAL. It is submitted that the said trade marks of the plaintiff continues to be used for the goods in class 34. The ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:58:04 ::: 3/22 nmsl1441.12.sxw learned Counsel for the plaintiff submits that the plaintiff's trade marks is also registered in Yemen. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff submits that the plaintiff over the years have made huge sales in the domestic as well as international market and have earned goodwill in the market. The learned Counsel submits that the plaintiffs have also made huge expenditure on the promotional expenses. The learned Counsel submits that in or around March-April 2009, the plaintiffs came across a tobacco related product manufacturer and marketed by the defendants under label mark and trade dress which was identical or similar to the trade marks of the plaintiffs.
The learned Counsel for the plaintiffs submit that the trade mark/label which is used by the defendants is deceptively similar to the registered trade mark/label of the plaintiff and as such the defendants have infringed statutory right of the plaintiffs. It is further submitted that since the plaintiffs have earned a great reputation and since their product is popular, by using a deceptively similar trade mark label, the defendants are trying to pass of their product as that of the plaintiffs. It is further submitted that the artistic work that is embodied in the label of the plaintiffs is registered by the plaintiffs. The defendants by copying the same have also infringed the copy right of the plaintiff of the said artistic work as embodied in the said trade mark label.
5. The learned Counsel dealing with the contentions raised in the reply of the defendants, contending that their product is sold from 1999, submits that the said invoices do not show whether the goods sold by the defendants are having a label which is registered by them or the goods sold ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:58:04 ::: 4/22 nmsl1441.12.sxw are the one having deceptively similar packing as that of the plaintiffs.
Insofar as the reference in the affidavit-in-reply to the various advertisements issued by the defendant, the learned Counsel submits that entire advertisements would show that advertisements are pertaining to the label which is registered by the defendants. The learned Counsel further submits that the defendants have not explained as to how they have adopted the trade mark and as such it is clear that the trade mark of the defendants is nothing else but a fraudulent and deceptive imitation of the plaintiff's registered trade mark. The learned Counsel relies on the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Hiralal Prabhudas vs. M/s.
Ganesh Trading Company & ors. {AIR 1984 Bombay 218} and the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Tata Tea Ltd. v/s. Suruchi Tea Company & anr. {2004 (28) PTC 83 (Bom)}. The learned Counsel also relied on the case of Registrar of Trade Marks vs. Ashok Chandra Rakhit Ltd. {AIR 1955 SC 558} and the judgment of Chancery Division of High Court of Justice in Tanvener Rutledge Ltd. vs. Specters Ltd. {1959 Reports of Patent, Design and Trade Mark Cases page 83}.
6. As against this, Dr. Virendra Tulzapurkar, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the defendants submits that while comparing the trade mark of the plaintiffs with that of the defendants to find out as to whether it is deceptively similar or not, what is required to be looked into by the Court is only distinct or essential feature of the said mark and not the non- essential and non-distinctive features. The learned Counsel submits that the essential and distinctive feature of the trade mark of the plaintiff is only ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:58:04 ::: 5/22 nmsl1441.12.sxw 'AFZAL'. He submits that the registration certificate in respect of trade mark no. 445798 itself would reveal that there is disclaimer regarding uses of words PANDARPURI, BEST QUALITY, INDIAN TOBACCO and descriptive matter appearing on the label. He submits that 'HUKKA' is a descriptive matter and, therefore, that cannot be distinguishing feature in the label of the plaintiffs. As against this he submits that distinguishing feature in the label of the defendants is 'KUBER'. It is thus submitted that the plaintiffs does not have a right in the other features of the plaintiff's label except the distinguishing feature i.e. 'AFZAL'. The learned Counsel relying on the judgment of Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of James Chanwick & Bros. Ltd. vs. The National Sewing Thread Co. Ltd. {AIR 1951 Bombay 147} submits that no case for an action for infringement has been made out by the plaintiffs. The learned Counsel further submits that if the plaintiff fails to make out a case for infringement of trade mark, the case of passing of as a corollary must fail.
The learned Counsel insofar as the contention of the plaintiff regarding infringement of copy right is concerned, submits that Section 48 of the Copyright Act only gives a prima-facie right. He submits that defendants have specifically denied in the affidavit-in-reply that Jagdish Verma has created the artistic design for the plaintiffs. It is submitted that in the absence of plaintiffs establishing that the said Jagdish Verma had assigned the said artistic work in favour of the plaintiffs, the plaintiff's plea insofar as infringement of copyright is concerned, must also fail.
7. With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the parties, I have ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:58:04 ::: 6/22 nmsl1441.12.sxw gone through the documentary evidence, provisions of law and the case laws cited.
8. Undisputedly, the plaintiff's trade mark 'AFZAL' alongwith the artistic work as adopted on the label of the packaging has been registered firstly on 12th November, 1995 with effect from 1 st November, 1977. No doubt that said certificate provides that registration of this trade mark shall not give right to the exclusive use of the words PANDARPURI, BEST QUALITY AND INDIAN TOBACCO and descriptive matter appearing on the label. Again vide trade mark no. 1230032, the plaintiff's trade mark 'AFZAL' alongwith the artistic work adopted on the label for packaging has been registered in class 34 on 02/09/2003 showing user since 30/09/1977.
The said registration is valid till 02/09/2013. Vide trade mark no. 1530553, the plaintiff's trade mark is registered w.e.f. 13/02/2007 showing user since 01/09/1977. The said registration is valid till 13/02/2017. The defendants have also placed reliance on various certificates of registration in support of various classes. Insofar as the present matter is concerned, relevant registration would be the one bearing No. 1002477 in Class 34 dated 10/04/2001 showing the user from the same date. It is relevant to note that almost all the registration of the plaintiffs are registered somewhere in April, May 2001 with effect from same dates. It is also to be seen that defendant no.1 itself is incorporated in 1999-2000.
9. In this background, I will first deal with the contention of Dr. Tulzapurkar that the plaintiffs will have an exclusive right only insofar as ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:58:04 ::: 7/22 nmsl1441.12.sxw an essential feature of his label work and that in the present case essential feature of the label work is only 'AFZAL'. The learned Counsel, therefore, submits that plaintiffs cannot claim an infringement if non-essential features are imitated on the label of the defendants. The learned Counsel in this respect heavily relies on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of James Chandwick & bros. Ltd. cited supra.
10. In the case of James Chandwick & bros. Ltd., the Division Bench was considering an appeal from Judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court setting aside the order of Registrar of Trade Marks.
ig The petitioners had applied to the Registrar of Trade Marks for registration of their trade marks in connection with cotton sewing thread. There was opposition by the appellants and the Registrar came to the conclusion that the mark which the respondents sought to register was likely to deceive and cause confusion and, therefore, refused to register the mark. Against the said decision, an appeal was preferred before the learned Single Judge, who allowed the appeal and set aside the findings of the Registrar holding that respondents were entitled to have their trade mark registered. In the said case the registered trade mark of the appellant bears the legend "Eagle Sewing Machine Thread' and it has a representation of an eagle. The other trade mark merely had a representation of an eagle without any writing. Insofar as respondent's trade mark was concerned, it bears the legend 'Peerless Quality Vulture Brand Reel Thread' and had a representation of a bird. The learned Single Judge had held that the representation of a bird in the trade mark of the respondent could not be the "eagle' and, therefore, ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:58:04 ::: 8/22 nmsl1441.12.sxw reversed the order of the Registrar. While allowing the appeal, the Division Bench in paras 10 and 11 observes thus:-
"10. .......Now in deciding whether a particular trade mark is likely to deceive or cause confusion, it is not sufficient merely to compare it with the trade mark which is already registered & whose proprietor is offering opposition to the registration of the former trade mark. What is important is to find out what is the distinguishing or essential feature of the trade mark already registered & what is the main feature or the main idea under- lying that trade mark, & if it is found that the trade mark whose registration is sought contains the same distinguishing or essential feature or conveys the same idea, then ordinarily the Registrar would be right if he came to the conclusion that the trade mark should not be registered. The real question is as to how a purchaser, who must be looked upon as an average man of ordinary intelligence, would re-act to a particular trade mark, what association he would form by looking at the trade mark, & in what respect he would connect the trade mark with the gooda which he would be purchasing, It is impossible to accept that a man looking at a trade mark would take in every single feature of the trade mark. The question would be, what would he normally retain in His mind after looking at the trade mark?
What would be the salient feature of the trade mark which in future would lead him to associate the particular goods with that trade mark ? In this case, fortunately, we have no difficulty in deciding what is the distinguishing or essential feature of the trade mirk of the appellants As we said before, it is on record that the goods sold under this trade mark are well known and commonly asked for as 'Eagley' or 'Eagle' & therefore the particular feature of the trade mark of the appellants by which the goods are identified & which is associated in the mind of the purchaser is the representation of the Eagle appearing in the trade mark. Therefore the very narrow question which arises in this appeal is whether the trade mark sought to be registered by the respondents does contain a similar or identical distinguishing or essential feature. If it does, if the trade mark conveys the idea of an Eagle & if an unwary purchaser is likely to accept the goods of the respondents as answering the requisition for Eagle ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:58:04 ::: 9/22 nmsl1441.12.sxw goods, then undoubtedly the trade mark of the respondents is one which would be likely to deceive or cause confusion.
11. The learned Judge below in a very careful judgment has meticulously examined the points of similarity & dis-similarity between the trade mark of the appellants & the trade mark of the respondents, & he has come to the conclusion that the points of difference are so numerous & the points of similarity so few that in his view there was no such resemblance as was likely to cause confusion. With very great respect, in our opinion, that was not the correct approach to the matter. What the learned Judge should have done was not to keep these two trade marks before him & to find out how they differ & how little they resemble;
what he should have done was to decide for himself what was the distinguishing or essential feature of the appellants' trade mark, & then, looking at the trade mark of the respondents, to ask himself whether there was any resemblance in the trade mark of the respondents to that distinguishing or essential feature. It is true, as pointed out by the learned Judge, that the bird appearing in the respondents' trade mark is different in its posture, in its poise, in the position of its head, & in the spreading of its wings from the bird that appears in the trade mark of the appellants. But that is hardly the question. The question is whether the bird in the respondents' trade mark is likely to be mistaken by an average man of ordinary intelligence as an Eagle, & as we said before, whether, if he asked for Eagle goods & he got goods bearing this trade mark of the respondents, he would reject them saying. "This cannot be an Eagle; I asked for Eagle goods & the bird I see before me is anything bub an Eagle." The learned Judge has very frankly stated in his judgment that he is not an ornithologist. My claims to be considered that are even more slender, & I have no pretentions whatever of being able to distinguish an Eagle from a bird which is not an Eagle or indeed one bird from another. But in this case, fortunately, it is not necessary to give a judicial pronouncement as to whether the bird appearing in the respondents' trade mark is or is not an Eagle, because the pronouncement has been given by the respondents themselves, & no pronouncement can be more weighty than the pronouncement of the party who applies for the trade mark. As we said before, for two years prior to the application for ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:58:04 ::: 10/22 nmsl1441.12.sxw registration the respondents described this parti-cular bird as an Eagle & called their brand Eagle Brand. Mr. Desai says that that was due to an honest & bona fide mistake. But Mr. Desai's clients have nob the monopoly of making honest & bona fide mistakes. If an honest & bona fide mistake was possible in the case of the respondents, surely a similar mistake can take place is more likely to take place in the case of people who come from a more humble & ordinary status of life. Therefore, if there is a possibility of a mistake, if there is a likelihood of this bird being mistaken or accepted as an Eagle, that pos-sibility itself is sufficient to entitle the Registrar to say that this trade mark is likely to deceive or cause confusion.
11. It can thus clearly be seen that the said judgment rather than supporting the case of the defendants, would support the case of the plaintiffs. The ratio is clear. It is not permissible to keep the two trade marks side by side for comparison and find out how they defer and how little they resemble. The Division Bench in clear terms hold that if there is a likelihood of a bird in the trade mark of the defendant being mistaken or accepted as an eagle, that possibility itself is sufficient to entitle the Registrar to say that trade mark is likely to deceive or cause confusion. By now it is a settled position of law that the trade mark has to be considered as a whole and not in part. As a matter of fact in the said case the Division Bench found that the learned Single Judge had erred in reversing the order of the Registrar and had allowed the appeal restoring the order passed by the Registrar. In any case by now it is a settled position of law that the trade mark has to be considered as a whole and that particular part thereof cannot be considered in isolation. At this stage it would be relevant to refer to the observations of the Division Bench of th is Court in the case of Hiralal Parbhudas v/s. Ganesh Trading Company {AIR 1984 Bombay ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:58:04 ::: 11/22 nmsl1441.12.sxw 218}. The paragraph 5 of the order reads thus:
"5. What emerges from these authorities is (a) what is the main idea or salient features, (b) marks are remembered by general impressions or by some significant detail rather than by a photographic recollection of the whole, (c) overall similarity is the touchstone, (d) marks must be looked at from the view and first impression of a person of average intelligence and imperfect recollection, (e) overall structure phonetic simitant and both visual and phonetic tests must be applied, (f) the purchaser must not be put in a state of wonderment, (g) marks must be compared as a whole, microscopic examination being impermissible, (h) the broad and salient features must be considered for which the marks must not be placed side by side to find out differences in design and (I) overall similarity is sufficient. In addition indisputably must also be taken in-to consideration the nature of the commodity, the class of purchasers, the mode of purchase and other surrounding circumstances."
12. The learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Tata Tea Ltd.
Cited supra had an occasion to consider a similar question as to whether the trade mark of the respondent Suruchi Tea Company was deceptively similar to that of plaintiff's trade mark Tata tea. The learned Single Judge while coming to the conclusion that the trade mark of the respondent was deceptively similar to that of the petitioners has observed thus:-
"12. Consistent with the view taken by the Division Bench, in the Hiralal Prabhudas case, is the judgment of another Division Bench of the Court in National Chemicals and Colour Co. v. Reckitt and Colman of India Limited, MANU/MH/0016/1991 :
AIR1991Bom76 . That was a case where the trade mark which was sought to be registered by the appellant consisted of a picture of two birds sitting on a twig. One bird was partially hidden by the other bird. The words Bul Bul were written on either side of ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:58:04 ::: 12/22 nmsl1441.12.sxw the two birds. As against this, the registered trade mark of the respondent consisted of the picture of a single bird sitting on a twig with the words Robin Ultra Marine Blue. The Division Bench was of the view that the picture of a bird sitting on a twig which was the registered mark of the respondent was very similar to the picture of two birds sitting on a twig which was proposed to be registered as a trade mark by the appellant. True enough , the mark of the appellant consisted of two birds whereas that of the respondent consisted only of one bird. The Division Bench held that this was not sufficient to hold that the two marks were not similar, since both the devices bore a close resemblance to each other. The Division Bench held that one cannot compare two trade marks by putting them side by side by trying to find out similarities and differences between them. What the Court has to consider is the overall impression which the trade mark gives, because, this is what members of the public carry in their minds.
The Division Bench, therefore, concurred with the view taken by the learned Single Judge insofar as he had set aside the order of the Registrar allowing the registration.
13. In the present case, the trade mark of the respondent and the trade marks of the appellant are described by the Deputy Registrar in the impugned order. The order of the Deputy Registrar records that the respondent applied for the registration of the label mark comprising of the words "SURUCHI TEA"
prominently displayed at the center of the label with the logo STC placed in a triangle at the bottom of the label. The label is described thus:
"The said label is embossed in concentric green circles with oblique thick lines emanating from each circle creating an ornamental pattern."
Insofar as the mark of the appellant is concerned, the impugned order described it in the following words :
"The mark of the opponents consists of Tata Tea with predominant green colour background with a particular get up of a circular concentric pattern and an oblique thick line on the upper left hand corner of the design. The design and particular get up is stated to comprise of series of concentrically shaped curves on either side of a central core, thus creating an ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:58:04 ::: 13/22 nmsl1441.12.sxw ornamental pattern of a distinctive nature. In addition the opponents mark in the polypack is stated to contain a logo of letters "T" and "T" with two leaves on a twig."
14. The burden was upon the respondent to establish that the mark of which registration was sought was such as was not likely to deceive or to cause confusion. A comparison of the two marks in the present case would reveal that insofar as the appellant is concerned, the basic get up and design of its mark consists of concentrically shaped curves around a central core which are shaded green upon which the words "TATA TEA" are impressed on the central core. On the left hand corner of the label mark there are oblique or diagonal green shaded parallel lines. The mark also contains a depiction of a leaf with a twig and the words "TATA TEA" thereon. The "TATA" logo appears immediately below the words 'TATA TEA". Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant urged before the Court that the use of the concentric curves upon which the words "TATA TEA" are impressed is part of the established design and get up of the mark of the appellant.
In the case of the appellant's mark, there is between two curves a peculiar etching of thatched lines, much in the shape of thorns. The concentric curves, shaded green together with the peculiar etching between them is an essential feature and hallmark of the appellant.
15. Insofar as the design which has been proposed by the respondent is concerned, that design makes use of concentric circles. The concentric circles in the design of the respondent are also shaded green and in the left hand corner of the label of the respondent there are also two oblique lines within which the words "FRESH TEA" appear. The respondents imprint upon the concentric circles the words "SURUCHI TEA". The mere use of the words "SURUCHI TEA" as in the case of the mark of the respondent and of the words "TATA TEA" by the appellant would in a case such as the present, not be dispositive of the question as to whether the mark of the respondent of which registration is sought is likely to deceive or cause confusion. The case of the appellant is that the use of the concentric curves is indeed an essential part of its label mark. Reliance in this regard has been placed on the several advertisements which were appended to the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:58:04 ::: 14/22 nmsl1441.12.sxw affidavit of evidence filed on behalf of the appellant. In those advertisements, there is for instance a figure of a dancing girl whose wings are purported to be in the nature of a butterfly. The concentric curves appear prominently on the wings. Similarly, in another label mark which is also annexed to the affidavit in evidence, the concentric curves appear prominently upon which the logo "ASLI TAAZGI" is imprinted. Each of the marks of the appellant whether for TATA TEA or for KANAN DEVAN TEA, which is also marketed by the appellant relies upon the visual effect of the concentric curves as the basic pattern of the logo. The visual impact or get up of the appellant's mark is distinctive because of the concentric curves which form an essential feature of the mark.
16. Guided as I am by the principles of law which have been laid down in several judgments of the Supreme Court and of this Court, the effort of the Court has to be not to compare the two marks with a view to notice the differences between them, but to consider whether the overall impact that is conveyed by the mark of the respondent of which registration is sought is one of visual similarity with the mark of the appellant. The two marks can obviously not be identical. The test that is required to be considered under Section 11 (a) is not whether the marks are identical, but whether they are such that the use of the mark which was sought to be registered would be likely to deceive or cause confusion. There is merit in the submission which has been urged on behalf of the appellant that the use of the concentric circles in the label mark of the respondent was likely to deceive or to cause confusion. The Court must have regard to the fact that the product in relation to which the mark of the respondent is sought to be registered is tea, a commodity of mass consumption which is used almost universally by consumers in the country. Every individual is a consumer and the Court would not be wrong in assuming that the vast majority does regard tea as an item of day to day consumption. A consumer who goes to the market to purchase a polypack of tea marketed by the appellant is likely to be deceived or confused when he sees or is offered a packet of tea marketed by the respondent containing on its label a design similar to the concentric curves prominently used on the marks of the appellant. The brand names may be different for, while the appellant markets TATA TEA, the respondent sells its tea pouches under the brand name SURUCHI TEA. The ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:58:04 ::: 15/22 nmsl1441.12.sxw difference in names, however, is not dispositive of the question of confusion or deceptive similarity. This principle has been considered in a judgment of the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice in England. In Lavener Rutledge Ld. v. Specters Ld. the tins of hard boiled sweets sold by the Plaintiffs carried the brand name "Taveners Fruit Flavoured Drops" while the tins of the Defendants carried their brand name which was "Specters Fruit Flavoured Drops. ......"
13. It is a settled position as emerges from the decided cases that while comparing the two marks, the Court would be required to ascertain what is the main idea or salient features. That it has to be taken into consideration, that marks are remembered by the general impressions or by some significant detail rather than by a photographic recollection of the whole. It is to be considered as to whether there is overall similarity. In the touchstone, marks must be looked at from the view and first impression of a person of average intelligence and imperfect recollection. Overall structure, phonetic similarity and similarity of idea are important and both visual and phonetic tests must be applied. The purchaser must not be put in a state of wonderment. Marks must be compared as a whole, microscopic examination being impermissible. The broad and salient features must be considered for which the marks must not be placed side by side to find out differences in design, and overall similarity is sufficient.
14. In a case of this nature what will be relevant to consider is that whether there is any overall visual similarity between the label of the plaintiffs and that of the defendants and while doing so it will not be permissible to compare the same by keeping them side by side. In addition ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:58:04 ::: 16/22 nmsl1441.12.sxw to this, the factors like nature of the commodity, the class of purchasers and other surrounding circumstances would also have to be taken into consideration. In that view of the matter, I find that contention of the learned Counsel for the defendant that the Court while comparing the mark of the plaintiffs and defendants should only take into consideration the words 'AFZAL' and 'KUBER' is without substance.
15. It is the next contention of Dr. Tulzapurkar, relying on the provisions of Section 13 of the Trade Mark Act, 1940 read with Section 17 of the present Act to the effect that in view of disclaimer regarding the words PANDARPURI, BEST QUALITY, INDIAN TOBACCO and descriptive matters, the said words and the descriptive matter on the label of the plaintiffs as well as defendants cannot be looked into. The answer would lie in the observations of the Apex Court in the case of Registrar of Trade Marks v/s. Ashok Chandra Rakhit Ltd. {AIR 1955 SC 558}, it will be relevant to reproduce the observations of the Apex Court which reads thus:
"8. The third thing to note is that avowed purpose of the section is not to confer any direct benefit on the rival traders or the general public but to define the rights of the proprietor under the registration. The registration of a trade mark confers substantial advantages on its proprietor as will appear from the sections grounded together in Chapter IV under the heading "Effect of Registration." It is, however, a notorious fact that there is a tendency on the part of some proprietors to get the operation of their trade marks expanded beyond their legitimate bounds. An illustration of an attempt of this kind is to be found in In re Smokeless Powder Co.'s Trade Mark ; . Temptation has even led some proprietors to make an exaggerated claim to the exclusive use of parts or matters contained in their trade marks in spite of the fact that they had expressly disclaimed the exclusive use of those parts or matters. Reference may be made to Greers Ltd. v.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:58:04 :::
17/22 nmsl1441.12.sxw Pearman and Corder Ltd. commonly called the "Banquet" case. The real purpose of requiring a disclaimer is to define the rights of the proprietor under the registration so as to minimise, even if it cannot wholly eliminate, the possibility of extravagant and unauthorised claims being made on the score of registration of the trade marks.
9. The last feature of the section is its proviso. That proviso preserves intact any right which the proprietor may otherwise under any other law have in relation to the mark or any part thereof. The disclaimer is only for the purposes of the Act. It does not affect the rights of the proprietor except such as arise out of registration. That is to say, the special advantages which the Act gives to the proprietor by reason of the registration of his trade mark do not extend to the parts or matters which he disclaims. In short, the disclaimed parts or matters are not within the protection of the statute. That circumstance, however, does not mean that the proprietor's rights, if any, with respect to those parts or matters would not be protected otherwise than under the Act. If the proprietor has acquired any right by long user of those parts or matters in connection with goods manufactured or sold by him or otherwise in relation to his trade, he may, on proof of the necessary facts, prevent an infringement of his rights by a passing off action or a prosecution under the Indian Penal Code. Disclaimer does not affect those rights in any way."
The Apex Court in the said case held that the purpose of disclaimer is to define the right of the proprietor under the registration, so as to minimise the possibility of extravagant and unauthorised claims being made on the basis of the Registration of the trade mark. The Apex Court has further held that proviso to Section 13 reserves the rights which the Proprietor may otherwise under any other law have in relation to the mark or any part thereof. Further it has been in unequivocal terms held that it does not affect the rights of the proprietor except such as arise out of registration. It has been held that though the disclaimer part or matters are not within the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:58:04 ::: 18/22 nmsl1441.12.sxw protection of the statute, that circumstance, however, does not mean that the proprietor's rights, if any, with respect to those parts or matters would not be protected otherwise than under the Act. It has been in unequivocal terms held that if the proprietor has acquired any right by long user or those parts or matters in connection with goods manufactured or sold by him or otherwise in relation to his trade, he may, on proof of the necessary facts, prevent an infringement of his rights by a passing off action or a prosecution under the Indian Penal Code It has been clearly held that the disclaimer does not affect those rights in any way. It can thus clearly be seen that inspite of disclaimer an action of passing off could be taken if the plaintiff establishes that by long use of the trade mark, he has acquired any rights in the disclaimer part.
16. In any case in the present case I find that applying the tests as laid down by this Court, a clear case of infringement has been made out. As held in the catena of decisions for comparison, microscopic examination is not permissible. What is required to be considered is a broad and salient features and even for that it is not permissible to compare the said features by placing both the marks side by side. It appears to be a settled position of law that if an overall similarity is found, it will sufficiently establish the case of infringement.
17. In this view of the matter, let us examine the trade mark of the plaintiffs which is registered and that of the defendants which is not registered. On the product of the plaintiffs, 'AFZAL' is mentioned in bold ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:58:04 ::: 19/22 nmsl1441.12.sxw and capital letters in green text, encircled in an elliptical white background and is further captured within a rectangle box frame having brown coloured background pattern. The product is described as 'PANDARPURI BEST QUALITY INDIAN TOBACCO', all words depicted in capital letters and brown colour font, which is captured in the centre of the label/packaging in brown text; the words are intercepted with prominent green coloured lines.
The placement of words are depicted as 'Pandarpuri' on first line, 'Best Quality' in second line, 'Indian' in third line and 'Tobacco' in fourth line. Along the left side of the description, 'PANDARPURI, BEST QUALITY INDIAN TOBACCO', a device of Hookah is prominently used. The details of the proprietor is captured in white colour text in brown background, and is located in the lower part of the label/packaging. Outer dimensions of packaging of product of the plaintiffs are 16.5 X 11.5 cms. Statutory details are stated in lower part of packaging.
18. As against this, on the product of the defendants 'KUBER' is mentioned in bold and capital letters in green text, encircled in a substantially elliptical white background and which is further captured within a rectangle box frame having brown coloured background pattern. The product is described as 'PANDARPURI BEST QUALITY INDIAN TOBACCO', all words depicted in capital letters and brown colour font, which is captured in the centre of the label/packaging in brown text; the words are intercepted with prominent green coloured lines. The placement of words are depicted as 'Pandarpuri' on first line, 'Best Quality' in second line, 'Indian' in third line and 'Tobacco' in fourth line. On both sides of the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:58:04 ::: 20/22 nmsl1441.12.sxw description, 'PANDARPURI, BEST QUALITY INDIAN TOBACCO', a device of Hookah is prominently used. The details of the proprietor is captured in white colour text in brown background, and is located in the lower part of the label/packaging. Outer dimensions of packaging of product of the defendants are 16.5 X 11.5 cms. Statutory details are stated in lower part of packaging. The perusal of the colour scheme used in the defendant's trade mark would also reveal that it is almost identical.
19. The test to be applied is as to whether an ordinary person of an average intelligence, if has seen the product of the plaintiff and subsequently if he comes across the product of the defendant, is there a possibility on the basis of faint recollection of he being confused as to whether the same is the product of the plaintiffs. For that the test as to be applied would be " As judged by the Eye". Microscopic examination or comparison of both the products side by side will not be permissible in law.
From the comparison of both the products and applying the test "as judged by the Eye", I am of the considered view that there is a possibility of the defendant's product being passed of as that of the plaintiffs.
20. Insofar as the contention of the defendants that their product is also registered, the perusal of Registration Certificate No. 676845 dated 10/4/2001 would reveal that the artistic work as adopted on the label of the defendants is totally different than the one which is now being used by them on their packaging. Not only that, the entire advertisements which are placed on record would show that the product advertised is totally ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:58:04 ::: 21/22 nmsl1441.12.sxw having a different label on its packaging. It is pertinent to note that, not a single advertisement has been placed on record by the defendants which would depict the label of the product, which is impugned in the present Suit. From the material placed on record it would reveal that the plaintiffs have adopted their trade mark from 1977 and are using the artistic work on the label of the packaging which is registered since long. The material on record would reveal that the plaintiffs have acquired substantial goodwill in the market and have also made huge promotional expenses. It can be anybody's guess as to why the defendant instead of using the label which is registered with authorities and label which is widely advertised, have now started using the label which is almost similar with that of the plaintiffs. It also can be seen that the defendant has not given any explanation as to how it has adopted the label which is identical with that of the plaintiffs. I am, therefore, of the considered view that the label which is sought to be used by the defendants now is nothing else but a deceptive imitation of the plaintiff's label. I am, therefore, of the considered view that the plaintiffs have made out a prima-facie case for grant of injunction as prayed for.
21. I further find that the tests of balance of convenience and irreparable injury are in favour of the plaintiffs. On one hand is the statutory right of the plaintiffs to exclusively use the trade mark and the artistic work on the label which is registered with the Competent Authorities. On the other hand though the defendants are having a label registered with the Competent Authorities, are using the label which is deceptively similar to that of the plaintiffs. I, therefore, find that it is necessary to protect the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:58:04 ::: 22/22 nmsl1441.12.sxw statutory right of the plaintiffs. Even insofar as the action of passing off is concerned, the plaintiffs are entitled to an order of injunction. The plaintiffs have earned goodwill and good reputation in the market over decades together. If the defendants are permitted to pass off their product as that of plaintiffs and if the products are of inferior quality, the same may harm the reputation of the plaintiffs. As such if the injunction as prayed for is not granted, the plaintiffs would suffer an irreparable injury. As against this no irreparable injury would be caused to the defendants inasmuch as they can very well continue to manufacture and sale the products by using the trade mark/label registered with the Competent Authority and the one which is advertised by them.
22. In that view of the matter, the notice of motion is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a)(b) and (c).
23. At this stage, learned Senior Counsel Dr. Virendra Tulzapurkar prays for stay of this order. I have taken the considered view that the trade mark used by the defendants is nothing else but a deceptive imitation of the plaintiff's trade mark. I have further held that test of prima-facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury tilt heavily in favour of the plaintiffs. In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to consider the prayer as made by the defendants. The same is rejected.
(B.R.GAVAI, J.) Panjwani.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:58:04 :::