Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

14. Issue notice. Ms. Jaspreet Kapur, ld. Counsel accepts notice on behalf of the Defendants.

15. The Court has heard the submissions of the ld. counsels and has also perused the physical products, which have been produced before the Court. A comparative chart of the products of the Plaintiffs and Defendants has been laid out in the plaint, which is reproduced hereinunder:

16. A perusal of the physical products shows that broadly, the features of the container, the colour combination, the artistic features including the droplet in the word 'Almond' instead of 'O', inverted 'U' shape label etc. are similar to that of the Plaintiffs' trade dress. The Plaintiffs' trade dress itself is a registered trademark and is, thus, entitled to protection. The Defendants' products are nothing but a substantial and colourable imitation of the Plaintiffs' mark. It is the settled position in law that when comparing products of this nature especially, which are consumer goods, the Court is not to compare the differences, but to see the overall get up, trade dress and the look and feel of the products. In Parle Products (P) Ltd. v. J.P. and Co., Mysore AIR 1972 SC 1359 the Supreme Court has held that in order to examine whether one mark is deceptively similar to another, the broad and essential features of the two are to be considered and they should not be placed side by side to find if there are any differences. The observations of the Court are as under: