Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

16. Similar question arose earlier before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Corn Products Refining Co. v. Shangrila Food Products Ltd.; AIR 1960 SC 142, wherein two rival words were „Gluvita‟ and „Glucovita‟. The Hon'ble Apex Court in paras 16 and 17 dealt with the same point, which read as under:

16. We have already said that in our view the mark 'Glucovita' has acquired a reputation among the general buying public. The first question that then arises is whether the marks 'Glucovita' and' Gluvita' are so similar as to be likely to cause confusion to the buying public or deceive them. On this matter, we have not the advantage of the view of the learned appellate Judges of the High Court. They did not express any view on this aspect of the question at all. We are however inclined to think that their answer to the question would have been in the affirmative. However that may be, the Deputy Registrar felt that the words were not so similar as to be likely to give rise to confusion or to cause deception. He felt that the syllable 'co' in the appellant's mark was an emphatic characteristic and was not likely to be slurred over. He apparently felt that this syllable would prevent any confusion arising between the two marks or any person being deceived by the use of them both. He thought that the test down in what is called the "Ovax" case, (1945) 63 R.P.C. 97, should be applied and that the emphatic characteristic of the second syllable in the mark 'Glucovita' should decide that there was no likelihood of confusion arising. Desai, J. thought that the Deputy Registrar was wrong.