Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4 It seems plaintiff saw newspaper articles on or about 17 th July 2019 stating that BIS (Bureau of Indian Standards) had raided the premises of defendants and amongst other products found packaged drinking water bearing the mark BAILLEY, PARLE AGRO BAILEY and the BAILLEY label packaged in jars which were identical to the BAILLEY jar of plaintiff. The product is water and if water is contaminated or spurious product is introduced in the market, it would cause harm and injury to the general Gauri Gaekwad 3/4 14.NMCDL-1795-2019.doc public. Not only plaintiff's profits will be affected but it will end up affecting the general public. In such cases, we must remember that the product is water and any kind of confusion by the customer can have an unpleasant if not disastrous results. The Courts need to be particularly vigilant where defendant's packaged water are being passing off as plaintiff's. The confusion is more likely in such cases to result in loss of life or other serious health problems. As held in Cadila Health Care Limited V/s. Cadila Pharmaceutical Limited1 public interest would support lesser degree of proof showing confusing similarity in the case of names of companies manufacturing medicinal products as against other non medicinal products.