Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

18. The learned Counsel has drawn my attention to a fact that when there is a google search, trade name of the respondent also scrolls down along with that of the appellants which would definitely affect not only the reputation and business of the appellants but also it would affect the goodwill earned by the appellants by passage of time.

19. In support of his submission, learned Counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on a judgment in the case of Parle Products (P) Ltd Vs. J.P & Co. Mysore , 1972 SCR (3) 289 and Rahul Uttam Suryawanshi Vs. Sunil Manikchand Kasliwal, 2017 (1) Mh. L.J., 315.

22. Without going into the minute details of the merits of the case, what is required to be seen is as to whether the order impugned warrants interference in the appeal, in the sense, whether the learned District Judge has rightly exercised his discretion by refusing to grant equitable relief to the appellants?

23. At the outset, whenever there is a case of an infringement of the registered trademark, broadly speaking what is required to be considered is as to whether the person who alleged to have infringed the mark uses in his course of trade a mark which is identical with or deceptively similar to the trademark in relation to any goods in respect of which the trademark is registered. The term "deceptively similar" means a mark which so nearly resembles another mark as 8 of 18 901-ao-1092-2019.doc likely to deceive or cause confusion. For that, broad and essential features are to be considered, meaning thereby, they should not be placed side by side to find out if there are any differences in the design, and if so, whether they are of such character as to prevent one design from being mistaken for the other. If the impugned mark bears such an overall similarity to the registered mark as would be likely to mislead a person usually dealing with one to accept the other if offered to him. These are broadly the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Parle Products (P) Ltd Vs. J.P & Co. Mysore 1972 SCR (3) 289.

26. After considering the matter at length, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that though the trial Court and the High Court had concurrently found that the defendants' wrapper is not similar to that of the plaintiffs, the findings must be set aside as they have not arrived at on appropriate consideration of law. Thus, the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Parle Products (P) Ltd (supra) can be distinguished on facts of the case in hand. The registered trademark of the appellants and that of the respondent are quite distinct, different and dissimilar in all aspects. There is no question of a common man getting confused. The registered trademark of the appellants is " atmantan be 10 of 18 901-ao-1092-2019.doc transformed" whereas, the trademark of the respondent is "TanMan". If these two trademarks are compared, one would find that the trademark owned by the appellants does not bear any resemblance to that of mark of the respondent, either in size, shape, colour, texture or any other means and, therefore, it would be too hard to infer that a reasonable person would get confused or deceived by the trademark of the respondent.

30. Thus, prima facie, no sane man would say that there is infringement on the part of the respondent in respect of words "TanMan" and "atmantan be transformed" as they are neither similar nor identical when the two are compared.

31. In case of Parle Products (P) Ltd (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court made a reference of Karly's Law of Trade Marks and Trade Names, 9th Edition. The facts before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Parle Products (P) Ltd (supra) were quite peculiar, however, ratio can be distinguished in view of the discussion made hereinabove.