Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(j) The appellant, thus, by virtue of registration of the trade mark mentioned earlier had acquired exclusive right to the use of the composite trade mark TAJ and such right will be deemed to be infringed when any person uses in relation to the same or similar goods in the course of trade, such mark which is identical with and/or deceptively similar to the trade mark of the appellant.

(k) As the appellant is the owner of the artistic work including the colour combination, style of writing, get up etc. in its label/composite trade mark TAJ used in connection with its business and since the said artistic work is registered under the Copyright Act, 1957, the appellant has exclusive right to reproduce and publish the said artistic work in any form for the purpose of trade and in case, any person does anything which contravenes the exclusive right conferred upon the owner of the said copyright, the act of the said person should be treated as infringement of copyright.

12. Mr.. Bachwat next contends that slight differences in the writing of the trade mark of the respondent is immaterial inasmuch as, the commodity that is dealt with by the parties is bucket and is used by the public who generally has no extensive knowledge of English but they are guided by the design and colour combination of the trade mark. Mr. Bachwat contends that the word "MAJ" is deceptively similar to "TAJ" inasmuch as "A" and "Z", the last two syllables are same and the only variation is of the first syllable but the size of the trade mark, the oval shape, the combined colours of read and yellow and the corrugated design at the boundary of the label of the respondents depicts the same as deceptively similar to that of the appellant and the ordinary people are bound to be misguided by such deceptive trade mark and as such, it is a fit case where this Court should hold that the trade mark of respondents is deceptively similar to that of appellant. Mr. Bachwat contends that once such finding is arrived at, injunction is a matter of course. In support of such contention Mr. Bachwat further relies upon a decision of this Court in the case of Strassenburg Pharmaceuticals Limited v. Himalaya Drug Company and Anr., reported in 2001(3) CHN 159.

16. In the case before us, there is no dispute that the trade mark "MAJ" has been conferred upon defendant long after the registration of the trade mark "TAJ" in favour of the appellant and in the past, the respondents conceded their guilt of using a deceptively similar trade mark "TAJA" and even paid compensation of Rs. 1001/-. Therefore, even if subsequently, the respondents have obtained a trade mark in the name of "MAJ" that fact cannot stand in the way of the Court in granting injunction against respondent if it is established that the said trade mark "MAJ" is deceptively similar to that of plaintiff. Since the two marks are not identical, the onus is upon the appellant to establish that the mark used by the respondents so nearly resembles the earlier-obtained trade mark of the appellant as is likely to deceive or cause confusion in relation to the goods in respect of which his mark has been registered. This has necessarily to be ascertained by comparison to the two marks bearing in mind that the persons who would be deceived are the purchasers of the goods and it is their likelihood of being deceived that is the subject of consideration. At this stage, we can profitably refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case Corn Products Refining Company v. Sangrilla Food Products Limited, , where the Apex Court, while considering the question of deception between "gluvita" and "glucovita", observed that the question, whether the two marks are likely to give rise to confusion or not, is a question of first impression. According to the Apex Court, it cannot be overlooked that if the word is an English word, which to the mass of Indian people is a foreign word, in deciding the question of similarity between two such marks, those are to be considered as a whole. Applying that principle in the fact of that case, the Supreme Court held that apart from the syllable "co-" in the appellant's mark, the two marks were identical and that syllable was, in the opinion of Supreme Court, not such as would enable the buyers in our country to distinguish the one mark from the other. The Supreme Court further observed that, in deciding such question, the Court should approach it from the point of view of a man of average intelligence and imperfect recollection. To such a man, the Supreme Court proceeded, the overall structural and phonetic similarity and the similarity of the idea in the two marks are likely to cause reasonable confusion between them.

18. We are of the opinion that the commodity used on the basis of such trade mark being bucket which is used by common people who are ignorant of details of the writing, there is every possibility of deception of the common people. In our view, any common people who are not efficient in English can be misled by the trade mark of defendants as that of plaintiff. If "Lakhshmandhara" is held to be deceptively similar to "Amritdhara"' (see Amritadhara Pharmacy v. Satya Deo Gupta, ), in our view, MAJ must be held to be deceptively similar to TAJ in the eyes of purchasers of average intelligence and imperfect recollection if we also take into consideration the colour combination, shape and other artistic design of the two labels.