Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

17. In the said case, Plaintiff's registered trade mark "NANDU" was in respect of processed and frozen meat products. Defendants were using the trade mark "NANDOS" in relation to eatable goods or restaurant or hoteling services. In the said case, Defendants started the business in restaurant or hoteling services from 1987 and had established Anglo Portuguese Cuisine restaurant in more than 40 countries, had registered the mark "NANDOS" in more than 100 countries and had established restaurant in Mumbai in the year 2005. The Defendant serves Afro Portuguese Cuisine (Vegetarian and Non-vegetarian) and the Defendants claimed that it is a major international chain running fast food outlets and the restaurant business. Plaintiff dealing in processed or frozen chicken had not even started the business and had only an intention to start the business in India. In the said case after elaborately considering the scheme and the provisions of the Act, single Judge held that "use of the trade mark in relation to the goods is distinct from the use of the trade mark in relation to the services" and that there is a fine distinction between "goods" and "services".

18. In NANDOS case, the single Judge of Bombay High Court held that "scheme and provisions of the Act clearly disclose the dichotomy between goods on the one hand and services on the other". After referring to various English and American Case Laws, the single Judge of Bombay High Court held as under:-

" 12. (iii) ........ Section 28(1) confer upon the registered proprietor a statutory monopoly to use the trade mark in relation to the goods or services in respect of which the trade mark is registered. This would mean that a trade mark registered for goods or for any particular goods will confer upon the proprietor a monopoly only in respect of that class or if the registration is narrow only in respect of the goods for which the registration is given within a particular class. Similarly, the monopoly over the mark qua services would be restricted to only those services mentioned in the registration certificate. In the present case, as the Plaintiffs registration certificate discloses that the first trade mark is only in respect of "processed and frozen meat products" falling in Class 29 of Schedule IV to the 2002 Rules. The mark confers upon the Plaintiff the exclusive right to use the trade mark in respect of processed or frozen meat product and qua no other goods.

(vi) Section 29(2) must necessarily be interpreted with this in mind otherwise by the method of action for infringement under Section 29(2), the proprietor would be able to expand its statutory monopoly to a different class of goods or even to services."

After applying various tests and factors, it was further held as follows:-

"17. ... the goods of the Plaintiff (processed or frozen meat products) and the first Defendant's services/goods (restaurants/food outlets and sale of sauces) cannot be said to be similar or associated. ...."