Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

M.H.S. Ansari, J. (Chairman)

1. The appeal is directed against the order dated March 25, 2003 read with the order dated 11.4.2005 in the Review Petition asking review of the earlier mentioned order dated March 25, 2003. By the order dated March 25, 2003 the application of respondent for registration of the Trade Mark SKE under Application No. 552741 in respect of plummer block cast iron being goods included in class 6 was allowed to proceed to registration subject to restriction of the goods for sale in the state of West Bengal only. Though, the user was claimed in the application for registration since July 1949, the application was accepted for registration subject to amendment of the statement of user to read as since 17.8.1974. Appellant before us was the opponent before the Registry and had filed its opposition on the ground that it is the registered proprietor of the mark "SKF" which is also their house mark and is registered in various classes i.e. in class 6, 7, 8, 9 & 12.

9. The Delhi High Court in Aktiebolaget SKF v. Rajesh Engineering Corporation 1997 PTC (16) page 160 considered the trade marks 'SKF' and 'SKI' and held that it was manifest from the two trade marks that the first two letters thereof are common. Only the last letters in the two marks are different. Since the first two letters of the competing marks being identical they bear a close similarity. It was further held that there is possibility and likelihood of mistake being committed by an average man of ordinary prudence and intelligence in identifying the trade mark 'SKI' with the goods of the appellant.

10. Also an earlier Bench of this Board in its order No. 54/05 considered the question of similarity between the appellant's registered trade mark 'SKF' and registration of the trade mark 'SKE' applied for in that case. It was held that the rival marks are deceptively similar with two strong consonants S & K being at the first two places. It was further held that in its geometrical presentation, the letter E & F bear too much of resemblance leading to confusion.

11. In view of the above two decisions, there is hardly any scope to doubt that the rival marks 'SKE' and 'SKF' bear too much resemblance leading to confusion and there is every likelihood of the goods bearing the mark applied for being mistaken with the goods of the appellant bearing similar mark. We hold accordingly

12. Already, as noticed above, learned Assistant Registrar held that the goods covered by the rival marks are similar. The appellant being the registered proprietor of the trade mark 'SKF' which is also their house mark registered in various classes 6, 7, 8, 9 and 12, the (SKE) mark applied for registration by the respondent ought to have been refused on the grounds of violation of Section 11(a) and 12(1) as also under Section 18(1) of the Act. The appellant being the prior registered proprietor of a similar mark for identical goods, the respondent / applicant was not entitled to registration of a similar trade mark for identical goods as that would be in violation of Sections 11(a) and 12(1) of the Act.