Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4) Corn Products Refining Co. v. Shangrila Food Products Ltd:
1960(1) SCR 968 = AIR 1960 SC 142;
5) Amar Singh Chawal Wala v. Shree Vardhman Rice and Genl.

Mills: FAO (OS) 138/1996 decided on 29.05.2009 [(2009) 159 DLT 267];

6) Metropol India (P) Ltd v. Praveen Industries India (Regd):

1997 PTC (17) 779 (DB);
7) Parle Products (P) Ltd. v. J. P. & Company, Mysore: 1972 (1) SCC 618.

21. In Parle Products Pvt. Ltd (supra), the Supreme Court observed as under:-

"9. It is, therefore, clear that in order to come to the conclusion whether one mark is deceptively similar to another, the broad and essential features of the two are to be considered. 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. It would be enough 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. In this case we find that the packets are practically of the same size, the colour scheme of the two wrappers is almost the same; the design on both though not identical bears such a close resemblance that one can essily be mistaken for the other. The essential features of both are that there is a girl with one arm raised and carrying something in the other with a cow or cows near her and hens or chickens in the foreground. In the background there is a farm house with a fence. The word "Gluco Biscuits" in one and "Glucose Biscuits" on the other occupy a prominent place at the top with a good deal of similarity between the two writings. Anyone in our opinion who has a look at one of the packets today may easily mistake the other if shown on another day as being the same article which he had seen before. If one was not careful enough to note the peculiar features of the wrapper on the plaintiffs‟ goods, he might easily mistake the defendants‟ wrapper for the plaintiffs‟ if shown to him some time after he had seen the plaintiffs‟. After all, an ordinary purchaser is not gifted with the powers of observation of a Sherlock Homes. We have therefore no doubt that the defendants‟ wrapper is deceptively similar to the plaintiffs‟ which was registered. We do not think it necessary to refer to the decisions referred to at the bar as in our view each case will have to be judged on its own features and it would be of no use to note on how many points there was similarity and in how many others there was absence of it."