Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. Parle Products v. J. P. & Co., Mysore, .
2. A. V. Rajadurai Nadar v. P. Ayya Nadar, .
3. Kerly's book Paragraph 17 @ 19, 449.
4. Selvaraj v. Edward Nadar (1977) 90 Mad LW 645 @ 652 Paragraph (sic).

(iii-b) Further, there is much variance in the price of the respective cigarettes. While the price of the plaintiff's plain cigarette is Rs. 3.50 that of the defendant's is Rs. 2.25.

(iii-c) while the plaintiff's plain cigarettes cater to higher class, the defendant's cater to lower class, who were earlier smoking bcedies.

9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff, in relation to the above referred to paragraph 8 (iii-a) sub-mission of the learned counsel for the appellant, refers to the definilion of 'mark' in S. 2(f) of the Act and the definition of the term 'deceptively similar' in S. 2(d) of the Act and points out that (with reference to both the applications) the design, colour, printing, general lay out, get up and other features of the respective defendant's impugned trade marks are deceptively similar to the respective plaintiff's registered trade marks. According to him, the defendant has copied the roundel design including the intersecting rectangly, which is a distinctive, essential inseparable and integral part of the plaintiff's trade mark; the defendant has adopted the Plaintiffs style of printing the words 'Gold Flake' inside the rectangular design; the defendant has printed the words 'Gold Flake' boldly and prominently in the same manner as in the plaintiffs registered trade mark; the defendant has also copied the other prominent features of the plaintiff's design such as the three stars. Then, according to him, in the case of plain cigarettes, the colour scheme and the rectangular border lines in red and tarnished gold are copied and, in the case of filter cigarettes, the colour scheme of yellow and red and wide red band at the top of the packet have also been copied. In this connection, the learned counsel relied on Parle Products v. J. P. & Co., Mysore, ; A. Shanmugha Mudaliar v. A. Abdul Kareem, and Hiralal Parbhudas v. Ganesh Trading Co., parag to contend that in an infringement action, 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 and that it would be enough if the impugned mark bears such an over all similarity to the registered mark as would be likely to mislead a perosn usually dealing with one to accept the other if offered to him and that it is of no use to note on how many points there is similarity and in how many others there is absence of it.

15. We have carefully considered the above-referred to rival contentions of'both the counsel. We have also made a careful inspection of the plaintiff's above-referred to registered trade mark of 1945 and its modified form (with reference to plain cigarettes) which is the offended mark in C. S. No. 477 of 1990 and which is admittedly in use at least for some years and the corresponding defendant's offending mark in the said suit, which was introduced only in about February 1990. Likewise we also saw the plaintiffs offended mark in relation to the filter cigarettes in C. A. No. 478 of 1990 and the corresponding defendants offending mark in relation to filter cigarettes in same suit. So far as the deceptive similarity between the above-referred to two sets of marks, we also come to the same conclusion as arrived at by the learned trial Judge in both the applications, taking into account the principles laid down in this regard in Parle Products v. J, P. & Co., Mysore, ; A. Shanmugha Mudaliar v. A. Abdul Kareem, and Hiralal Piirbhdas v. Ganesh Trading Co., . The over all similarity emphasised in , referred to above is there between the two sets of offending and offended marks in the present case. In fact the said over all similarity is more apparent in the relevant marks in C. S. No. 478 of 1990. That is why probably the learned counsel for the appellant did not make any appreciable attempt to point out disimilarities between the relevant trade marks in C. S. No. 478 of 1990 as he did with reference to the relevant marks in C. S. No. 477 of 1990, despite some difference pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, the overall impression we get is, on looking at the relevant plaintiff's mark and the defendant's mark, that they are also deceptively similar at least prima facie for the purpose of deciding the question at this interlocutory stage.