Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

In Weber-Stephen Products Co. v. Alrite Engineering (Pty) Ltd. and Ors. (1992) RPC 549) the Supreme Court of South Africa was considering action for passing off. There, the contention that the plaintiffs 'kettle type' barbecue grill soley to its shape and external configuration the plaintiff's products acquired distinctiveness in the market and reputation. The Court held that shape and configuration of products although pertaining to necessary parts of product, capricious in sense that product would operate as efficiently and could be manufactured as economically with different arrangement or shape of its parts. Therefore, since the plaintiff has acquired reputation by the size that the defendant should be injuncted to use 'kettle type' barbecue grill and defendant can manufacture barebecue grill in any other size. The House of Lords in Reckitt and Colman Products Ltd. v. Borden Inct. and Ors. (1990) RPC 341) has considered a case where the plaintiff was selling lemon juice since 1956 in plastic squeeze container which in size, shape and colour resembled a lemon. The word 'Jif was embossed on the side of the container. The defendant started selling lemon juice under the mark 'Realemon'. But, used similar plastic bottles. It was held, after considering the evidence, that passing of had been established in both actions and that the purchasing public had come to associate the natural size lemon container with the plaintiff's lemon juice sold under their brand name Jif. The fact that instead of Jif, Realemon is used was not material as those purchasing plastic lemons in super markets did not read the labels but assumed that whatever they brought must be JIF lemon juice. Lord Oliver of Aylmerton, .after considering the various case laws, summarized the decision for passing off as follows:

In Pidilite Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Mittes Corporation and Anr. it was held that plaintiff was using the name 'Fevicol' for long time and defendant started marketing its goods in the name Trevicol' and the name 'Trevicol' is deceptively similar to the name of 'Fevicol'. It was found in Accutron T.M. reported in 1966 RPC, 152, that the name Accutron is similar to Accurist. It was held in Bular T.M. reported in 1966 RPC 141, that the name buler is likely to deceive for the word 'Bulova' for watches. In Hamsa v. Syed Agencies (1990 (1) KLT, 785) it was held that the name Bismilla used for ball points pens, fountain pens and allied articles is deceptively similar to the articles of the plaintiff marketed in the trade name 'Bismi'. In National Garments v. National Apparels (1989 (1) KLT 855) the plaintiff was using the trade mark Tunofom'. The defendant after retirement from the plaintiff-firm has started an identical business with a trade name Tunoform'. It was held that both are deceptively similar and therefore, injunction was issued. In East End Hosiery Mills case mentioned earlier it was held that the word 'Sacha Moti' is similar to 'Hira Moti'. In Corn Products Refining Company's case mentioned earlier, it was held tha tthe word 'Gluvita' used with reference to biscuits and 'Glucovita' used with reference to Glucose are likely to cause confusion. In Bata India Ltd. v. Pyare Lal and Co. it was held that the defendant's use of the name 'Bata foam' was indicative of their intention as it is deceptively similar to 'Bata' and injunction was granted against the defendant. In Anglo-French Drug Co. (Eastern) Ltd. v. Belco Pharma it was held that BEPLEX AND BELPLEX are phonetically and visually similar and the goods of the defendants are likely to be sold as the goods manufactured by the plaintiff. Therefore, injunction was granted restraining the defendant from using similar trade mark.

Other examples where injunctions were granted for deceptive phonetic resemblance of name are:

(1) Pipe and Pine Tie for liquid soap (1993(50) RPC 405);

(2) Kleen up and Kleen offfor gas cooker cleaner (1934 (51) RPC 129);

(3) Erectico and Erector for toys (1935 (52) RPC 136);

(4) Vaseline and Vanildene for oil (Ana Laboratories Ltd.'s Application -1958 RPC 146);

(5) Unimax and Univac for electrical goods (Unimax T.M. 1979 RPC 469);

(6) Aquamatic and Watermatic for water pistols (Reynold's v. Laffeaty's -1958 RPC 387);

(7) Runs and Sanrus (Ravenhead Brick v.Ruabon-1937 RPC 341);

(8) Leibling and Rheinliebiling for Rhine Wines (Rheinliebling's case - 1966 RPC 68);

(9) Rose Cardin and Rose Garden for consmetics (Rose Cardian T.M. -1955 RPC 246);

(10) Hy-line and Hi-bred for poultry (Pioneer Hi-Bred Corn. Co. v. Hy-line Chicks Pvt. Ltd. - 1979 RPC 410);

(11) Midland Counties Dairy Ltd. and Midland Dairies Ltd. for business in ice creams (Midland Countries Dairy Ltd. Midland Dairies Ltd. -1948 RPC 429);

(12) B.I. Phlogiston and Antiphlogistine for a medical preparation (Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd. v. Denver Chemical Manufacturing Co. - );