Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

i) that as the mark applied for and the opponents' marks were invented words, it was not proper to disregard such elements of the words which were deceptive and therefore the question of likelihood of confusion had to be decided by a comparison of the marks as a whole;

ii) that on comparison of the marks it appeared that there was a likelihood of confusion which the applicants who had not used their mark, had been able to dispel by evidence. The application was therefore rightly dismissed."

12. In this connection, Mr. Patel, the learned Counsel appearing for the Defendant, has submitted that where there are several marks with common prefix proper attention should be given to the termination of the marks. In support of his submission, Mr. Patel has relied upon the case reported in (1978) RPC 406- In that case, the applicant sought to register "Rheumation" in class 1 in Part A of the register in respect of diagnostic laboratory reagents. Opponents objected on the ground that the mark did not meet the requirements of Ss. 9 and 10 of Trade Marks Act, 1938 and that the mark conflicted with their mark "Rheumanosticon" registered in classes 1 and 5. It was, inter alia, held in that case that despite common prefix "Rheuma" there were special factors in that case winch ruled out any likelihood of confusion, in particular the attention which laboratory staff would be likely to pay to the terminations of the marks when ordering diagnostic preparations.