Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

18. The next contention of the learned counsel for the appellants was that the trade mark allegedly used by the plaintiff is not identical with the trade mark of the defendants and therefore, there was no question of any Infringement of the trade mark of plaintiff.

10. The question whether the right of a trade mark has been infringed in a particular case or not has been answered by the Apex Court In Parle Products (P) Ltd. v. J, P, and Co.. Mysore, AIR 1972 SC 1359. Relying on the provisions of Section 29(1) of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act and decision of Apex Court in Durga Dutt v. Navaratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories, AIR 1965 SC 980 and "Kerly's Law of Trade and Merchandise and Trade Names" held that 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 a 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.