Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

12. In Parle Products (P.) Ltd. v. J.P. & Co. Mysore . Their Lightships have laid emphasis on the test of overall similarity. The broad and essential features of the two are to be considered. One need not place side by side the two to find out if there are any differences in the design, and if so, whether they are of such character as to prevent one from being mistaken for the other. The likelihood of a person usually dealing with the one being mislead to accept the other if offered to him, would be enough. Their Lordships have held that an ordinary purchaser is not gifted with the powers of observation of a Sherlock Homes and cited with approval the following statement from Karly's Law of Trade Marks and Trade Names, (9th edition, paragraph 838) :

29. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff respondent cited a host of authorities which we must catalogue to be fair to him :

(1) Wander Ltd. v. Antox India P. Ltd. (1990 (Suppl.) SCC 727 = 1990(2) Arb. LR 399).
(2) American Home Products v. Mac Lab Cair .
(3) Parle Products v. J. P. & Co. Mysore .
(4) National Bell Co. v. Metal Goods Mfg. (AIR 1971 SC 898).
(5) Kaveri P. T. Durga Dutta v. Navaratna Pharmaceuticals .
(6) Amritdhara Pharmacy v. Satyadeo Gupta .
(7) Corn Products Refining v. Shangrila Food (supra).