Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. Parle Products (P) Ltd. Vs. J. P. and Company Mysore, PTC (suppl) (1) 346 (SC). (for finding out confusion or deception, broad features of the trade mark have to be considered and not side by side comparison).

6. M/s Nirex Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. M/s Man Chand Foot Wears Industries, 1984­PTC­97. (Minor differences in trade marks are immaterial if the essential features are common).

28. The trade mark of the defendants is deceptively similar to the trade mark of the plaintiff. On the face of it, the same is likely to cause confusion and deception in the mind of an ordinary prudent person of imperfect recollection. The similarity in the two trade mark is so manifest that there is no room for doubt about the infringement.

29. In Parle Products (P) Ltd. Vs. J. P. and Company Mysore, PTC (suppl) (1) 346 (SC) it has been held as under:

"...To decide the question as to whether the plaintiffs' right to a trade mark has been infringed in a particular case, the approach must not be that in an action for passing off goods of the defendant as and for those of the plaintiff. According to this Court in Durga Dutt v. Navratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories, (1965) 1 SCR 737 at p. 754 = (AIR 1965 SC 980) :

30. In the case of Parle Products (P) Ltd. Vs. J. P. and Company Mysore, PTC (suppl) (1) 346 (SC) it has been further held as under:

"9. 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 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..."