Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

19. Mr. Lall has placed reliance on

(i) paras 9, 15, 16, 19 and 22 of Corn Products Refining Co.

v. Shangrila Food Products Ltd3
                          (ii)     Kaviraj   Pt   Durga     Dutt   Sharma    v.     Navratna
                          Pharmaceutical Laboratories4
                          (iii)    para 6 of Amrithdhara Pharmacy v. Satya Deo Gupta5



                    290 (2022) DLT 689

                    AIR 1960 SC 142

                    AIR 1965 SC 980

                    AIR 1963 SC 449





                            (iv)      K.R. Krishna Chettiar v. Shri Ambal & Co.6,
                           (v)       para 4 of Ruston & Hornsby Ltd v. Zamindara
                           Engineering Co.7,
                           (vi)      para 4 of Parle Products (P) Ltd v. J.P. & Co.8,

(vii) para 55 of Nature‟s Essence Pvt Ltd v. Protogreen Retail Solutions Pvt Ltd9,

(viii) Marico Ltd v. Agro Tech Foods Ltd10,

(ix) para 49 of Moonshine Technology Pvt Ltd v. Tictok Still Games Pvt Ltd11,

(x) para 77 of Intercontinental Great Brands v. Parle Product Pvt Ltd12 and

(xi) para-67 of Cadbury India Ltd v. Neeraj Food Products13.

Submissions of Mr. Amit Sibal, on behalf of the defendants

(iii) para 43 of the judgment, also of a Division Bench of this Court in Raman Kawatra v. K.E.I. Industries Ltd22 . For the proposition that the plaintiff could not claim exclusivity over ―GLUCO‖, Mr. Sibal cites the decision of a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Madras in Parle Products Ltd v. Bakemans Industries Ltd23 and para 16 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Corn Products.

(viii) Inasmuch as the mark ―RUSTAM‖ was deceptively similar to ―RUSTON‖, the addition of the suffix ―INDIA‖ in the former case would make no difference.

56.7 Parle Products8 56.7.1 Parle Products (P) Ltd. (―Parle‖, hereinafter) manufactured and sold biscuits. They were the registered proprietors of the word mark ―Gluco‖ as well as a device mark constituting the wrapper of their product ―Parle's Gluco Biscuits‖, which was of buff colour, with the said name printed on the wrapper, depicting a farmyard with a girl in the centre carrying a pail of water and cows and hens around her with a background of a farmhouse and trees. Parle sued JP & Company (―JP‖, hereinafter) alleging that JP was selling biscuits in a wrapper which was deceptively similar to the wrapper which constituted the registered trade mark of the Parle, and was, thereby, infringing Parle's registered trade mark.