Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Though it is true that two labels should not be compared side by side to decide about the deceptive similarity of one with the other, yet the long line of decisions do establish the practice of noting the essential and dominant features of the label alone to decide whether there is any deceptive similarity between the two labels. According to the learned Additional Advocate General, the dominant feature in the label of the plaintiff is two bulls attached to a plough and controlled by a man in a standing posture with a whip on his right hand. The man is shown to have a head gear made of cloth. The dominant feature in the label of the defendants also is two bulls attached to a chariot and controlled by a man in the sitting posture with a whip on his right hand. He is also shown to have a head gear made of cloth. On these two dominant features, the learned Additional Advocate General would contend that the first and the immediate impression in the mind of an unwary and illiterate purchaser with an imperfect recollection would be only the bulls under the control of a man holding a whip on his right hand having a head gear. If such a buyer closes his eyes to the label of the plaintiff and then looks at the label of the defendants, then he will be carried away by only the dominant feature referred to above and not by any minor and subtle differences that are shown to be in the two labels. Testing the two labels in the manner referred to above, the learned Additional Advocate General would contend that there cannot be any difficulty in holding that the defendants label bears a deceptive similarity to that of the plaintiff. When the dominant and essential features in the two labels are strikingly similar or at least close to each other, then the insignificant difference in the label namely, the name of "K1SAN" in the plaintiffs label and the name of "KRISE RACE" in the label of the defendants, really does not matter much as the same will never enter into the mind of an unwary and illiterate purchaser. In support of his contention Mr. R.Thiagarajan, learned senior counsel brought to my notice a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a case reported in Parle Products v. J.P. & Co. Mysore, . In support of his contention, Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, learned Additional Advocate General brought to my notice the following citations:

(1) T.B. & Sons v. Prayag Narain, AIR 1940 PC 86 (2) Abdul Rahim v. G.S.Muthiah & Brothers, AIR 1958 Mys. 134 (3) James C. & Brothers v. M.S.T. Company, (4) Ciba Ltd. v. M. Ramalingam, (5) Chinnakrishnan Chettiar v. Sri Arnbal & Company, 1964 (2) MLJ 206 (6) M/s. Hiralal Parphudas v. M/s. Ganesh Trading Company, (7) Durga Dutt Sharma v. N.P. Laboratories, (8) Ruston & Hornby Limited v. Z. Engineering Company, (9) Roche & Company v. G. Manners & Company, (10) Parle Products v. J.P. & Company Mysore, (11) M/s. Wockhardt Limited, Mumbai v. M/s. Aristo Pharmaceutical 8 Limited, Chennai, 1999 (2) MLJ 467 (12) National Chemicals & Colour Co. v. Reckitt & Colman of India Ltd., Cases & Materials on Trade Marks 715 (13) Daimler Benz AktiegeeelIschatt v. Hybo Hindustan, (14) Girnar Tea & Another v. Brooke Bond (India) Ltd., Cases & Material on Trade Marks 1125 (15) Kewal Krishan Kumar Trading as Kumar Dal Hills v Akash Spices & Food Industry, Cases & Material on Trade Marks 266 (16) Vishnudas Trading as Vishnudas Kishendas v. The Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. Hyderabad & Another, Cases & Material on Trade Mark 888 (17) Madan Lal Arora v. Soni Udyog & another, Cases & Materials on Trade Marks 226 (18) Blue Star Ltd. v. Sidwal Refrigeration Industries (P) Ltd. & another, Cases & Material on Trade Marks 1066 (19) Karle on Trade Marks 12th Edition, Pages 439, 440, 447 & 448

Parle Products v. J.P. & Company Mysore, "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. It is of no use to note on how many points there is similarity and in how many others there is absence of it."