Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The petitioner also releid on the judgment of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of Ciba Limited Basle Switzerland v. M. Ramalingam and S. Subramaniam trading in the name of South Indian Manufacturing Co., Madura and another . In the said case the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court held as follows:

. "The object of maintaining a trade mark register is that the public should know whose goods they are buying and with whom particular goods are associated. It is therefore essential that the register should not contain trade marks which are identical or which so closely resemble each other that an unwary purchaser may be likely to be deceived by thinking that he is buying the good of a particular person or a particular firm or a particular industry, whereas he is buying the goods of another person or firm or industry. When a case is sought to be made out that a particular trade is likely to deceive or cause confusion the contest is not so much between the parties to the litigation as it is a contest between the party defending his right to a particular trade mark and the public, and the duty of the Court must always be to protect the public irrespective of what hardship or inconvenience it may cause to a particular party whose trade mark is likely to decieve or cause confusion."

27. The respondent No. 1 also relied on the judgment in the case of Ciba Ltd. Basle Switzerland v. R. Ramalingam and S. Subramaniam . In the said case the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court while considering Section 10 of the Trade Marks Act (1940) held as follows:

"The object of maintaining a trade mark register is that the public should know whose goods they are buying and with whom parti-

cular goods are associated. It is therefore essential that the register should not contain trade marks which are identical or which so closely resemble each other that an unwary purchaser may be likely to be deceived by thinking that he is buying the goods of a particular person or a particular firm or a particular industry, whereas he is buying the goods of another person or firm or industry. When a case is sought to be made out that a particular trade mark is likely to deceive or cause confusion the contest is not so much between the parties to the litigation as it is a contest between the party defending his right to a particular trade mark and the public, and the duty of the Court must always be to protect the public irrespective of what hardship or inconvenience it may cause to a particular party whose trade mark is likely to deceive or cause confusion."