Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

42. The addition of the letter "S" would also not make any difference. The Plaintiffs customers may well suppose that it is the Plaintiff who for reasons of its own has added the same. As held by the Supreme Court in Parle Products (P) Ltd. Vs. J.P. & Co., Mysore, :-

"Moreover, variations in detail might well be supposed by customers to have been made by the owners of the trade mark they are already acquainted with for reasons of their own."

The Supreme Court in Parle Products also held as under :

49. Moreover, as held by the Supreme Court in Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma v. Navaratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories , if the essential features of the trade mark of the Plaintiff have been adopted by the Defendant, the fact that the get up, packing and the other writing or marks on the goods or on the packets in which he offers his goods for sale show marked differences or indicate clearly a trade origin different from that of the registered proprietor of the mark, would be immaterial. It is only in the case of passing off that the Defendant may escape liability if he can show that the added matter is sufficient to distinguish his goods from those of the Plaintiff. The judgment was followed by the Supreme Court in Parle Products Vs. J.P. & Co., Mysore, .