Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

30. In Parle Products (P) Ltd. v. J.P. & Co., Mysore [AIR 1972 SC 1359], it was held that the Court has to see similarities and not the dissimilarities. The relevant extracts of the said judgment, which has been followed in innumerable judgments subsequently, are set out hereinbelow:

"According to Kerly's Law of Trade Marks and Trade Names (9th Edition Paragraph 838) "Two marks, when placed side by side, may exhibit many and various differences, yet the main idea left on the mind by both may be the same. A person acquainted with the one mark, and not having the two side by side for comparison, might well be deceived, if the goods were allowed to be impressed with the second mark, into a belief that he was dealing with goods which bore the same mark as that with which he was acquainted.

31. Similar is the view taken by the ld. Single Judge of this Court in ITC Ltd. v. Brittania Industries Ltd. [233 (2016) DLT 259], wherein the Plaintiff sought to restrain the Defendant from violating its rights in the Plaintiff's packaging/trade dress of 'Sunfeast Farmlite Digestive - All Good' biscuit by using a deceptively and confusingly similar trade dress for its 'Nutri Choice Digestive Zero' biscuit. On the aspect of deception and confusion, the Court placed reliance upon Parle Products (supra) and observed as under:

38. Similar marks or features used in wrappers of competing biscuits was the subject matter of Parle Products (P) Ltd. v. J.P. & Co. (supra). The Appellants there owned certain registered trademarks one of which was "Glucose" and was used on their half pound biscuit packets. Another registered trade mark was a wrapper with its colour scheme, general set up and entire collocation of words. The wrapper was of buff colour and depicted a farm yard with a girl in the centre carrying a pail of water and cows and hens around her on the background of a farmyard house and trees. The Respondent's wrapper contained a picture of a girl supporting with one hand a bundle of hay on her head and carrying a sickle and a bundle of food in the other, the cows and hens surrounding her. The trial court declined the injunction. The High Court looking at the broad features did not think that they were so similar so as to deceive an ordinary purchaser. Since it was an action for infringement, the Supreme Court declined to treat it as a case of passing off. Nevertheless, it explained that in order to come to a conclusion whether one mark is deceptively similar to another "the broad and essential features of the two are to be considered." It was further explained as under: