Raymond Ltd vs Raymond Pharmaceutical Pvt Ltd on 20 July, 2016
In Royal Bank of Scotland (supra) in paragraph 54 the Delhi High
Court observed that a well known trade-mark can be protected even in relation
to dis-similar goods used by the Defendants and to prove a case of infringement
of trade-mark, the Plaintiff has to show that essential features of registered
trade-mark which has been adopted by the Defendants has been taken from the
Plaintiff's registered trade-mark. In order to establish infringement, the
Plaintiff's mark must be registered under the Act and the Defendant's mark
must be deceptively similar to the registered trade-mark and its use was likely
to deceive and cause confusion. Once, it is indicated and the Court finds that
the Defendant's mark is closely, visually and phonetically similar then no
further proof is necessary. A reference was also made to the observations of
Chagla C.J. and Bhagwati J in James Chadwick & Bros. Ltd. v/s. The
National Sewing Thread Co. Ltd. i n which the Court held that if it is
found that the trade-mark of which registration is sought contains the same
distinguishing or essential feature or conveys the same idea (as the prior mark),
then ordinarily the Registrar would be right in refusing registration. The real
23/115
::: Uploaded on - 26/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/07/2016 23:58:11 :::
*24* Raymond NMS -230.15.odt
question is as to how a purchaser viz. a man of ordinary intelligence would
react to a particular trade-mark and what association he would form by
looking at the trade-mark and how he would connect a trade-mark with the
goods that he would be purchasing.