Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.25 seconds)
K.R. Chinnikrishna Chetty Trading As ... vs K. Venkatesa Mudaliar And K. ... on 6 October, 1972
cites
Section 11 in The Trade And Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
Ciba Ltd. vs M. Ramalingam And S. Subramaniam ... on 12 March, 1957
14. Though at one stage we considered that the addition of the word " Radha " to the legend "Sri Andal" makes all the difference, after our attention was drawn to the three cases referred to above viz., (1) relating to the Vick Vapo Rub, where the objection to the registration of the respondents' Vapo Rub which infringed the appellants' registered mark was sought to be got over by adding a word "Karsote" to the respondent's legend, and (2) where the objection to the registration of the respondents' trade mark " Rustam " was sought to be met by the addition of the word " India" to the objected legend and (3) where the word "Bulova" was sought to be added to the legend "Accutron" which legend was held to infringe the respondents' Trade Mark "Accurist", we are persuaded to come to the opposite conclusion that the addition of the word " Radha " to the legend " Sri Andal" will not make the slightest difference and that the view of the learned Judge is correct The appellants' snuff sold under the trade name " Sri Andal" the registration of which was objected to by the respondents, has been in the market for some years and the objection to its registration has now been finally upheld. The question for consideration now will be whether by the addition of the word " Radha " to the objected legend makes a vital difference. When the two marks are compared side by side the question will be whether the addition of the word will make any vital difference.
K. R. Chinna Krishna Chettiar vs Sri Ambal & Co., Madras & Anr on 14 April, 1969
5. The Assistant Registrar had to consider the present application before the Supreme Court disposed of the appeal referred to above. The Assistant Registrar held that Section 9 of the Act is not a bar to the registration of the applicant's mark, that the applicant is a proprietor of the mark, that Section 11 (a) of the Act is not a bar to the registration of the applicant's mark. On the question whether the legend " Radha's Sri Andal" is visually similar to the legend " Sri Ambal", the Assistant Registrar held that the legends will not look 'alike. As regards phonetal similarity also, the Assistant Registrar held that " Radha's Sri Andal" is not as close to the sound of "Sri Ambal" as to confuse or deceive a normal purchaser of snuff and that there is not reasonable probability of confusion or deception of the competing marks. The Assistant Registrar ultimately came to the conclusion that the applicant had discharged the onus which lay on him of establishing that the registration of his mark is not barred by Section 12 (1) of the Act. The Assistant Registrar further observed that the sale under of the applicant's mark commenced on 21st January, 1962, that snuff to the value of over 6| lakhs of rupees was sold under the mark Radha's Sri Andal, that during the period and during the interval between the adoption of the mark and the date of filing evidence in support of application (nearly 2 years) the goods of both the parties have been sold side by side under their respective marks and that during this period there has not been a single instance of confusion and that consequently there is no deceptive similarity between the marks of the applicant and the respondents. In the result, the opposition bearing No. MAS 237 was dismissed and the application was ordered.
The English And Foreign Languages University Act, 2006
Section 12 in The Trade And Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
The Companies Act, 1956
K.R. Chinnakrishna Setty And Ors. vs Sri Ambal And Co., Madras on 25 July, 1972
7. Before dealing with the contentions put forward in the appeal it is necessary to appreciate the observations of the Supreme Court in K.R. Chinnikrishna Chettiar v. Sri Ambal and Company (1970) 1 S.C.J. 23 : (1970) 1 S.C.R. 290, in the case between the same parties relating to the registration of the appellant's trade mark " Sri Andal " Madras snuff and its opposition to registration by the respondents, who had previously registered their trade mark as " Sri Ambal" Parimala Snuff. The Supreme Court held that the essential feature of the appellant's trade mark was " Andal " while that of the respondents was " Ambal". Notwithstanding the fact that " Sri Andal " and Sri Ambal are separate divinities, Sri Andal was Vaishnavite woman saint of Srivilliputtur Village and was deified because of her union with Lord Ranganatha, while Sri "Ambal" is the consort of Siva or Maheswara. Their Lordships held that the resemblance between the two marks must be considered with reference to the ear as well as the eye and that there is a close affinity of sound between the words " Ambal" and "Andal". In the result, they confirmed the decision of the Division Bench of this Court, which confirmed the decision of the Single Judge, Jagadeesan, J., setting aside the order of the Assistant Registrar directing registration. As referred to already, the appellant during the pendency of the appeal before the High Court filed his application No. 212575 seeking registration of the appellant's snuff as ''Radha's Sri Andal'' Madras Snuff. The attention of the Supreme Court was drawn to the above fact and the observations of the Division Bench in regard thereto, the Supreme Court refused to express any opinion whether the use of the expression "Radha's Sri Andal" would still amount to an infringement of the respondent's mark. Sri V. K. Thiruvenkatachari, Counsel for the appellant contends : (1) That there is no visual similarity between the appellant's and the respondents' marks; (2) That phonetically the appellant's mark "Radha's Sri Andal" Snuff has no connection with the respondents' "Ambal Snuff"; and (3) That the appellant's goods have been sold side by side with the respondents' goods and that there is no evidence of any confusion in the minds of the customers. In this connection, the learned Counsel referred to the following passage in Halsbury's laws of England, Third Edition, Volume 38, page 592:
Ruston & Hornsby Ltd vs The Zamindara Engineering Co on 8 September, 1969
The learned Counsel next referred to the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Ruston and Hornsby Limited v. Zamindara Engineering Company (1970) 2 S.C.R. 222 : A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 1649. The appellant in the appeal before the Supreme Court was Ruston and Hornby Limited, a limited liability company incorporated under the English Companies Act with its registered office at Lincoln, England and carrying on business in the manufacture and sale of diesel internal combustion engines and their parts and accessories. Ruston Hornsby (India) Limited, a company registered in India under the Companies Act, 1956 was a subsidiary of the appellant, carrying on business in the manufacture and sale of diesel internal combustion engines and their parts. Their registered trade mark Ruston being registration No. 5120 in class 7 in respect of internal combustion engines. The respondent was manufacturing and selling diesel internal combustion engines under the trade mark, ' Rustam". In June, 1955 the appellant coming to know of the respondent manufacturing and selling diesel internal combustion engines under the trade mark "Rustam", sent a letter through its attorneys to the respondent and called upon it to desist from using the trade mark " Rustam" on its engines as it was an infringement of the registered trade mark " Ruston". The respondent's reply thereto was that its registered mark was "Rustam India" which they were using and therefore the appellant's trade mark " Ruston " was not infringed in any manner. The appellant instituted a suit against the respondent for a permanent injunction restraining the respondent from infringing the trade mark " Ruston". The trial Judge dismissed the suit holding that there is no visual or phonetic similarity between "Ruston" and "Rustam". The said judgment was reversed in appeal by the Allahabad High Court and their Lordships held that the use of word "Rustam" by the respondent constituted infringement of the appellant's trade mark ''Ruston". But the learned Judge then proceeded to hold that the use of the words " Rustam India " was not an infringement because the plaintiff's engines were manufactured in England and the defendant's engines were manufactured in India and that the suffix "India" would be a sufficient warning that the engine sold was not a " Ruston " engine manufactured in England and that the respondent was permitted to use the combination " Rustam India."
Parle Products (P) Ltd vs J. P. & Co. Mysore on 28 January, 1972
Park Products (P.) Limited v. J.P. and Company .
1