Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.20 seconds)K. R. Chinna Krishna Chettiar vs Sri Ambal & Co., Madras & Anr on 14 April, 1969
(16) In K.R.Chinna Krishna Chettiar Vs. Sri Ambal & Co. it was held by the Supreme Court that the ocular comparison between the two competing trade marks is not always a decisive test. The resemblance between the two marks must be considered with regard to the ear as well as to the eye. In that case "Ambal and "Andal" were the essential and distinctive features of the two competing marks in respect of Snuff. It was held by the Supreme Court that the proposed trade mark for which the word "Andal" was the distinguishing feature cannot be permitted to be registered as the same was deceptively similar in sound to the word "Ambal" which formed part of the registered trade mark of the respondent in that case. In this regard the Supreme Court observed as follows: "8.NOWthe words "Sri Ambal" form part of trade mark No.126808 and are the whole of trade mark No.146291. There can be no doubt that the word "Ambal" is an essential feature of the trade marks. The common "Sri" is the subsidiary part. Of the two words "ambal" is the more distinctive and fixes itself in the recollection of an average buyer with imperfect recollection. 9.The vital question in issue is whether, if the appellant's mark is used in a normal and fair manner in connection with the snuff and if similarly fair and normal user is assumed of the existing registered marks will there be such a likelihood of deception that the mark ought not to be allowed to be registered? (See in the matter of Broadhead's Application for registration of a trade mark, 1950-67 Rpc 209). It is for the court to decide the question on a comparison of the competing marks as a whole and their distinctive and essential features. We have no doubt in our mind that if the proposed mark is used in a normal and fair manner the mark would come to be known by its distinguishing feature "Andal". There is a striking similarity and affinity of sound between the words "Andal" and "Ambal". Giving due weight to the judgment of the Registrar and bearing in mind the conclusions of the learned Single Judge and the Divisional Bench, we are satisfied that there is real danger of confusion between the two marks."
Metro Playing Card Co. vs Wazir Chand Kapoor on 29 November, 1971
It may be pointed out that we are bound by the decision of this court in Metro Playing Card Co. (Supra) and in any event we express our inability to accept the view of their Lordships of Mysore High Court in D.Adinaryana Setty (Supra) as we are of the opinion that the mere filing of an application for registration of a trade does not justify a party to infringe the registered trade mark of another on the ground of concurrent user of the same or similar mark as otherwise Section 28 of the Act would be rendered nugatory.
D. Adinarayana Setty vs Brooke Bond Tea Of India Ltd. on 14 August, 1959
It may be pointed out that we are bound by the decision of this court in Metro Playing Card Co. (Supra) and in any event we express our inability to accept the view of their Lordships of Mysore High Court in D.Adinaryana Setty (Supra) as we are of the opinion that the mere filing of an application for registration of a trade does not justify a party to infringe the registered trade mark of another on the ground of concurrent user of the same or similar mark as otherwise Section 28 of the Act would be rendered nugatory.
Kala Devi vs Parle (Exports) Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. on 1 July, 1992
(23) Learned counsel for the respondent cited a decision of a learned single Judge of this court in Smt Kela Devi Vs. Parle Exports in Ia No.2510/91 in Suit No. 1263 of 1971, decided on July 24,1992, where the competing marks were 'CITRA' and 'CITRO' International, it was held, taking into consideration various factors, that the beverage launched by the defendant under the trade mark 'CITRA' about two weeks after launching of the product of the plaintiff under the trade name Citro International was not likely to cause confusion for the following reasons: 1.THEbeverage 'Citra' was launched at Chandigarh and Kanpur and subsequently in other parts of India,whereas the product of the plaintiff was confined to a very small territory in the city of Jodhpur, Rajasthan. 2. A visual comparison of two bottles in which the products were being sold showed that the plaintiff's product was sold under the name Citro International with a logo printed on the bottle as well as on the crown cap whereas the defendant's product was sold under the trade name "CITRA Super Cooler" printed on both sides of the bottle; 3.Citro International was bottled in a white bottle whereas the Citra was bottled in a green bottle; 4.Logo of the plaintiff's product was entirely different from that of the logo of the defendant's product; 5.Citra was cloudy whereas Citro was clear and colourless beverage.
1