Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 23 (1.20 seconds)The Trade And Merchandise Marks Act, 1958
Corn Products Refining Co. vs Shangrila Food Products Ltd. on 8 October, 1959
78. It will be apt to refer the following observation of the Supreme Court in Corn Products v. Shangrila Food Products (supra), while considering the phonetic similarity between words 'Glucovita' and 'Gluvita'; it is observed that at page 147 :
Century Traders vs Roshan Lal Duggar Co. on 27 April, 1977
In Century Traders v. Roshanlal Duggar & Co. (AIR 1978 Delhi 250), a Division Bench of the High Court quoting from Draper v. Irist ((1939) All ER 513), opinion of Goddard L.J. held :
N.R. Dongre And Ors vs Whirlpool Corporation And Anr on 30 August, 1996
83. Having considered the request of the parties, in the light of discussion made above, I am of the opinion that since I have come to the conclusion that the temporary injunction has been granted by the trial Court in reasonable exercise of its discretion on the materials before it, and to that conclusion, I have also agreed on merits, and keeping in view the limitation of the appellate jurisdiction, as pointed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Whirlpool's case (supra), I am not inclined to make any modification in the order passed by the trial Court at this stage without expressing any opinion on the question whether the user of the word 'RUPA-DON' as suggested by the defendants at this stage in future would amount to infringement or not, except to that in the circumstances of this pending litigation, if such permission is granted, the apprehension of the plaintiff that it is likely to cause confusion and give wrong signals is justified.
State Of West Bengal vs S. N. Basak on 12 April, 1962
42. The observation came in the wake of an application for registration of trade mark. But this clearly gives out that the likelihood of causing confusion may arise not only from the visual or ocular effect of the mark but by reason of similarity in the sound. The phonetic similarity gains more important role where the competing marks in respect of which conflict is to be resolved are words. In ordinary case when the essential feature of a trade mark is expressed in word or words, phonetic resemblance gains importance and any physical similarity or dissimilarity in appearance is pushed to the background. The fact that phonetic resemblance has relevance and the test in such circumstances as dealt with by Lords Parker quoted above, has found its approval by the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. S. N. Basak (AIR 1963 SC 449), and F. Hoffimann-La Roche & Co. Ltd. v. Geoffrey Manners Private Ltd. (AIR 1970 SC 2062).
F. Hoffmann-La Roche & Co. Ltd vs Geoffrey Manners & Co. Pvt. Ltd on 8 September, 1969
42. The observation came in the wake of an application for registration of trade mark. But this clearly gives out that the likelihood of causing confusion may arise not only from the visual or ocular effect of the mark but by reason of similarity in the sound. The phonetic similarity gains more important role where the competing marks in respect of which conflict is to be resolved are words. In ordinary case when the essential feature of a trade mark is expressed in word or words, phonetic resemblance gains importance and any physical similarity or dissimilarity in appearance is pushed to the background. The fact that phonetic resemblance has relevance and the test in such circumstances as dealt with by Lords Parker quoted above, has found its approval by the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. S. N. Basak (AIR 1963 SC 449), and F. Hoffimann-La Roche & Co. Ltd. v. Geoffrey Manners Private Ltd. (AIR 1970 SC 2062).
K. R. Chinna Krishna Chettiar vs Sri Ambal & Co., Madras & Anr on 14 April, 1969
The principle was approved by Supreme Court in K. Krishna Chettiar's case (supra).
Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma vs Navaratna Pharmaceutical ... on 20 October, 1964
56. The principle has been accepted that phonetic similarity of the essential or distinctive feature of mark that may cause deception or cause confusion to an unwary customer is the acceptable test was again reaffirmed by Apex Court in Durga Dutt v. N. P. Laboratories (AIR 1965 SC 980) :
Parle Products (P) Ltd vs J. P. & Co. Mysore on 28 January, 1972
58. The principle was reiterated and applied in Parle Products (P.) Ltd. v. J.P. & Co. Mysore (AIR 1972 SC 1359).