Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 29 (0.53 seconds)Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma vs Navaratna Pharmaceutical ... on 20 October, 1964
48. Here the point is in relation to relative strength
of the parties on the question of “passing off”. As
discussed under Point 5, the proof of resemblance or
similarity in case of passing off and infringement
are different. In a passing-off action, additions, get-
up or trade-dress might be relevant to enable the
defendant to escape. In infringement cases, such
facts do not assume relevance. [See Durga Dutt
Sharma v. Navaratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories
[AIR 1965 SC 980] , Ruston & Hornsby Ltd. v.
Zamindara Engg. Co. [(1969) 2 SCC 727 : AIR
1970 SC 1649] and Wander Ltd. v. Antox India (P)
Ltd. [1990 Supp SCC 727] ]
Section 21 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
The Trade Marks Act, 1999
Section 134 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Section 135 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
M/S S.M. Dyechem Ltd vs M/S Cadbury (India) Ltd on 9 May, 2000
This is the crucial part of the case. It is here that
sufficient care is to be taken in applying the
principles. In our opinion, in the present case, three
tests to which reference has been made above, have
to be applied. The first one is this: is there any
special aspect of the common feature which has
been copied? The second test will be with reference
to the “mode in which the parts are put together
differently”. That is to say whether the dissimilarity
of the part or parts is enough to mark (sic make) the
whole thing dissimilar (Kerly, para 17.17 referred to
above). The third test is whether when there are
common elements, should one not pay more regard
to the parts which are not common, while at the
same time not disregarding the common parts. What
is the first impression?
National Sewing Thread Co. Ltd vs James Chadwick & Bros. Ltd.(J.& P. Coats ... on 7 May, 1953
(1948) 1 MLJ 303] the passing-off action failed. But
thereafter James Chadwick Co. succeeded in an
appeal arising out of the registration proceedings
and the said judgment was confirmed by this Court
in National Sewing Thread Co. Ltd. v. James
Chadwick & Bros. Ltd. [AIR 1953 SC 357] It was
held that the judgment in the passing-off case could
not be relied upon by the opposite side in latter
registration proceedings.
Section 29 in The Trade And Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
F. Hoffmann-La Roche & Co. Ltd vs Geoffrey Manners & Co. Pvt. Ltd on 8 September, 1969
Secondly, ‘to deceive’ is one thing. To ‘cause
confusion’ is another. The difference is this: when
you deceive a man, you tell him a lie. You make a
false representation to him and thereby cause him to
believe a thing to be true which is false. You may not
do it knowingly, or intentionally, but still you do it,
and so you deceive him. But you may cause
confusion without telling him a lie at all, and
without making any false representation to him. You
may indeed tell him the truth, the whole truth and
nothing but the truth, but still you may cause
confusion in his mind, not by any fault of yours, but
because he has not the knowledge or ability to
distinguish it from the other pieces of truth known to
him or because he may not even take the trouble to
do so.”
The latter part of the above passage has been
quoted by this Court in Roche v. Geoffrey Manner
[(1969) 2 SCC 716 : AIR 1970 SC 2062] (AIR at p.
2064 : SCC at pp. 719-20, para 7)