Must Read

Gulshan Prakash v. State of Haryana (2010) 1 SCC477

By
Image
Gulshan Prakash v. State of Haryana (2010) 1 SCC 477||Case Summary  Introduction  In this appeal, the Court has interpreted Article 15(4) of the Fundamental Right. It has been added by the 1st Amendment Act, of 1951. Facts The State of Haryana instructed Maharshi Dayanand University (MDU), Rohtak to conduct entrance examination for MD/MS/PG courses for the Session 2008-2009. The appellant made a representation to the Health Secretary for providing reservation for SC and ST in the Post Graduate courses, Since there was no response from the Health Secretary the Appellant filed a petition in the High Court.  The High Court dismissed the petition of the appellant therefore the appellant approached the Supreme Court by Special Leave Petition under Article 136. Appellant Contentions  MDU, Rohtak has provided 20% reservation for the graduate level courses or undergraduate courses therefore the said University should also provide reservation in for the PG courses.  The Government o
Post a Comment

K.R. Chinna Krishna Chettiar v. Sri Ambal & Co. AIR 1970 SC 146

By

K.R. Krishna Chettiar v. Sri Ambal & Co. AIR 1970 Case Summary


Introduction

The present case deals with the S.12(1) of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 which bars the registration of a trade mark in respect of any goods or description of goods if the mark is identical with or deceptively similar to an already registered trademark in the name of a different proprietor in respect of same goods or description of goods. This section is mentioned in S.11 of the  Trade Marks Act, 1999.

Facts 

Both the appellant and the respondents were involved in the same business of manufacturing of snuff. An application for the registration of a label as a trade mark was made by the appellant, which had been opposed by the respondent. The label consisted a picture of goddess Sri Andal and the word "Sri Andal Madras Snuff" in Tamil, Devnagari , Telugu and Kannada. The grounds for opposing the registration as stated by the respondent was that the proposed mark was deceptively similar to their registered trade marks. The respondent had registered a label (T.M. No. 126808) consisting of the picture of the goddess "Sri Ambal" in the centre with the word "Sri Ambal parimala snuff" at the top and the word "Sri Ambal and Co. Madras" at the bottom. Also the respondent had registered the word "Sri Ambal" (T.M No. 146291). The respondent was using the word Ambal for more than half a century. 

Case History

1. The Registrar held that though certain letters are common to both the words "Ambal" and "Andal", their sound doesn't resemble to each other as to cause confusion or deception.

2. Madras High Court - On appeal by the respondent, the Court held that both the words had great phonetic similarity and the danger of confusion between two phonetically allied names is imminent and unavoidable. Thus it will cause confusion. 

Supreme court 

Issue

  1. Whether the mark proposed by the appellant causes confusion or deception to the user.

Ratio Decidendi

  1. The absence of evidence of actual confusion might be due to the fact that the appellant's trade was not of long standing.
  2. The resemblance between the two marks must be considered with reference to the ear as well as eye.
  3. In the case of Decordova v. Vick Chemical Coy, Lord Radcliffe said that there is no need to use the whole words of a registered trademark by another trader, to infringe it, even the use of one words of its essential features infringes it.
  4. The appellant argument was that the two marks hold different meaning, i.e., Ambal is the consort of Lord Shiva and Andal is the consort of Ranganath has no significance because the respondent's customers who are not Hindu and who do not belong to South India may not be capable to differentiate the two words.

Decision

  1. Appeal Dismissed
  2. Affirmed the judgement of High Court
  3. The two words are similar in sound and will create confusion.
  4. The proposed mark is barred from registration as per S.12(1) of Trade and Merchandise Marks Act,1958 and S. 11(1) Trade Marks Act, 1999.

Summary 

Section 11(1) of Trade Marks Act, 1999 bars the registration of a mark on the ground that the proposed mark is identical or similar with an existing trade mark and such identity or similarity creates a likelihood of confusion to the public. In this case the apex Court by affirming the judgement of High Court of Madras prevented the registration of a label consisting of the picture of goddess Andal with the word "Sri Andal Madras Snuff" in Tamil, Devnagari , Telugu and Kannada. The Court made following observations:-
  1. The resemblance between the two marks must be considered with reference to the ear as well as eye.
  2. There is no need to use the whole words of a registered trademark by another trader to infringe it, even the use of one words of its essential features infringes it.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular Post

Ashbury Railway Carriage and Iron Co. Ltd. v. Riche (1875)

By
Image
Ashbury railway carriage v riche|| Case Summary  Introduction   This case is related to the " Doctrine of Ultra Vires". In this case, the directors of the appellant company made an agreement with the plaintiff which was beyond the objectives, as mentioned in its MoA, of the appellant Company. Since the agreement was beyond its objectives, the appellant company repudiated the agreement later. Therefore the suit was brought by the plaintiff to recover the damages. Facts   The directors of the appellant company (Ashbury Railway Carriage) had contracted to obtain a concession from Gillon and Poeters Baerston, who obtained this right from the Belgian Government, to make a railway.  For this purpose, the directors of the appellant company again entered into a contract with Riche, a contractor, the purpose of which was to establish a société anonyme,  and as the plaintiff went on with the work, the appellant company had to pay into the hands of société anonyme,  Earlier the sharehol
Read more

Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate, AIR 1958 SC 353

By
Image
Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate, AIR 1958 SC 353 Case Summary Introduction The case of Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate involved a dispute between the management of the Dimakuchi Tea Estate and its workers. This case has discussed and cleared the meaning of the expression "any person" used in S.2(K) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The Supreme Court ruled in favour of a limited interpretation of the term "any person" thereby excluding the present appellant from the ambit of the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947. This decision denied the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal to adjudicate the dispute and extended the benefits and protections of the Act to the employers. Facts of the Case The dispute was raised over the termination of the service of Dr K.P. Banerjee, who was appointed as an Assistant Medical Officer in the Respondent's estate (Dimakuchi Tea Estate), on the grounds of being incompetent. Although th
Read more