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

Parle Products (P) Ltd. v. J.P. and Co. (1972) 1 SCC 618

By

Parle Products v. J.P. and Co. Case study||Case Summary/Interpretation


Introduction

S.29(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 provides for the protection of exclusive rights placed by the registration of a trademark. This section bars from the use of a registered trademark by a person not being the proprietor of the mark or having permission to use it. This section also bars the use of such a mark which is identical or deceptively similar to a registered trademark.

 Facts

  1. The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for an order of injunction restraining the defendant from using a wrapper of biscuit which had been alleged to be deceptively similar to the wrapper registered as a trademark by the appellant. 
  2. The wrapper of the appellant contained the picture of a girl in the centre of a farmyard carrying a pale of water and cows and hens around her and a house and trees in the background.
  3. The wrapper of the defendant contained the picture of a girl in the centre of a farmyard supporting with her one hand a bundle of hay on her head and carrying a sickle and bundle of food in other, cows and hens around her and a house and trees in the background.
  4. The trial Court dismissed the suit by holding that there was more dissimilarity than similarity among them. This appeal was raised from the order of the Mysore High Court which upheld the judgement of the trial Court. 

Issue

  1. Whether the wrapper used by the defendant was deceptively similar to and infringes the registered trademark of the Appellant.

Ratio Decidendi

  1. The essential features of both the wrappers are-
    1. a girl with one arm raised and carrying something in the other with a cow or cows near her and hens or chickens in the foreground
    2. A farmhouse with a fence in the background
  2. Other similarities are-
    1. Same size of packet
    2. Almost same colour
    3. Designs resembled each other
    4. The words "Gluco Biscuits" and "Glucose Biscuits" 
  3. Whether a mark is deceptively similar to another shall be determined by considering the broad and essential features of the two.
  4. A person dealing with a trade marked goods is not expected to remember the exact details, but a general impression or a significant detail.
  5. Difference between Passing off and Infringement of the trademark -
    1. Action for Passing off is a common law remedy while action for infringement is a statutory remedy.
    2. The use of a trademark is not essential in passing off but in infringement.
    3. In an action for infringement, the plaintiff has to prove the likelihood of deception. No need to prove where the defendant's mark is so similar that the Court reaches the conclusion that it is imitated.
    4. In Passing off, no liability arises if the defendant shows distinguishment.

Decisions

  1. Appeal allowed.
  2. The defendant's wrapper is deceptively similar to the plaintiff's.
  3. The defendant has infringed the registered trademark of the plaintiff.
  4. The suit of the plaintiff shall be decreed and an injunction order shall be passed.

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