Must Read

M.N. Clubwala v. Fida Hussain Saheb, 1964

Image
M.N. Clubwala v. Fida Hussain Saheb, (1964) 6 SCR 642, 651 This case interpretation/case summary is written by Ms. Swati Sharma a student at the Faculty of Law (Delhi University). If you also want to publish your articles or case interpretations/summaries, send your work to  niyamskanoon09@gmail.com . Case Details PETITIONER:  MRS. M. N. CLUBWALA AND ANR. Vs. RESPONDENT: FIDA HUSSAIN SAHEB AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03/02/1964 BENCH: MUDHOLKAR, J.R. SUBBARAO, K. CITATION: 1965 AIR 610 1964 SCR (6) 642 Introduction   The case of M.N. Clubwala v. Fida Hussain Saheb (1964) under the Delhi Rent Control Act is a landmark judgment that clarifies the distinction between a lease and a license and the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller. The primary issue in this case was whether the agreements between the landlord (M.N. Clubwala) and the shopkeepers (Fida Hussain Saheb) created a lease or a license.  Facts of the Case M.N. Clubwala (Landlord) used his building as market by
Post a Comment

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

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)

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

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