Facts:

he plaintiffs-appellants before us are manufacturers of biscuits and sweets and proprietors of certain
registered trademarks. One of them is the word "Gluco" used on their half-cookie cookies. Another
trademark they registered is a case registered on December 7, 19 2 under the Trademark Act No. 918 of
19 0 with a complete combination of color scheme, general composition and words. This wrapper is
used in connection with the sale of these products. wrapper printed biscuits known as "Parle's Gluco
Biscuits". The wrapper is puffy and features a courtyard, in the center of which a girl carries a bucket of
water and cows and chickens surround a farmhouse and trees in the background. The plaintiffs claim
that they have been selling biscuits in large quantity under the said trade mark for many years now,
which have gained great recognition and goodwill among the people. members of the public. They
claimed to have discovered in March 1961 that the defendants were manufacturing, selling and offering
for sale biscuits in wrappers which they claimed were deceptively similar to their registered trademark.
The plaintiffs claim that this defendant's action infringes their trademark rights. Since the defendants
continued to manufacture, sell and use the complained-of cookie wrappers despite the notice of
counsel, the appellants, as already mentioned, moved for an injunction. The defendants claimed that
they were not aware of the registration of the applied for marks. carriers They denied that the packaging
used to sell these cookies deceptively resembled plaintiff's claimed trademarks or that they infringed
plaintiffs' trademark rights in any way. They further claimed that the design of their wrapper was very
different from that of the plaintiffs and relied on certain features of their design which were said to be
very different from that of the plaintiffs in that the defendant's wrapper had an image of a girl
supporting. a bundle of hay on her head from one strap and carrying a sickle and a bundle of food on the
other, cows and hens are different from carriers. The designs of the buildings on the two wrappers were
also said to be different, and the words printed on the two wrappers were clear and distinct.

Court examined the characteristics found in the two wrappers and the cookie wrapper that preceded it
and found that there were more differences than similarities between the two, and therefore it was
unlikely that the goods of the defendants could have been sold, because the plaintiffs. goods The district
court, remembering the characteristics of the wrappings, concluded that it is not possible for the seller
to deceive the customer and for the ordinary buyer to refuse to buy the goods of the defendants, if it
was offered to him in the name and on behalf of the plaintiffs. . ' goods. Thus, the district court found
that the plaintiffs had not proven their claim.

The Supreme Court also found that there were some distinguishing features between the two cases
that could be seen even from a distance. According to the Court of Appeal, the similarity between the
two wrappers was due to the fact that both were partly yellow and partly white in color and both had
designs of a girl and some birds. "But," said the High Court, "the similarity ends. The woman in the case
used by the plaintiff company has a pot in her hand, while the woman in the case used by the defendant
has a pile of hay on her head.

The trade marks of the plaintiffs were registered under the Trade Marks Act, 19 0, which, however, was
repealed by § S. 136 of the Trade Marks Act, 1958. According to sub-section (2) of the said section, all
registrations Act of 19 0, which was in force at the time when the Act of 1958 came into force, shall
remain in force and shall affect the age as if they had been made, issued and granted under the relevant
provisions of the 1958 Act. Under S. 21 (1) of the Act, (19 0) the registration of a person as the owner of
a trademark gave that person the exclusive right to use the trademark in respect of those goods. goods,
and a person who is not the owner of the trademark or its registered user, who uses its authorized use,
but who used a trademark similar to it or very similar to it, was considered to have violated this right.
may mislead or cause confusion as to the goods for which it is

According to s. 28 (1) of the Trade and Trademarks Act, 1958, the registration of a mark in Part A or Part
B of the Register gave the registered owner of the mark exclusive rights to use the mark in connection
with the goods for which the mark. was registered and obtain legal relief from infringement of the
trademark right. Under p. Section 29, paragraph 1: "A registered trademark is infringed by a person who
is not the registered owner of the trademark or its registered user, using a permitted use, but uses a
trademark identical or deceptively similar to the trademark in the use of the trademark. trademark.
goods for all goods for which the trademark is registered, and in such a way that the use of the sign can
be considered a trademark registered.

The use of the plaintiff's trademark by the defendant is not essential in an action for abandonment, but
it is a sine qua non of an infringement action." In the aforementioned case, the court further noted that
"In an action for state infringement, the plaintiff must undoubtedly show that the use of the trademark
of the defendant is likely to be misleading, but if the similarity of the trademarks of the defendant and
the defendant is so visually, phonetically or otherwise similar and the court concludes that it is an
imitation, absent further evidence. obliged to prove that the plaintiff's rights are violated.

The goods sold show significant differences or clearly indicate that trading different from the trading of
the registered owner of the trademark would be significant; in case of rejection, the defendant can
avoid liability if he can show that the added material is sufficient to distinguish his goods from the goods
of the goods."

Thus, a brand may represent, for example, a game of football; in another brand, the players may be in
different clothes and in very different positions, and yet everyone's mind can only be a football game. It
is too much to assume that the goods marked with the mark are involved and, as is often done, persons
relying on trademarks should be able to remember the exact details of the marks in the goods they
handle. Brands are remembered for a general impression or some important detail, rather than for the
memory of a photographic unit. In addition, customers may assume that owners of the brand they
already know have made changes in the details

The letter Y should not be placed side by side in order to determine whether there are differences in the
design and, if so, whether they are of that kind. It is sufficient if the contested mark is therefore similar
overall to the registered mark because it can deceive a person ordinarily dealing with the other to
accept the other, if it is offered to him In this case we notice that the packages are practically the same
size, The color scheme of the two cases is almost the same, the design of both, although not identical, is
so close that they can be easily confused with the other.

The word "Glucose Biscuits" in one and "Glucose Biscuits" in the other are placed prominently at the top
and there are many similarities between the two writings.. If someone was not observant enough to
notice the peculiarity of the packaging of the plaintiff's goods, he could easily mistake the defendants'
package for the plaintiffs if it were pointed out to him. to him some time after he saw the accusers."