Discrepancies
This extract is taken from Ansul Industries v. Shiva Tobacco Co.,
2007 SCC OnLine Del 74 : ILR (2007) 1 Del 409 : (2007) 34 PTC
392 at page 413
Sanjiv Khanna, J.:— The appellant, M/s. Ansul Industries, and the
respondent, M/s. Shiva Tobacco Company, both manufacture and sell
chewing tobacco. Chewing tobacco manufactured/sold by the appellant is
marketed under the trade mark ‘Udta Panchhi’ and the chewing tobacco
manufactured/sold by the respondent is marketed under the brand name
‘Panchhi Chaap’.
This extract is taken from Ansul Industries v. Shiva Tobacco Co.,
2007 SCC OnLine Del 74 : ILR (2007) 1 Del 409 : (2007) 34 PTC
392 at page 435
64. The appellant was fully conscious of the objection raised by the
respondent to the use of the word “panchhi” with the flying bird. The
appellant took risk in spite of the objection raised by the respondent. It is
unfortunate that adjudication takes time but delay in decisions by itself
cannot cause prejudice to the statutory rights of the parties. The explanation
given by the respondent as least after 1990 prima facie does not disclose
acquiescence or laches coupled with estoppel. If the appellant continued
with the mark “panchhi” with the flying bird, it was at his own risk. The
appellant was fully aware of the consequences.
This extract is taken from K.R. Chinna Krishna Chettiar v. Shri Ambal
& Co., (1969) 2 SCC 131 : 1969 SCC OnLine SC 191 at page 132
R.S. Bachawat, J.— The appellant is the sole proprietor of a trading concern
known as Radha and Co. The respondents Ambal and Co., are a partnership
firm. The respondents as also the appellant are manufacturers and dealers in
snuff carrying on business at Madras and having business activities inside
and outside the State of Madras. On March 10, 1958, the appellant filed
Application No. 183961 for registration of a trade mark in Class 34 in respect
of “snuff manufactured in Madras”. The respondents filed a notice of
opposition. The main ground of opposition was that the proposed mark was
deceptively similar to their registered trade marks. The respondents were the
proprietors of the registered Marks Nos. 126808 and 146291. Trade Mark No.
126208 consists of a label containing a device of a goddess Sri Ambal seated
on a globe floating on water enclosed in a circular frame with the legend
“Sri Ambal parimala snuff” at the top of the label, and the name and
address “Sri Ambal and Co., Madras” at the bottom. Trade mark No. 146291
consists of the expression “Sri Ambal”. The mark of which the appellant
seeks registration consists of a label containing three panels. The first and
the third panels contain in Tamil, Devanagri, Telgu and Kannada the
equivalents of the words “Sri Andal Madras Snuff”. The centre panel
contains the picture of goddess Sri Andal and the legend “Sri Andal”.
This extract is taken from Ruston & Hornsby Ltd. v. Zamindara
Engineering Co., (1969) 2 SCC 727 : 1969 SCC OnLine SC 329 at page
730
7. In an action for infringement where the defendant's trade mark is identical
with the plaintiff's mark, the Court will not enquire whether the infringement
is such as is likely to deceive or cause confusion. But where the alleged
infringement consists of using not the exact mark on the register, but
something similar to it, the test of infringement is the same as in an action
for passing-off. In other words, the test as to likelihood of confusion or
deception arising from similarity of marks is the same both in infringement
and passing-off actions.
This extract is taken from Corn Products Refining Co. v. Shangrila
Food Products Ltd., 1959 SCC OnLine SC 11 : (1960) 1 SCR 968 : AIR
1960 SC 142
2. The respondent is a manufacturer of biscuits. On November 5, 1949, it
made the application for registration of the mark ‘Gluvita’ in respect of the
goods specified in Class 30, which mark, it appeared later, it had not used
prior to that date. The Registrar ordered the application to be advertised
before acceptance on the respondent's agreeing to limit the registration to
biscuits only which were one of the classes of goods specified in Class 30.
This extract is taken from Corn Products Refining Co. v. Shangrila
Food Products Ltd., 1959 SCC OnLine SC 11 : (1960) 1 SCR 968 : AIR
1960 SC 142
3. The appellant is a corporation organised under the laws of the State of
New Jersey in the United States. On August 31, 1942, it had registered the
mark “Glucovita” under the Act in Class 30 in respect of “Dextrose (d-
Glucose powder mixed with vitamins), a substance used as food or as an
ingredient in food; glucose for food”. On the same date the appellant had
also registered the same trade mark in Class 5 in respect of “Infants' and
invalids' foods.”
This extract is taken from Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma v.
Navaratna Pharmaceuticals Laboratories, 1964 SCC OnLine SC 14 :
(1965) 1 SCR 737 : (1966) 1 SCJ 734 : AIR 1965 SC 980
28. Expressed in another way, if the essential features of the trade mark of
the plaintiff have been adopted by the defendant, the fact that the get-up,
packing and other writing or marks on the goods or on the packets in which
he offers his goods for sale show marked differences, or indicate clearly a
trade origin different from that of the registered proprietor of the mark would
be immaterial; whereas in the case of passing off, the defendant may escape
liability if he can show that the added matter is sufficient to distinguish his
goods from those of the plaintiff.
