1959 (10) TMI 30 - SC - Companies Law

Whether s. 8(a) prevents the registration of the respondent s mark? Held that - Desai, J.,correctly held that the appellant had acquired a reputation among the public for the mark Glucovita in respect of glucose powder mixed with vitamins. He however disagreed with the view of the Deputy Registrar that the respondent s mark was not likely to cause deception or confusion. He held that the two marks were sufficiently similar so as to be reasonable likely to cause deception and confusion. He, therefore, set aside the order of the Deputy Registrar and held that the respondent s mark could not be registered in view of s. 8(a) - set aside the order of the learned appellate Judges of the High Court and restore that of Desai, J - Appeal allowed.

Issues Involved:
1. Registration of Trade Mark under the Trade Marks Act, 1940.
2. Likelihood of Deception or Confusion due to Similarity of Trade Marks.
3. Reputation and Goodwill of the Appellant's Trade Mark.
4. Trade Connection between Different Goods.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Registration of Trade Mark under the Trade Marks Act, 1940:
The respondent applied for the registration of the trade mark 'Gluvita' for biscuits under class 30. The appellant opposed this registration, citing sections 8(a) and 10(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1940. The Deputy Registrar initially ordered the application to be advertised before acceptance, limiting the registration to biscuits only. The appellant's mark 'Glucovita' was already registered under class 30 for glucose powder mixed with vitamins and under class 5 for infants' and invalids' foods.

2. Likelihood of Deception or Confusion due to Similarity of Trade Marks:
The Deputy Registrar found that 'Glucovita' and 'Gluvita' were not visually or phonetically similar and did not cause a reasonable likelihood of deception or confusion. However, Desai, J., of the High Court disagreed, holding that the two marks were sufficiently similar to cause deception and confusion. The appellate judges of the High Court later overturned this, stating that the public was not aware of the appellant's mark's reputation, thus reducing the likelihood of confusion. The Supreme Court, however, held that the marks were indeed similar and likely to cause confusion or deception among the general buying public.

3. Reputation and Goodwill of the Appellant's Trade Mark:
The Deputy Registrar acknowledged the appellant's reputation and goodwill for 'Glucovita' in respect of glucose powder mixed with vitamins. Desai, J., agreed with this finding. However, the appellate judges of the High Court held that the appellant's mark had acquired a reputation only among tradespeople, not the general public. The Supreme Court disagreed, citing evidence that the appellant's mark had acquired a reputation among the general buying public, including affidavits and sales data indicating significant public recognition.

4. Trade Connection between Different Goods:
The appellant argued that glucose is used in the manufacture of biscuits, establishing a trade connection between the two commodities. The Supreme Court agreed, stating that an average purchaser might think that the respondent's 'Gluvita biscuits' were made with the appellant's 'Glucovita' glucose. This trade connection between different goods, despite their different descriptions, contributed to the likelihood of confusion or deception.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the order of the appellate judges of the High Court and restored the order of Desai, J., thereby allowing the appeal. The appellant was awarded costs before the appellate judges in the High Court and in the Supreme Court. The judgment emphasized the importance of considering the overall similarity of the marks and the trade connection between the goods in determining the likelihood of confusion or deception.

← Previous Next →