9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Tangible danger of confusion between "Caltex" watches and "Caltex" petrol and oil products. 2. Dishonesty in adopting and introducing the trade mark "Caltex" for watches. 3. Interference with the Deputy Registrar's discretion in ordering the applicant's mark to be registered. 4. Proprietorship of the mark "Caltex" in India for watches. 5. Entitlement to the mark as an Importer's Mark. Analysis of the Judgment: 1. Tangible Danger of Confusion: The primary issue was whether there was any tangible danger of confusion between "Caltex" watches and "Caltex" petrol and oil products. The Deputy Registrar held that despite the identical marks, the competing goods were entirely different in character, had no connection in the course of trade, and were sold through entirely different trade channels. The learned Judge confirmed this finding, stating there was no danger of confusion. However, the court noted that the opponents had used their mark extensively since 1937, with significant sales and advertising, leading to widespread recognition. The court concluded that the use of the mark "Caltex" on watches could lead to confusion, as the public might believe the watches were connected to the opponents. 2. Dishonesty in Adopting the Trade Mark: The Deputy Registrar rejected the opponents' contention that the applicant acted dishonestly in selecting the mark "Caltex." However, the learned Judge found that the applicant dishonestly selected the mark to trade on the reputation of the opponents. The court observed that the applicant provided no satisfactory explanation for choosing "Caltex" and inferred that the selection was intended to deceive or cause confusion. The court held that the applicant's selection of the mark "Caltex" was made with the intention to deceive and cause confusion, thus supporting the opponents' contention of dishonesty. 3. Interference with the Deputy Registrar's Discretion: The learned Judge interfered with the Deputy Registrar's discretion, stating that the Deputy Registrar had applied wrong principles of law and failed to appreciate the facts. The Deputy Registrar had reasoned that exercising discretion against the applicant would amount to giving a monopoly to the opponents in the word "Caltex." The court found this reasoning flawed, as it did not consider all relevant facts and principles. The court held that the Deputy Registrar's discretion was not exercised on a proper legal or judicial basis, justifying interference. 4. Proprietorship of the Mark: The applicant claimed proprietorship of the mark "Caltex" based on user since 1955. The opponents challenged this claim, and the Deputy Registrar found that the applicant was the owner of the mark in India by selection. However, the learned Judge disagreed, stating that the applicant was not the owner of the mark. The court examined the evidence and concluded that the applicant had not satisfactorily established proprietorship through user. The court held that the applicant's user was not large enough to establish proprietorship and that the mark "Caltex" was a new mark for watches in India. 5. Entitlement to the Mark as an Importer's Mark: The Deputy Registrar found that the applicant was entitled to the mark as an Importer's Mark. However, the learned Judge disagreed, stating that the applicant was not the owner of the mark. The court noted that the applicant had imported watches from Degoumois & Co., who had disclaimed any interest in the mark for watches in India. The court held that the applicant's user was not sufficient to establish entitlement to the mark as an Importer's Mark. Conclusion: The court dismissed the appeal, holding that the applicant's mark "Caltex" for watches was likely to cause confusion and was selected dishonestly. The court also found that the applicant had not established proprietorship or entitlement to the mark as an Importer's Mark. The Deputy Registrar's discretion was not exercised on a proper legal or judicial basis, justifying interference by the learned Judge. The appeal was dismissed with costs.
|
