1969 (4) TMI 111 - SC - Companies Law

whether, if the appellant s mark is used in a normal and fair manner in connection with the snuff LI 3Sup.CI/69- 5 and if similarly fair and normal user is assumed of the existing registered marks, will there be such a likelihood of deception that the mark ought not to be allowed to be registered. . a mark is infringed by another trader if, even without using the whole of it upon or in connection with his goods, he uses one or more of its essential features.

Summary

Issues:
1. Deceptive similarity of proposed trade mark with registered trade marks.
2. Interpretation of Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958.
3. Consideration of phonetic similarity in trade mark infringement cases.
4. Application of legal principles in determining likelihood of confusion in trade marks.
5. Importance of distinctive and essential features in trade marks.
6. Impact of phonetic similarity on potential confusion among consumers.
7. Analysis of expert opinions and concurrent findings by lower courts in trade mark registration cases.

Analysis:
The case involved a dispute over the registration of a trade mark for snuff between the appellant, a sole proprietor, and the respondents, a partnership firm. The main issue revolved around the deceptive similarity of the proposed mark with the respondents' registered trade marks, "Sri Ambal" and "Sri Ambal parimala snuff." The Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, was crucial in determining the legality of the registration. The Registrar of Trade Marks emphasized the importance of distinctive words in composite marks and evaluated the phonetic similarity between "Ambal" and "Andal" to decide on potential confusion among consumers.

The Madras High Court, in its judgment, highlighted the significance of phonetic similarity in trade mark cases, emphasizing that even phonetically similar names could lead to confusion among consumers. The court held that the phonetic resemblance between "Ambal" and "Andal" was undistinguishable, posing a risk of confusion regardless of pronunciation variations. The court considered the distinct meanings of the words but focused on potential consumer confusion, especially among individuals from diverse religious backgrounds.

The Divisional Bench of the High Court affirmed the lower court's decision, emphasizing the importance of distinctive features in trade marks and the potential for confusion based on phonetic similarity. The court analyzed expert opinions, concurrent findings, and legal precedents to conclude that the proposed mark was deceptively similar to the respondents' marks. The court also highlighted the need for fair and normal usage considerations in determining the likelihood of confusion among consumers.

The Supreme Court, in its final judgment, upheld the decisions of the lower courts, emphasizing the close affinity of sound between "Ambal" and "Andal." The court considered the potential for confusion based on phonetic similarity, even in the absence of visual resemblance. The court noted that the customers' recollection of the word "Ambal" and the lack of direct reference to snuff quality in the words further supported the finding of deceptive similarity. The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the lower courts' decisions and highlighting the ongoing legal proceedings related to a subsequent trade mark application by the appellant.

In conclusion, the case highlighted the complexities of determining deceptive similarity in trade marks, emphasizing the importance of phonetic similarity, distinctive features, and potential consumer confusion in such disputes. The legal analysis focused on expert opinions, legal interpretations, and practical considerations in trade mark registration cases, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the appeal based on the findings of deceptive similarity between the marks in question.