1994 (2) TMI 313 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues:
- Action for passing off and infringement of copyright
- Claim of deceptively similar products by defendants
- Defendants' opposition to interim reliefs
- Examination of trade marks and labels
- Comparison of plaintiffs' and defendants' trade marks
- Lack of evidence of confusion or deception
- Lack of evidence of sales for one product
- Dismissal of Notice of Motion

Analysis:
1. The judgment dealt with an action involving passing off and copyright infringement. The plaintiffs, manufacturers of spirituous liquors, claimed that the defendants introduced deceptively similar products to theirs, leading to the filing of a Notice of Motion for interim reliefs. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants' products infringed on their trade marks and artistic works on bottle labels, causing confusion in the market.

2. The defendants opposed the interim reliefs, arguing that the terms used by the plaintiffs, such as "Duet" and "Gin N Lime," were descriptive and lacked distinctiveness. They contended that their labels were different from the plaintiffs', denying any infringement of copyright. The judgment cited legal precedents to establish that purely descriptive terms are unregisterable, emphasizing the importance of distinctiveness in trade marks.

3. The court examined the trade marks and labels of both parties, noting that the plaintiffs' brand was commonly known as "Blue Riband." It observed that terms like "Duet" and "Gin N Lime" directly referred to the ingredients in the products, making them descriptive rather than distinctive. The judgment highlighted the difficulty in finding the defendants' products deceptively similar to the plaintiffs' based on trade mark comparison principles.

4. In assessing the likelihood of confusion, the court considered the nature of customers likely to purchase the products and the lack of evidence showing actual deception among consumers. It emphasized that educated and discerning customers, coupled with the presence of similar products in the market under different names, reduced the possibility of confusion. The judgment emphasized the importance of evidence in establishing claims of confusion or deception.

5. Additionally, the court noted the absence of sufficient evidence regarding sales of one of the plaintiffs' products, "Blue Riband Tango Gin N Orange." It found that the defendants' labels differed significantly from the plaintiffs', including color schemes and designs. As a result, the court concluded that the plaintiffs failed to establish a case for interim relief and dismissed the Notice of Motion, imposing costs on the plaintiffs. The judgment highlighted the lack of merit in the claim of copyright infringement and the absence of grounds for granting any interim relief.