9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (2) TMI 313X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spirituous liquors such as gin, whisky, brandy and other liquor and alcoholic preparations. The defendants are also manufacturers of and blenders and bottlers of and market Gin and other liquor and alcoholic preparations. The plaintiffs claim that they were the first in the field to come out with the concept and idea to manufacture an alcoholic preparation being a premature of gin and lime. The plaintiffs then got prepared an original artistic work with the intention of it being applied to the bottle label for the said preparation. The trade mark which was given to this preparation was the word Duet as also the trade mark 'Gin N Lime . The plaintiffs also filed application for registration of their trade mark Duet Gin N Lime and th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n N Orange cannot be used as trade marks in respect of premature preparations of Gin and Lime and Gin and Orange as the said words are not invented words and have direct reference to the quality and character of the goods in respect of which the same are applied. The defendants contend that the trade mark of the plaintiffs' is Blue Riband and their products are sold in the market as Blue Riband Duet Gin N Lime and Blue Riband Tango Gin N Orange . The labels of the word Duet and words Gin N Lime applied on the bottle of Gin suggest that the said preparation of Gin contained in the bottle is made of Gin and Lime or is mixture of Gin and Lime. Thus the said words have direct reference with the quality and character of the goo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egistration was sought. The mark was held to be not distinctive, being the phonetic equivalent of quick copy . Kwik Kopy Trade Mark (1982) RPC 102 In Safemix Trade mark (1978) RPC 397, registration was refused on the ground that the mark Safe-mix had a direct reference to the character or quality of the goods concerned and that it was not distinctive. It was held that the mark consisted of the words Safe and Mix conjoined and since these are both dictionary words the combination does not render the mark invented within the meaning of S. 9(1)(c) of Trade Marks Act, 1938. Similarly in the matter of an application by R. Demuth Limited, Volume LXV in Reports of Patent, Design and Trade Mark Cases, it was held that the mark Seda Seltzer is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st its primary meaning by long user of the word by a trader in relation to his goods and has become identified with the particular goods of that trader. 5. Bearing in mind these legal principles, I propose to consider the plaintiffs' prayer for interim reliefs. On perusal of the certificates of the Chartered Accountant of the plaintiffs annexed at Exhs. 'C' and 'D' and the invoices at Exhs. 'E-1', 'E-2' and 'E-3' it is clear that the trade mark of the plaintiffs is Blue Riband Duet Gin N Lime and Blue Riband Tango Gin N Orange and not Duet Gin N Lime or Tango Gin N Orange as claimed by the plaintiffs in their plaint. The word Duet is derived in English language from Latin word due e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... comparison of the trade mark of the plaintiffs with the defendants' trade mark, it is difficult to hold that the two marks are deceptively similar and are likely to create any confusion in the minds of the customers. In parker Knoll v. Knoll International Ltd. (1962) RPC 265 Lord Denning explained the words to deceive and the phrase to cause confusion as follows: Secondly, 'to deceive' is one thing. To 'cause confusion' is another. The difference is this : When you deceive a man, you tell him a lie. You make a false representation to him and thereby cause him to believe a thing to be true which is false. You may not do it knowingly, or intentionally, but still you do it, and so you deceive him. But you may cause ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ring the aforesaid principles in mind, it is difficult the appreciate as to how there is even a remote possibility of any customer being misled. In my opinion, when a customer goes to a shop to buy the plaintiffs' product, he will not ask for Duet or Gin N Lime or Gin N Orange but he will ask for a Blue Riband Gin N Lime or Blue Riband Tango Gin N Orange . Further having regard to the fact that the customer who is likely to buy the products of the plaintiffs and the defendants will be normally educated and discerning type, it is impossible to hold that there is any likelihood of confusion. It is pertinent to note that the plaintiffs have failed to cite even a single instance showing that there was confusion in the minds of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
