1. Trademark infringement and passing off dispute concerning registered marks for beedies — claim for injunction against similar marks and deceptive descriptions. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
1946 Supreme(SC) 13
Privy Council At Ceylon
Sir John Beaumont, Lord Du Parcq, Justice Lord Porter, JJ.
V.S. Subbiah Nadar, Administrator of Estate of T.P. Sokkalal Ram Sait -Appellant
Versus
E.P. Kumaraval Nadar (deceased) and others -Resopndent
Privy Council Appeal No. 29 of 1940
Decided On : 11-04-1946
Advocates Appeared:
Goddard, Peacock, Burchells, James Mould, Stephen Chapman, L.M.D. Desilva, D.N. Pritt
Goddard, Peacock, Burchells, James Mould, Stephen Chapman, L.M.D. Desilva, D.N. Pritt
To establish anterior user, a party must prove continuous actual use in the relevant jurisdiction through documentary evidence. Registration in a foreign chamber of commerce is insufficient. Where a mark is likely copied, the burden to prove honest concurrent user is significantly heightened.
Headnote:(A) Trade-marks Ordinance - Sections 9, 19, 38 and 40 - Infringement of registered trade-marks - Comparison of marks - Where marks are so similar as to be calculated to deceive, especially among illiterate purchasers, and there is no evidence of common origin, the conclusion is that one party copied the other (Paras 14, 15) - Burden of proof for anterior user and honest concurrent user lies on the defendant (Para 18).
(B) Anterior User - Registration of a mark with a Chamber of Commerce in a foreign jurisdiction does not prove actual user in the jurisdiction where the suit is brought (Para 27) - Continuous user must be proved by documentary evidence such as invoices, labels, or advertisements; mere entries in account books not specifying the brand are insufficient (Paras 28-30).
(C) Honest Concurrent User - Where a mark is found to be copied, a heavy burden is placed on the defendant to prove that concurrent user was honest (Para 32).
(D) Passing off - To restrain the use of a descriptive term, it must be shown that such term has come to be regarded as denoting exclusively the goods of the plaintiff (Para 33).
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff, a manufacturer of beedies, held registered trademarks featuring a portrait with specific surrounding devices. The defendants used a mark with a portrait in similar attire and nearly identical surrounding features. The defendants claimed they had used the mark prior to the plaintiff's registration and that their concurrent use was honest.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the defendants' marks were calculated to deceive and were likely copied from the plaintiff. The defendants failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence to prove continuous user in the relevant jurisdiction prior to the plaintiff's user. Consequently, the claim of honest concurrent user was also rejected. However, the plaintiff failed to prove that the specific descriptive terms used for the goods denoted exclusively his products.
Issues: Whether the defendants' marks infringed the registered trademarks; whether the defendants proved anterior user or honest concurrent user; and whether the defendants' use of certain descriptive terms constituted passing off.
Ratio Decidendi: Trademark infringement is determined by the general effect on the mind of the purchaser; similarities so close that independent creation is improbable suggest copying. Anterior user must be proved by evidence of actual use in the specific jurisdiction, and registration in a foreign chamber of commerce is insufficient. A finding of copying creates a heavy burden to prove honest concurrent user. Passing off requires proof that a description is exclusively associated with the plaintiff's goods.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Plaintiff alleges trademark infringement and passing off — defendants plead anterior user and honest concurrent user to justify the use of similar marks. (Para 3 , 4 )
3. Marks are deceptively similar and likely copied — defendants failed to prove continuous anterior user in the relevant jurisdiction or honest concurrent user. (Para 8 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 )
4. Trademark infringement is determined by the general effect on the consumer's mind — anterior user must be proved by continuous use in the specific jurisdiction. (Para 15 , 28 , 31 )
5. Appeal allowed — injunction granted against trademark infringement but denied for passing off — respondents ordered to deliver infringing materials for cancellation. (Para 33 , 34 , 35 )
6. How is trademark infringement determined when marks are visually similar?
Infringement is assessed by the general effect on the mind of the consumer. If marks are so similar that they are calculated to lead to confusion and deception, particularly among illiterate purchasers who do not examine labels closely, they are deemed infringing. (Para 14 , 15 )
7. What constitutes sufficient proof of anterior user in trademark disputes?
Anterior user requires proof of continuous use of the mark in the specific jurisdiction where the dispute arises. Registration with a Chamber of Commerce in another region proves the mark's existence but does not prove actual user in the relevant jurisdiction. (Para 27 , 28 , 31 )
8. What is the effect of copying a trademark on a claim of honest concurrent user?
If the court finds that a party copied a trademark, a heavy burden is placed on that party to prove that any subsequent concurrent user was honest. (Para 17 , 32 )
9. When is a claim for passing off successful regarding a descriptive term?
A claim for passing off based on a descriptive term is successful only if it is proved that the description has come to be regarded in the relevant market as denoting exclusively the goods of the plaintiff. (Para 33 )
Sir John Beaumont.-
This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment and decree dated 19th June 1939, of the Supreme Court of the Island of Ceylon which reversed a judgment and decree dated 17th June 1938, of the District Court of Colombo. The suit out of which this appeal arises was brought on 11th November 1936, in the District Court of Colombo by T. P. Sokkalal Ram Sait (who is hereinafter called the plaintiff) against E. P. Kumaraval Nadar, who was defendant 1, his partners, the respondents 2-4 who were defendants 2-4, and respondent 5, who was defendant 5, and was the manager in Ceylon of the other defendants. The plaintiff died pending the appeal to His Majesty in Council; and the appellant, as administrator of his estate, has been brought on record as appellant. The said E. P. Kumaraval Nadar also died pending the appeal, and his widow and children have been substituted for him as respondent 1.
[2] By his plaint, the plaintiff alleged that he was the manufacturer of beedies (a small and cheap type of cigarette) and carried on business in Colombo; that in connection with such business he was the proprietor of a trademark consisting of the device of a portrait of the plaintiff in a turban surrounded by rays of light and other distinctive features, and that the trade-mark was registered in the Register of Trade-marks in Ceylon under No. 4919 in class 45 in respect of beedi on 15th June 1930; that the plaintiff was also the proprietor of a trade-mark consisting of the device of a circle containing the portrait of the plaintiff in a turban and that the said trademark was registered in the said Register of Trade-marks under No. 5929 in the said class on 26th September 1934; that the plaintiff had extensively used the said trade-marks on packets of beedies manufactured and sold by him since the years 1926 and 1934 respectively; that by reason of the said user the plaintiff's beedies marked with the said trade-mark and figures had become known to purchasers and intending purchasers as "Photo Mark beedies," "Ram Sait beedies" and "Sokkalal beedies," and that in the beedie-trade, "Photo Mark beedies," "Ram Sait beedies" and "Sokkalal beedies" meant the beedies made and sold by the plaintiff; that the defendants had infringed the plaintiff's said trade-marks and had advertised and sold at Colombo beedies not of the plaintiff's manufacture as "photomark beedies." The plaintiff claimed an injunction to restrain such infringement and passing-off.
[3] The defendants in their answers denied infringement and passing-off, and further pleaded that they had used the marks complained of by the plaintiff in connection with their trade in beedies from a date anterior to either the date of user or the date of registration of the marks Nos. 4919 and 5929 by the plaintiff.
[4] On 8th February 1937, the plaintiff with the leave of the Court amended his plaint by alleging user of the trade-mark No. 4919 from the year 1915 in place of the year 1926 and on 30th June 1937, the plaint was further amended by leave by substituting the year 1912 for the year 1915. In view of these amendments which put back from 1926 to 1912 the alleged date of the first user by the plaintiff of his trade-mark No. 4919, the defendants on 1st July 1937, obtained leave to amend their answer by praying that the first four defendants be declared entitled to have their trade-marks registered in the Register of Trade-marks and that the Registrar of Trade-marks be directed to register the same in the Register of Trade-marks. This amendment enabled the defendants to raise the issue of honest concurrent user, which will be dealt with later in this judgment.
[5] At the commencement of the trial, the position with regard to registration as found by the trial Judge, whose finding on this point has not been challenged, was as follows. The plaintiff had registered in Ceylon his trade-mark No. 4919 on 18th January 1930, and his trade-mark No. 5929 on 2nd March 1934. (These were in fact the
