P. B. MUKHARJI, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal under Section 109 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 from the decision of the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks dated the 7th November, 1964, dismissing the appellant's opposition to the respondent Pannalal Agarwal's application for registration. The other respondent in this appeal is the Registrar of Trade Marks.

( 2 ) BEFORE stating the facts giving rise to the points for decision in this appeal it will be worth drawing attention to the present situation in respect of registration of Trade Marks and the delay that has occurred in this case. The application for registration was made as early as the 18th April, 1960. This appeal in this Court is being heard eight years after that application was made. About two years passed from the date of the application for registration for advertisement to issue; such advertisement issued on the 1st January. 1962. Again another two years elapsed before the matter was heard before the Deputy Registrar on the 6/7th October, 1964. This period of two years was too long for affidavits. The period that elapsed for advertisement was also too long. The appeal from the decision of the Deputy Registrar, Trade Marks was filed expeditiously. The Deputy Registrar's decision was given on the 7th November, 1964, and the appeal to this Court filed on the 5th February, 1965. Then again more than three years have elapsed before the appeal came up for hearing. It is necessary to emphasise that registration of Trade Marks is of vital importance and significance to trade and commerce and there should be reasonable diligence and expedition at every stage throughout the process of registration. If an applicant for registration of a Trade Mark has to wait for eight or ten years to have his mark registered, then it is a lamentable state of affairs which should be remedied.

( 3 ) THE facts of the case giving rise to this dispute are simple. Respondent Pannalal Agarwal of 157, Netaji Subhash Road, Calcutta made an application on the 18th April, 1960, for registration of Part A of the Register of a Trade Mark consisting of a label containing the device or a composite picture of a goddess seated on a lion and the words "ma Durga Brand" underneath the device in Class 7 in respect of agricultural implements specially for chaffcutter blades. At the preliminary stage before acceptance of this application for registration by the Registrar the applicant Pannalal Agarwal agreed to amend the designation of the goods to "chaffcutter blades" and to disclaim the letters "ma". The application so amended was advertised as accepted subject to opposition. The advertisement appeared in Trade Marks Journal dated the 21st January, 1962. A notice of opposition was filed on the 20th March, 1962, by the appellant. When I say the opposition was filed by the appellant, there is a point which may be indicated. The appellant is a registered firm under the Indian Partnership Act but the person registered as the owner of another Trade Mark called the "lion Brand" was a Joint Hindu family Firm. I shall return to this point later.

( 4 ) CONTINUING with the facts of the case the appellant's opposition was based on the prior user, registration and reputation of a Trade Mark No. 12301 registered in Class 7 in respect, inter alia, of "chaffcutter blades and knives". Affidavits according to the Trade Marks Rules were filed before the Registrar in support of the respective cases of the appellant and respondent Pannalal Agarwal. The whole case of the opposition of the appellant to the registration of "ma Durga Brand" with that device described above was based on the contention that that mark resembled the registered Trade Mark of the appellant and there was likelihood of confusion or deception. The short point, therefore, for decision is whether the respondent Pannalal Agarwal's mark is deceptively similar to the appellant's registered mark within the meaning of Section 12 (1) of the Trade and Merch

Click Here to Read the rest of this document