SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1982 Supreme(Del) 118

High Court Of Delhi
TATA OIL MILLS COMPANY LIMITED - Appellant
Versus
REWARD SOAP WORKS - Respondent
Interim Application 2335 of 1981
Decided On : 04/22/1982

Advocates Appeared:
K.L.AGARWAL, N.K.ANAND, PARVIN ANAND

Headnote:Civil Procedure Code - Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 — The wrapper is deceptively similar to the wrapper admittedly being extensively used by the plaintiff during the last many years — This deceptive similarity is likely to cause confusion in the course of trade-Admitted extensive popularity of the plaintiffs bearing the aforesaid mark and wrapper is further aggravating factor — Prima facie, thereforee, the plaintiff would be entitled to the protection sought by it.

        Copy right Act 1857 - Section 62(4)

        The colour and arrangement of letters in the two competing wrappers — Including the numerals gives an overall effect of deceptive similarity constitutes an infringement of the trade mark of the plaintiff in the numerals and wrappers.

H. L. Anand, J.

( 1 ) TATA Oil Mills Company Ltd. , plaintiff, in a suit based on infringement of trade marks, copyrights, passing off and for rendition of accounts of profits, seeks to restrain the defendant, during the pendency of the suit, from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising or dealing in washing soaps under the trade marks 501, 507 or any other deceptively similar trade mark and wrappers as arc identical with or deceptively similar to the wrappers of the plaintiff s 501 half bar washing soap and from inflinging the registered trade marks and copyright and from passing off its washing soap and business as washing soap and business of the plaintiff.

( 2 ). The suit is grounded on the allegations that the plaintiff has, inter alia, been producing and marketing half bar washing soap under the trade mark 501 since over 40 years and the mark has acquired a unique and enviable reputation partly on account of extensive advertisement and publicity and partly on account of the high quality of the product. It is further alleged that the distinctive and unique wrapper of 501 half bar soap used by the plaintiff since October, 1975 has also acquired a wide and enviable reputation amongst the purchasing public and the soap trade. The other features of the wrappers are the numerals 501 in red, super imposed on a. white diamond device with red strips on either side. Beneath the aforesaid composition on the one side the numerals 501 are written in Devnagari script. also in a diamond device and certain descriptive matter appears on the other side. The numerals 501 arc also placed at two distinctive places in Devnagari and Roman scripts respectively. The plaintiff claims that the numerals 501 and the 507 wrappers are duly registered as trade marks and the aforesaid wrapper is also registered under the Copyright Act and the washing soap is recognised not only by the numeral mark 501 but also by the distinctive wrappers in relation thereto.

( 3 ) IT is alleged that the defendant has recently started the manufacture and marketing of half bar washing soap with the deceptively similar mark 507 and in wrappers- which arc colourable imitation of!301 half bar washing soap wrappers of the plaintiff. The half bar washing soap wrapper of the defendants is said to consist of colour combination of canary yellow, red and white. Canary yellow is the background colour with numerals 507 in red boldly superimposed over a white diamond device and with red strips on either side. Beneath the said composition on the one side the numerals 507 are written in Devnagari script in a diamond device and on the other side is certain descriptive matter. In addition, the numerals. 507,. are also placed in Devnagari and Roman Scripts at the same two distinctive positions as have been placet on the plaintiff s wrappers It is alleged that defendant has not only adopted an identical and/or deceptively similar trade mark 507 as that of the plaintiff but in addition has adopted an identical and/ordeceptiyely similar wrapper as the weapper of the plaintiff, and that the colour combination, get-up, lay-out and arrangement of the defendant s wrapper, was identical and/or deceptively similar to that of the plaintiff s wrapper solely intended to commit piracy of the plaintiff s eights in the said marks, design etc. and. to pass off the defendant s goods and business as the goods and business of the plaintiff.

( 4 ) THE defendant resists the suit and oposes the application for injunction, inter alia, on the grounds that the mark consisting of the nume- 401 rals 507 does not constitute an infringement of the plaintiff s mark consisting of numerals 501 and is not identical with or deceptively similar to the mark of the plaintiff, that the wrapper used by the defendant is also neither identical with nor deceptively similar to the wrapper used by the plaintiff in the marketing of its goods. Defendant, however, does not deny that the numerals 501, as indeed, the de







Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top