The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between descriptive and distinctive marks, and the criteria for valid registration of trade marks. The judgment emphasized the requirement for strong and irresistible evidence to establish the acquisition of a secondary distinctive meaning by a word in common use, and the application of the likelihood of deception test in granting injunction against infringement.

1. The question arising for decision in the appeals is when a word or combination of words commonly used would be acquired as the trade mark of a person. The same issue arises for adjudication in the petition for the rectification of the Registers of Trade Marks. The two appeals, Nos. 233 and 301 of 1959, are against the decree by the District Judge, Ernakulam, in O.S. No. 233 of 1951 The plaintiff in the aforesaid action is a registered firm called the Navaratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories, and has prayed against Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma, a resident of Jullunder City, a perpetual injunction and damages. The injunction is to restrain the defendant, hereafter referred to as Pandit Sharma, and others under him, from advertising, selling, or dealing in any preparation or preparations containing the term 'Navaratna', or any similar term; to restrain Pandit Sharma from trading under any name and style containing the term 'Navaratna', or any other similar term; and to restrain him from infringing the firm's registered trade mark 'Navaratna'. The damages claimed is Rs. 2,960-12-0, that being the total loss averred to have been caused by Pandit Sharma's wrongful acts. The petition connected, for hearing with the two appeals, is under S.46, read with S.72 of the Trade Marks Act, 1940, by the defendant, and had been presented to the High Court on February 26,1952, which is after the suit was instituted before the District Judge. Thereby, Pandit Sharma had sought rectification of the Registers of Trade Mark at Trichur in this State and at Bombay, by the word 'Navaratna' itself, or in combination with other words being removed, due to the earlier registrations not being in accordance with the Trade Marks Act, 1940

2. The circumstances culminating in the aforesaid litigations, can be shortly narrated. One Dr. Sarvothama Rao, who is still a partner of the plaintiff firm, founded the pharmaceutical concern, that was called Narvaratna Pharmacy, in May 1926; & the word 'Navaratna' appears to have since then been associated with all the medicinal, pharmaceutical, and other preparations of the concern. He took in successively two partners, and from January 1, 1945, the firm name was changed from'Navaratna Pharmacy' to 'Navaratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories'. The latter has since been used as the firm name, and another partner had been admitted in 1950. The plaintiff's case in the original suit is that Dr. Sarvothama Rao had registered by declaration the word 'Navaratna' and the name 'Navaratna Pharmacy' before the Registrar of Assurances, Calcultta, on December 18, 1928. The case further is that the word 'Navaratna', by constant use from 1926, had acquired a distinctive and secondary significance by its association with the firm's medicinal & other preparations. It is admitted in the case that the firm later had registered 'Navaratna' and 'Navaratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories, as its two trade marks under the Cochin Trade Marks Act, Act XIX of 1949. The relevant documents are Exts. J (1) and J (2) and both are of the year 1949. The provisions of the aforesaid Act were similar to those of the Trade Marks Act, 1940, Act V of 1940; and under S.78(A) of the former, like S.82 (A) of the latter, reciprocal recognitions of the registered trade marks were provided. Both Governments had issued the necessary notifications after the amended sections came into force on April 18,1946; with the result that the plaintiff firm had, under S.82(A) of the Trade Marks Act, 1940, applied for registration of the word 'Navaratna' in Bombay and other places, and informed the Trade Marks Registry that'Navaratna' was a proprietary name and appeared on all the firm's products. The Registrar of Trade Marks advertised in accordance with S.15(1) of the Trade Marks Act, and no opposition to the registration of the marks having been received, they were registered To conclude this narration concerning registration of its trade marks by the firm, the position stated