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

1988 Supreme(J&K) 139

JAMMU AND KASHMIR HIGH COURT
M. L. Bhatt, J.
MOHAN MEAKIN LTD - PETITIONER
v.
DREAMLAND DISTILLERIES AND ANOTHER - RESPONDENTS
C.M.P. No. 152 of 1982.
Decided on : July 22, 1988.

Advocates appeared:
R. C. Chadda and Ashok Bhan, for the Petitioner.
Z. A. Shah, for the Respondents.

The use of a trade mark which is deceptively similar to another trade mark is likely to pass off the goods of the former as those of the latter and is actionable.

Headnote:

TRADE AND MERCHANDISE MARKS ACT, 1958 - SECTION 105 - COPYRIGHT ACT, 1957 - SECTION 62 - INFRINGEMENT OF TRADE MARK AND PASSING OFF ACTION - SIMILARITY OF LABELS - DECEPTIVE SIMILARITY - AD INTERIM INJUNCTION - BALANCE OF CONVENIENCE - PRIMA FACIE CASE.

Fact of the Case:

Plaintiff, Mohan Meakin Breweries Ltd., filed a suit against the defendants for infringement of their copyright and trade mark 'MMB' and for passing off their whisky as that of the plaintiff. The defendants used the trade mark 'MBB' on their whisky bottles, which the plaintiff alleged was deceptively similar to their own and was likely to deceive purchasers.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the labels used by the plaintiff and defendants on their whisky bottles were so similar that they were likely to be confused by an average purchaser. The court also found that the defendants' use of the trade mark 'MBB' was likely to pass off their whisky as that of the plaintiff, causing the plaintiff irreparable injury.

Issues: 1. Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to try the suit. 2. Whether the defendants' use of the trade mark 'MBB' is an infringement of the plaintiff's trade mark 'MMB'. 3. Whether the defendants' use of the trade mark 'MBB' is likely to pass off their whisky as that of the plaintiff.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that it had jurisdiction to try the suit as the valuation of the suit was more than Rs. 20,000/- and the suit was for perpetual injunction. 2. The court held that the defendants' use of the trade mark 'MBB' was not an infringement of the plaintiff's trade mark 'MMB' as the two marks were not identical. 3. The court held that the defendants' use of the trade mark 'MBB' was likely to pass off their whisky as that of the plaintiff as the labels used by the plaintiff and defendants were so similar that they were likely to be confused by an average purchaser.

Final Decision: The court granted an ad interim injunction in favor of the plaintiff, restraining the defendants from using the label 'MBB WHISKY' or any other label which has deceptive similarity with the label used by the plaintiff on his whisky as 'MMB WHISKY'.

ORDER

M. L. Bhatt, J. - Ancillary to the suit filed by the plaintiff restraining the defendants from infringing the plaintiff-company's copyright and from using their Trade mark 'MMB' and for some other reliefs, plaintiff has prayed for ad-interim injunction against the defendants to the effect that pending disposal of this suit, the defendants should not use the Trade mark 'MBB' on their whisky bottles of various sizes. The plaintiffs are using the trade mark 'MMB' on one of the varieties of their whisky bottles. The defendants have with a view to deceive the public labelled their whisky bottles with the trade mark 'MBB' and the purchasers are made to believe that the whisky bottles sold by the defendants are the same which are manufactured by the plaintiff under the trade mark 'MMB'. As an exhibit plaintiffs have produced their own whisky bottles of different sizes with 'MMB' Label, and those of the defendants with 'MBB' mark. The bigger size is 750 ml when filled. Then there are half size bottles which are 375 ml. and there is another size which contains 1/4th of a bigger size.

2. In order to appreciate the controversy the labels which are fixed on the plaintiffs whisky bottles has a mark in the following manner :


"MMB (in black and red) below it. Whisky (in red)


Thereunder place of its bottling and blending office etc. is written."

On the whisky bottles which are prepared by the defendants the labels are in the following manner :


"MBB (in black and red) Whisky (in red)

Thereunder the place of distilling and bottling is mentioned."

Plaintiffs blend and bottle their whisky in question under the name and style of 'Mohan Meakin Breweries Ltd.' which has its registered office at Solan. Defendants distill and bottle their whisky under the name and style of 'Kashmir Dreamland Distilleries' Srinagar-Kmr. On the said bottles of the defendants 25 with a knot on the right side of 5 with words UP is written on the top of the label opposite the words 750 ml. In the whisky bottles distilled by the plaintiff 25. UP is written below the words 'Whisky' on right side and on the left side 750 ml is written. Same is the position with regard to the bottles of smaller size.

3. During the trial of this suit plaintiffs got their copyright registered and their copyright is, as earlier stated, 'MMB Whisky'.

4. Mr. Chadda appearing for the plaintiffs has submitted that the defendants are contravening the Copyright Act as also Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. It is contended that the Trade mark used by the petitioners in the kind of whisky which is in dispute and that used by the defendants has similarity and is apt to deceive a purchaser. The defendants are passing off their goods with a view to deceive public and the public is led to believe that the whisky bottles distilled and bottled by the defendants are that of the plaintiff's company. It is contended that the whisky bottles labelled by the defendants are so similar in their labels, packing, get up etc. that they are bound to cause confusion in the minds of the purchaser and deceive him on first impression. The visual and phonetic similarity of plaintiff's bottles and defendants bottles are sure to deceive a man of imperfect collection or a man of average intelligence so as to lead him to believe that the bottles of the defendants are bottles manufactured by the plaintiff company. It is also stated that there is no sense in using the word 'MBB' when the defendant-firms name is Kashmir Dreamland Distilleries. The word 'MBB' is used by the defendants only to pass off their goods for that of the plaintiff-company.

5. Mr. Z. A. Shah appearing on other side has controverted this position and has stated that there is no similarity between the two labels or the whiskies. The colour of the two whiskies is also not the same Whisky bottled and distilled by the plaintiff is of a deeper colour and that prepared by the defendant is of a lighter colour. He contends that the word 'MMB' written on the b




















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