1. TRADEMARK CASES

2. N. S. Thread Co. Ltd. v. James Chadwick and Bros. (AIR 1953 SC 357) “Deceive or cause confusion” The real question to decide in such cases is to see as to how a purchaser, who must be looked upon as an average man of ordinary intelligence, would react to a particular trade mark, what association he would form by looking at the trade mark, and in what respect he would connect the trade mark with goods which he would be purchasing. If the trade mark conveys the idea of an Eagle and if an unwary purchaser is likely to accept the goods of the Appellants as answering the requisition for Eagle goods, then undoubtedly the Appellants’ trade mark is one which would be likely to be deceived or cause confusion. …

3. Hindustan Lever Limited v. Pioneer Soap Factory (Sun and Suraj) except for the translation of the word “SUN” in Hindi, there is no similarity. The label of the plaintiff is yellow and blue whereas the defendant’s label is red in colour with white background. The sun rays shown on the defendant’s label are not portrayed on the plaintiff’s label. … Admittedly, the product is the same, i.e., washing powder. Suraj is the Hindi translation of the English word “Sun”. … I am satisfied that mark “Suraj” being equivalent in English to the trade mark “SUN” is to be considered deceptively similar.

4. J. C. Eno Limited v. Vishnu Chemical Company … there are in India … a very large number of languages, and that a very large number of persons in India know several languages. … a person knowing a number of languages would very likely be deceived if trader translated into one of the languages…

5. Ruston and Hormby Ltd. v. Zamindara Engineering Co. In an action on the trade mark, that is to say, in an fringement action, an injunction would issue as soon as it is proved that the defendant is improperly using the plaintiff’s mark. … it is not necessary to prove that A did this knowingly or with any intent to deceive. It is enough that the get-up of B’s goods… there is a probability of confusion between them and the goos of A. No case of actual deception nor any actual damages need be proved.

6. Surya Roshini Ltd. v. Electronic Sound Co. “Camouflaging an Eagle into vulture by calling it such is likely to cause confusion” … SURIAN was similar to the trade mark sun… the word “PRABHAT (meaning SUN in Hindi) was similar to sun. In the present case the trade mark of the defendants is not only the word BHASKAR which means SUN but there is also a device of SUN alongwith the word BHASKAR. I am, therefore, of the view that the defendants’ trade mark BHASKAR with the device of a SUN is deceptively similar to the mark “SURYA” of the plaintiffs.

7. Amritdhara Pharmacy v. Satya Deo Gupta (SC) Parker, J. in Re Planotist Co. (1906) You must take the two words. You must judge them, both by their look and by their sound. You must consider the goods to which they are to be applied. You must consider the nature and kind of customer who would be likely to buy those goods. In fact you must consider all the surrounding circumstances; and you must further consider what is likely to happen If each of those trade marks is used in a normal way as a trade mark for the goods of the respective owners of the marks.

8. Cond… For deceptive resemblance two important questions are: (1) who are the persons whom the resemblance must be likely to deceive or confuse, and(2) what rules of comparison are to be adopted in judging whether such resemblance exists. As to confusion, it is perhaps an appropriate description of the state of mind of customer who, on seeing a mark thinks that it differs from the mark on goods which he has previously brought, but is doubtful whether that impression is not due to imperfect recollection. (Kerly on Trade Marks, 8 th Edition, p 400)

9. Cond… Further it has been observed: The trade mark is the whole thing- the whole word has to be considered. … I do not think it is right to take a part of the word and compare it with a part of the other word; one word must be considered as a whole and compared with the other word as a whole… I think it is a dangerous method to adopt to divide the word up and seek to distinguish a portion of it from a portion of another word.