AIR 1963 SUPREME COURT 449 ::1963 2 SCR 484 ::1964 SCD 75 ::ILR 1963 1 All 38

Supreme Court Of India

(From Allahabad: AIR 1958 All 823)

Hon'ble Judge(s): S. K. Das, M. Hidayatullah, J. C. Shah , JJJ

Trade Marks Act (5 of 1940) , S.14, S.8(a), S.10(1), S.10(2)— Trade name likely to "deceive and cause confusion" - Tests indicated-over all similarity has to be considered-Trade names "Lakshmandhara" and "Amritdhara" in respect of medicinal preparation for alleviation of various ailments-Word "Lakshmandhara" held was likely to deceive and confuse persons of the class who generally purchased such preparation -"Lakshmandhara" widely advertised and sold for a long time in particular state- Proprietors of "Amritdhara" standing by and allowing "Lakshmandhara" to grow in business - Held that there was "acqueiscence"to bring case within expression "special circumstances" in S. 10 (2) -Registration of "Lakahamandhara" in that particular state granted. AIR 1958 All 823, Reversed. The Act does not lay down any criteria for determining what is likely to deceive or cause confusion within meaning of S. 8(a) and S. 10(1). Therefore, every case must depend on its own particular facts, and the value of authorities lies not so much in the actual decision as in the tests applied for determining what is likely to deceive or cause confusion. On an application to register, the Registrar or an opponent may object that the trade mark is not registrable by reason of cl. (a) of S. 8, or sub-sec. (1) of S. 10. In such a case the onus is on the applicant to satisfy the ....