CORN PRODUCTS REFINING CO. versus SHANGRILA FOOD PRODUCTS LTD.

Citation: [1960] 1 S.C.R. 968 · Decided: 08-10-1959 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.K. DAS · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

I959 
October8, 
968 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960(1)] 
CORN PRODUCTS REFINING CO. 
v. 
SHANGRILA FOOD PRODUCTS LTD. 
(S. K. DAS, J. L. KAPUR and A. K. SARKAR, JJ.) 
Trade Mark-Registration of-" Gluvita" and," Glucovita "-· 
Similarity, if likely to deceive or confuse the public-Trade Marks 
Act, I940 (V of z940), s. 8(a). 
The respondent company had made an application nnder the 
Trade Marks Act, for registration of the mark "Glnvita" in 
respect of biscuits manufactured by it. The appellant company 
which had earlier obtained a registration of its mark "Glucovita" 
in respect of "Dextrose (d-Glucose powder mixed with vitamins) 
a substance used as food or as an ingredient in food; glucose for 
food" under the Act, opposed the respondent company's appli-
cation for registration. 
Held, that the registration of the respondent company's mark 
should be refused under s. 8(a) of the Act as, it is so similar 
to the mark of the appellant company as to be likely to deceive 
or cause confusion and as the appellant company had proved 
that its mark had acquired a reputation in the market. 
The question whether t\\70 competing marks are so similar as 
to be likely to deceive or cause confusion is one of first impres-
sion and it is for the court to decide it. The question has to be 
approached from the point of view of a man of average intel-
ligence and imperfect recollection. To such a man the overall 
structural and phonetic similarity of the two marks Gluvita and 
Glucovita ts likely to deceive or to cause confusion. Apart from 
the syllable" CO" in the appellant COil'pany's mafk, the two 
marks are identical, and that syllable is not such as would enable 
buyers in this country to distinguish between them. 
English cases proceeding on the English way of pronouncing 
English words may not be of much assistance in this country in 
deciding questions of phonetic similarity. 
In deciding whether two marks are so similar as to be likely 
to deceive or cause confusion the similarity of idea is a relevant 
consideration. 
Harry Reynolds v. La.ffeaty's Ltd. 1958 R.P.C. 387, relied on. 
When the goods are of different descriptions, a trade connec-
tion between them is a test available for deciding whether the 
competing marks are likely to cause deception or confusion. 
This test is applicable both where the marks are absolutely 
..,. 
indentical and where they closely resemble each other. 
In the matter of application by Edward Hack, 59 R.P.C. 91 and 
In the matter of an application by Ladislas Jellinek, 63 R.P.C. 59, 
relied on. 
.. 
• 
., 
S.C.R. 
SUPREl\IE COURT REPORTS 
969 
- In order that a trade mark may acquire a reputation among 
buyers, it is not necossary that they should know who the 
manufacturer of the goods is.'. 
It is no answer to an opposition to- an application for regi-
stration to say that there is a number of· marks having one or 
more common features which occur in the proposed mark unless-
it is proved that these marks had by user acquired a reputation 
in the market. 
-
• In the matter of an application by Beck, Kollar and Company 
(England) Limited, 64 R.P.C. 76 and In the matter of an application 
by H arrods Ltd." 52 R.P.C. 65, relied on. 
. 
\he rei;istrntion of a mark does not prove its user of 
reputation. 
• 
' 
IVillesden Varnish Co. Ltd. v. Young and Marten Ltd., 39 
R.P.C. 285, relied on. 
-
CIVIL 
APPELLATE 
JURISDICTION: ·Civil· Appeal 
No. 319 of 1955. 
Appeal from th'e judgment and order dated Decem; 
her 3, 1953, of the Bombay High Court, in Appeal 
No. 86 of l!J53, arising out of the judgment and order 
dated October 14, 1953, of the said Court, in l\Iisc. Peti-
tion No. 270 of 1953. 
· 
K. S. Shavaksha, S. N. Andley, J. B. Dadachanji, 
and Rameshwar Nath, for the appellants. 
' Purshottam -Tricumdas, B. K. B. Naidu and I. N.o 
Shroff, for the respondents. 
1959. -October 8. The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
SARKAR J.-This appeal arises out of an application 
made under the· Trade Marks Act, 1940, hereinafter 
called the Act, for registration of a trade mark. The 
application was made by the respondent and it was 
opposed by the appellant. 
-
-
The respondent" is a manufacturer of biscuits. · On 
November 5, 1949, it made the application for regi-
stration of the mark • Gluvita ' in respect of the goods 
specified in class 30, which mark, it appeared later, 
it !iad not used prior to that date. The Registrar 
ordered the application to be advertised before accept-
ance on the r

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.