J. R. KAPOOR versus M/S MICRONIX INDIA

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 567 · Decided: 10-08-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. SAWANT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

.l.R. KAPOOR 
\', 
M/S. M!CRONIX INDIA 
AUGUST 10, 1994 
[P.B. SA\VANT AND S.C. AGRAWAL, JJ.j 
Constinition of India-A1tic/e I 36-lntelim Order of High Cowt by 
irhich one parry inj1111cted from using trade mark. logo and canon-Validity 
of-Two trade names being 'MICROTEL' and 'MICRONIX' wi1h logos-
Phoenetically 1vords in trade 11a111es being totally dissin1i/a,-Visual in1pres-
sion of nv·o nan1e also different-Visual effect of both logos not san1e on 1ni11d 
of buyers-No chance of buyers and users being misguided or co1:f11sed-
Hl/1ether High Coun 1vas right in exercising its jurisdiction in granting i11terin1 
injunction restraining appellant fron1 using his tfade nan1e, logo and carton. 
A 
B 
c 
Both the respondent-plaintiff and the appellant-defendant manufac-
D 
tore and sell various electrical and electronic goods, apparatus and instru~ 
ments etc. The appellant was one of the partners of the firm, viz. M/s. 
Micronix India alongllith respondent. The firm had a registered trade 
mark, viz., 'MICRONIX' and logo 'IM' 'I' being shown in the well of 'M' 
and both letters being in black and white colours. The partnership was 
dissolved and under the terms of the compromise the said trade mark was 
allotted to the respondent. The appellant started his own busineso of 
manufacturing the same products, in the name and style of M/s. Microtel-
matix with the trade name 'MICROTEL'. Both the logo 'M' and the trade 
name were in colour, viz., blue and red respectively. 
The plaintiff filed for injunction against the use of the trade name 
'MICROTI:L', the logo 'M' and the packaging carton. The High Court 
granted the injunction. Hence this appeal by special leave. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. The word 'micro' being descriptive of the micro technol-
E 
F 
G 
ogy used for production of many electronic goods, no one can claim 
monopoly over the use of the said word. Anyone producing any product 
with the use of micro chip technology would be justified in nsing the said 
word as a prefix to his trade name. The users of such products are, H 
567 
568 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 2 S.C.R, 
A 
therefore, not likely tn be misguided or confused by the said word. 
[570-E. Fl 
B 
c 
1.2. The only question which has to be p1ime facie decided at this 
stage is whether the words 'tel' and 'nix' in the trade names of the appellant 
and respondent are deceptive for the buyers and users and are likely to 
misguide or confuse them in purchasing one for the other. Phonetically the 
words being totally dissimilar are not going to create any such confusion 
in the mind of the users. Secondly, even the visual impression of the said 
two trade names is different. The respondents' trade name 'MICRONIX' 
is in black and \\'hite in slimmer letters and they are ensconced in designs 
of elongated triangles both above and below the said name. The appellant's 
trade name 'MICROTEL' is in thick bold letters in red colour without 
any design around. [570-G, H, 571-A] 
1.3. As regards the logo, the respondent's logo consists of the word 
'M' in a slim letter with 'I' sporting a dot on it and drawn in the well of 
D 'M'. Below the letter 'M' in small letters is written the word 
'MICRONIX'and all these letters and words are written in white in a black 
square in north-south direction. As against this, the appellant's logo is one 
letter, viz., 'M' which is dra>1n in bold broad letter>1ith its left leg slimmer 
then all other parts which are in thick broad brush. The letter has also 
E 
F 
G 
white lines drawn across it which is in blue colour. There is no other colour 
nor is it set against any background. The Court is unable to see how the 
visual effect of both the logos will be the same on the mind of the buyers. 
There is not even the remotest chance of the buyers and users being 
misguided or confused by the two trade names and logos. Same is the case 
with carton which merely reprodnces both the trade names and the logos. 
[571-B, C] 
· 1.4. The observations made above are only for deciding whether the 
appellant would be restrained from using the trade mark, the logo and the 
carton, at this interim stage. The High Court will not be precluded from 
coming to a different conclusion at the final hearing. [572-A] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2253 of 
1994. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.10.93 of the Delhi High 
H Court in FA.0. (OS) No. 229 of 1993. 
J.R. KAPOOR v. MICRO NIX INDIA [SA WANT. 1.J 
569
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.