AMRITDHARA PHARMACY versus SATYADEO GUPTA

AMRITDHARA PHARMACY versus SATYADEO GUPTA

The Supreme Court held that the overall similarity between 'Amritdhara' and 'Lakshmandhara' in respect of the same description of goods is likely to cause deception or confusion from the viewpoint of a person with average intelligence and imperfect recollection. However, the facts established acquiescence on the part of the appellant regarding the respondent's use, thus constituting special circumstances under s. 10(2) of the Trade Marks Act. The Registrar was justified in limiting the registration to sales within Uttar Pradesh.

Parties
Appellant: Amritdhara Pharmacy; Respondent: Satya Deo Gupta
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
27 April 1962
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Judgment and Order Dated March 19, 1958, of the Allahabad High Court in F. A. No. 62 of 1954
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Trade Marks, Registration of Trade Marks, Deceptive Similarity, Acquiescence, Concurrent User
Intellectual Property Law Trade Marks Registration of Trade Marks Deceptive Similarity Acquiescence Concurrent User

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Amritdhara Pharmacy

Appellant

Satya Deo Gupta

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Judgment and Order Dated March 19, 1958, of the Allahabad High Court in F. A. No. 62 of 1954

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trade name 'Lakshmandhara' is likely to deceive or cause confusion by its resemblance to the already registered trade mark 'Amritdhara' under ss. 8 and 10(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1940.
  2. 2 Whether acquiescence by the appellant in the use of 'Lakshmandhara' by the respondent constitutes 'special circumstances' under s. 10(2) of the Trade Marks Act, permitting joint registration.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the overall similarity between 'Amritdhara' and 'Lakshmandhara' in respect of the same description of goods is likely to cause deception or confusion from the viewpoint of a person with average intelligence and imperfect recollection. However, the facts established acquiescence on the part of the appellant regarding the respondent's use, thus constituting special circumstances under s. 10(2) of the Trade Marks Act. The Registrar was justified in limiting the registration to sales within Uttar Pradesh.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Judgment and order of the High Court set aside.
  • Order of the Registrar of Trade Marks, Bombay dated September 10, 1953, restored.