LONDON RUBBER CO. LTD. versus DUREX PRODUCTS

LONDON RUBBER CO. LTD. versus DUREX PRODUCTS

Honest concurrent use of the mark 'Durex' by the respondent for a considerable period, supported by commercial use and special circumstances, justifies registration under section 10(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1940, despite identity with the appellant's mark. There is little likelihood of confusion or deception due to the differences in goods and established use.

Parties
Appellant: London Rubber Co. Ltd.; Respondent No. 1: Durex Products Inc.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
04 March 1963
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Order of Calcutta High Court in Appeal From Original No. 41 of 1955
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Trade Marks, Trade Mark Registration, Honest Concurrent Use, Likelihood of Confusion, Special Circumstances
Intellectual Property Law Trade Marks Trade Mark Registration Honest Concurrent Use Likelihood of Confusion Special Circumstances

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

London Rubber Co. Ltd.

Appellant

Durex Products Inc.

Respondent No. 1

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Order of Calcutta High Court in Appeal From Original No. 41 of 1955

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether registration of the trade mark 'Durex' by the respondent is valid despite opposition by the appellant on grounds of identical trade mark and likelihood of confusion.
  2. 2 Whether the Deputy Registrar was right in applying section 10(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1940 in favour of the respondent.

Ratio Decidendi

Honest concurrent use of the mark 'Durex' by the respondent for a considerable period, supported by commercial use and special circumstances, justifies registration under section 10(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1940, despite identity with the appellant's mark. There is little likelihood of confusion or deception due to the differences in goods and established use.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Registration of respondent's mark 'Durex' allowed; order of the Deputy Registrar and High Court upheld.
  • Appellant to pay costs.