IP Case Law › Trade Marks › Parle Products (P) Ltd. v. J.P. & Co., Mysore
Relevant Acts and provisions
Provisions considered: Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 (infringement)
Brief facts
Parle, registered proprietor of a biscuit wrapper mark, sued for infringement by the respondent's similar wrapper. The lower appellate court and High Court ruled against Parle.
Issues before the Court
Whether the respondent's wrapper was deceptively similar to Parle's registered mark.
Court's findings
Comparing the wrappers as a whole, from the standpoint of a person of average intelligence and imperfect recollection, the general impression created by the respondent's wrapper was so similar that it was likely to deceive; minute differences did not matter. The defendant had infringed the registered trade mark.
Decision
Appeal allowed; suit decreed with an injunction restraining use of wrappers similar to Parle's registered mark; costs throughout.
Key legal principle / ratio
Deceptive similarity is judged by the overall impression on a person of average intelligence and imperfect recollection, not by a side-by-side comparison of details.
Important paragraph references
Concluding paragraph: finding of infringement and decree.
Important: This case note is a research summary only. It must be verified against the full judgment by a qualified lawyer, advocate or patent/trade mark attorney before any reliance. Do not rely on it as legal advice; Ragulika IP accepts no responsibility for its accuracy or for any action taken on it.
Keywords
Deceptive Similarity Get-up Imperfect Recollection Infringement Wrapper
Read the judgment
More Trade Marks judgments
Trade Marks
Abhimanyu Prakash & Ors. v. Ferrero S.p.A. & Ors.
Seized infringing articles bearing an imitation of a protected trade dress should be destroyed rather than released for other use.
AppealCounterfeit GoodsDestruction of Seized GoodsJar ShapeTrade MarksAcqua Minerals Limited v. Pramod Borse & Anr.
Registration of a domain name identical or deceptively similar to another's well-known trade mark, by a person having no legitimate connection with that mark and who seeks to profit from its transfer, amounts to bad faith cybersqu…
Bad Faith AdoptionCybersquattingDomain NamesPassing OffTrade MarksADS Spirits Pvt. Ltd. v. The Registrar of Trade Marks
Section 9(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 proscribes registration only where a mark is devoid of distinctive character, that is, incapable of distinguishing the goods or services of one person from those of another; it does not…
Absolute Grounds for RefusalArbitrary MarkDistinctivenessNon-speaking Order