IP Case Law › Trade Marks › S.M. Dyechem Ltd. v. Cadbury (India) Ltd.
Relevant Acts and provisions
Provisions considered: Trade Marks; interim injunction
Brief facts
S.M. Dyechem, proprietor of PIKNIK for snack products, sought to restrain Cadbury's use of PICNIC for a chocolate bar. The High Court refused an interim injunction.
Issues before the Court
Whether PICNIC was deceptively similar to PIKNIK so as to justify an interim injunction.
Court's findings
The Court examined the differences in essential features and the overall get-up of the products and declined to interfere, while directing that accounts be maintained and an undertaking for damages be given.
Decision
Appeal dismissed; the High Court's directions on accounts and undertaking reiterated; findings confined to the interim stage.
Subsequent history: Disapproved. In Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (2001) 5 SCC 73, a three-judge bench held that the decision on merits in S.M. Dyechem, which treated differences in essential features as relevant, does not lay down correct law. Rely on Cadila (also on IP Lex) for the test of deceptive similarity.
Key legal principle / ratio
Not good law on the test of deceptive similarity: see Cadila Health Care v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals (2001). Retained for its historical significance and its discussion of interim relief.
Important paragraph references
Concluding paragraph: disposal.
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 Essential Features Interim Injunction PICNIC PIKNIK
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