Amritdhara Pharmacy vs Satyadeo Gupta 1963 AIR 449

�Name of the Parties : Amritdhara Pharmacy Appellant… Satyadeo Gupta �Bench : Respondent… S.

BRIEF FACTS: 1. 2. The respondent had applied for the registration of the trade

CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONER: 1. 2. 3. The Appelant contended that as Amritdhara, was

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT: 1. 2. 3. 4. The said medicinal preparation had been

ISSUES: � Whether the name Lakshmandhara was likely to deceive the public or cause

REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARK: � The registrar of the trade mark held that there

APPEAL TO THE HIGH COURT: o High court said that there is no possibility

APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT: � It was held that the question whether a

Decision of the Supreme Court The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the

Slides: 10

Download presentation

Amritdhara Pharmacy vs Satyadeo Gupta 1963 AIR 449 By : Shruti Thakur © Shruti Thakur, LL. M. , National Law University Jodhpur [www. lawlex. org]

�Name of the Parties : Amritdhara Pharmacy Appellant… Satyadeo Gupta �Bench : Respondent… S. K. Das, M. Hidayatullah, J. C. Shah © Shruti Thakur, LL. M. , National Law University Jodhpur [www. lawlex. org]

BRIEF FACTS: 1. 2. The respondent had applied for the registration of the trade name Lakshmandhara, in respect of medicinal preparation for alleviation of various ailments. It was admitted that the respondent's product was mainly sold in the State of Uttar Pradesh since 1923. The appellant opposed the registration on the ground that it had an exclusive proprietary interest in the trade mark "Amritdhara" in relation to a similar medicinal preparation which had acquired considerable reputation since 1903 and that the respondent's trade name "Lakshmandhara" was likely to deceive and cause confusion. © Shruti Thakur, LL. M. , National Law University Jodhpur [www. lawlex. org]

CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONER: 1. 2. 3. The Appelant contended that as Amritdhara, was already registered and Lakshmandhara being a similar name was likely to confuse and deceive the public. It was contended that the composite word Lakshmandhara was used to denote the same medicine as Amritdhara. The single word dhara was first used in conjunction with Amritdhara to denote the medicine of the Appellant and the medicine Lakshmandhara being of the same nature and quality could be easily passed off as Amritdhara to the ultimate purchaser. © Shruti Thakur, LL. M. , National Law University Jodhpur [www. lawlex. org]

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT: 1. 2. 3. 4. The said medicinal preparation had been in use by the name of Lakshmandhara since 1923 and no objection was raised from the appellant or anybody else. The respondent contended that the single word dhara had no particular significance in relation to the medicine. They stated that apart from the difference in name, the label and packaging of Lakshmandhara had exclusive design of their own and were not likely to be confused with any other medicine. He was the honest concurrent user of Lakshmandhara since 1923. © Shruti Thakur, LL. M. , National Law University Jodhpur [www. lawlex. org]

ISSUES: � Whether the name Lakshmandhara was likely to deceive the public or cause confusion to trade within the meaning of section 8 and section 10. � Whethere was such acquiescence on behalf of the appellant in the use of the name Lakshmandhara in the state of U. P as to bring it within the expression ‘special circumstances’ mentioned in section 10(2) of the act. © Shruti Thakur, LL. M. , National Law University Jodhpur [www. lawlex. org]

REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARK: � The registrar of the trade mark held that there was sufficient similarity between Amritdhara and Lakshmandhara so as to cause confusion. � On the point of honest and concurrent user the registrar found in favour of the appellant. � The acquiescence of the appellant in the use of the trade name Lakshmandhara by the respondent for a long period to the knowledge of the appellant was special circumstance under section 10(2)entitling the respondent to have his name registered along with the appellants trade name. � Registrar passed an order allowing registration of Lakshmandhara for sale in the state of U. P only. Both appeallant and respondent appealed to the High Court. © Shruti Thakur, LL. M. , National Law University Jodhpur [www. lawlex. org]

APPEAL TO THE HIGH COURT: o High court said that there is no possibility of any Indian confusing the two ideas. o Even phonetical differences are wide enough not to confuse anybody. o The words of common language like Amrit and Dhara cannot be made the monopoly of any individual. o As to honest and concurrent user from 1923 to 1942 the held in favour of the respondent. o But on point of acquiscence the held in favour of the appellant. o They held that there was no justification for refusing registration of the trade name Lakshmandhara for the whole of India. o They allowed the appeal of the respondent and dismissed that of the appellant. o The appellant received special leave from this court © Shruti Thakur, LL. M. , National Law University Jodhpur [www. lawlex. org]

APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT: � It was held that the question whether a trade name is likely to deceive or cause confusion by its resemblance to another already registered is a matter of first impression and one for decision in each case and has to be decided by taking the overall view of all circumstances. � The standard of comparison to be adopted in judging the resemblance is from the point of view of a man of average intelligence and imperfect recollection. � To such a man the overall and phonetic similarity of the two names Amritdhara and Lakshmandhara is, likely to deceive or cause confusion. � As to acquiescence Supreme court is in agreement with the registrar of Trade marks. © Shruti Thakur, LL. M. , National Law University Jodhpur [www. lawlex. org]

Decision of the Supreme Court The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the high court and restored those of the registrar of trade marks. © Shruti Thakur, LL. M. , National Law University Jodhpur [www. lawlex. org]