K. R. CHINNA KRISHNA CHETTIAR versus SRI AMBAL & CO., MADRAS & ANR.

K. R. ClllNNA KRISHNA CHETIIAR

SRI AMBAL & CO., MADRAS & ANR.

April 14, 1969

[S. M. S1KRI, R. S. BACHAWAT AND V. RAMASWAMI, JJ.J

fr.,,!,· and Aferchtn11lise Mark'i Act. 1958, ss. 2(j) und 12-fn .. Yle 11u1rJ.:s 11·he11 deceprive/y 5in1ilcJr-'Sri Anda/' c111d 'Sri A111hc.1/' though ncmes of Hro di,fjerent Jloddesst•s are dtceptil•ely sin1ilar in sound wi1hin meaning of s. 12(J )·--Vi.~ual di\1i111ilarity not dt•cisire when sounds decepti1•::ly sin1ilar.

·rhc <tpp1.::l.1n~ was thl! sol~ propric1or of .i concern known as Radha & Co. ·1 he rco;pl1nd .. :nt~ Amhal & Co. were <1 partnership concern. The r"'-spondl'nl~ as 011~0 the appellant Y..'Crc n1a11uf11cturcrs and dealers in snuff. c:1rryin!_.! on hu~illl'·,s ;1t ~ladras and having business activities inside and l'l1f.;,ilic 1hc State of '.\l<tdras. In 1958 the appellant sought rcgio;;tra-tion of ,, rr . .HI~ n1.1rk c0nsis1in] of L;hcl \\ith picture of the godd~!'" S~i r\nd1d ;1nd liic leganJ 'Sri Anda(' in th~ cc~ltra\ panel. and !he words 'Sri ,.<\nd.tl :\l.1dr;is Snuff' in \arious languages in the upper and Jower panel.;. The :1ppcll<1nt's appliciltion was ohjectcJ to hy the respondenl..; on the ground 1h~.t it v.as deceptively similar to their registered traU~ mark~. One of rhe'.ic consisted of Jabel containing device of goddess Sri Amh<il in the centre \\·ith the legand 'Sri An1bal parimala snuff' at th!! top of the lahcl and the name 'Sri Amhal & C:o. Madras' at the hottom. ·inc other trade mark consi'.itcJ of lhe expre~sion 'Sri Ambal'. The Rc'!i')trar of TraJi.: ~lark.; hclJ th<it the sound of 'Ambal' did not ~') !'e:i'rly re\Cmblc the sound of 'Andal' in spite of certain letters being coinmon to both the ma'rko; as to be likely to cause confusion or deception among suh .. tanti•tl nun1hcr of persons. Single Jud~e of the High (',ourt :ind the Di\·isional Bench however took the opposite view v.·h~re­opon th~ appellant came to thi'.'I Court. No pie~ of honest concurrent U!".e within the meanin!? of s. 12( ~) of the Act could he raised in viev.· of the concurrent finding in thi"i re,.peet hv the Rcj:!isrrar a!". \\'Cl! a., the tv.·o courts helov.·. •IELD : ( i) Th~ Rei.:1strar had expert l...nov.·Jedge and his decision shlHlld :iot he lightly disturbed. But hath the courts had found that he was clearly \\'rong and that there \\o·as deceptive similarity between the two marks. In an appeal under Ari. 136 of the Constitution the onus was upon the appellant to show that the concurrent finding dl the courts below wa.; erroneous and 1hat the conditions of s. 12(1) had heen satisfied [293 FJ

(ii) The question in i~uc was whether if the appellant's mark was used in normal and fair manner in connection with the snuff and if similarly fair and nOrmal user was assumed of the exisring registered marks, \viii there be such likelihood of deception that the mark ought not to he allov.·ed to he re)Zistercd? The court had to decide the qu~stion on comparison of the competing marks as whole and their distinclive and es,.otial features. [291 H-294 BJ

So considered there could be no doubt that the word 'Amhal' was the distinJruishing feature of the trade mark of the respondent and the word 'Andal' was the distinguishing feature of the appellant'o;; trade mark .. There is striking similarity and affinity of sound between the words 'Andal'

and 'Ambal' Giving due weight to the judgment of the Registrar and bearing in mind the conclusions of the Single Judge and the Divisional Bench it must be held that there was lreal danger of con-fusion between the two marks. (294 B-C]

(iii) There was no visual resemblance between the t\.vo marks but ocular comparison is not always the decisive test. The re~emblance between the two marks must be considered with reference to the ear as \vell as the eye. (294 DJ ·

(iv) The argument that on account of the different ideas conveyed by the words 'Ambal' and 'Andal' the accidental .Phonetic resemblance could not lead to confusion was not acceptable because it lost sight pf the realities of the case. The Hindus in the South of India may be well aware that the y,•ofds Ambal and Andal represent the names of two distinct goddesses. But the respondent's customers· \\'ere not confined to the Hindus of the South of India alone and they were not likely to remember the fi°:e distinctions between Vaishnavite goddess and Shivaite deity

The appeal, accordingly, must be disallowed.

[295 B-Fl

(295 H]

In the matter of Broadhead's Application, ( 1950) 57 R.P.C. 209, 214, Coca Cola Co. of Canada v. Pepsi Cola Co. of Canada Ltd. (1942) 59 R.P.C. 127, De Cordova & Ors. v. Vick Chemical Co,v. (1951) 68 R.P.C. 103, and Application by Thon1as A. S1nith Ltd, to Register trade mark, (1913) 30 R.P.C. 363, referred to.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 749 of 1966.

Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated November 21, 1962 of the Madras Iiigh Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 57 of 1962.

A. K. Sen, K. Jayaram and A. Thiagarajan, for the appellant.

M. C. Chagla, N. K. Anand, M. P. Rao and 0. C. Mathur, for respondent No. !.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

Bachawat, J. The appellant is the sole proprietor of trading . concern known as Radha & Co., The respondents Ambal & Co., are partnership firm. The respondents as also the appellant are manufacturers and dealers in snuff carrying on busiriess at Madias and having bµsiness activities inside and outside the State of Madras. On March 10, 1958 the appellant filed application no. 183961 for registration of trade mark in class 34 in re.•pect of "snuff manufactured in Madras." The respondents filed notice· of opposition. The main ground of opposition was that the pro-posed mark was deceptively similar to their registered trade marks. ll The respondents were the proprietors of the registered marks nos. !26808 and 146291. Trade mark no. 126808 consists of label containing device of goddess Sri Ambal seated on globe ll.oating on water enclOied in circular frame with the legend "Sri

Ambal parimala snuff' at the top o.f the label, and the name and address .. Sri Ambal & Co., Madras" at the bottom. Trade mark no. 146291 consist; of the expression ''Sri Ambal". The mark of. which the appellant seeks rei;istration consists of label con-tammg .~hree panels. The first and the thirci panels contain in Tamil, u.:vanagn, Telugu and Kannada the equivalents of the words .. Sr< Anoal Madras Snuff'. The centre panel contains the picture of goddess Sri Anda! and the legend "Sri Anda!".

Sri AnJai and Sri Ambal are separate divinities. Sri Anda! was vaishnavite woman saint of Srivilliputur village and was deified because of her union with Lord Ranganatha. Sri Ambal :s the consort of Siva or Maheshwara.

Sri Anda!

The respondents have been in· the snuff business for several decades and have used the word Ambal as part of their work for more than haLf century. The question in issue is whether the proposed mark is deceptively similar to the respondents' marks. "Mark" as defined ins. 2(j) of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 includes "a device, brand, heading, label, ticket, name, signature, word, letter or numeral or any combill.ation thereof'. Section 12 (I ) provides that "save as provided in sub-section ( 3), no trade mark shall be registered in respect of any goods or des-cription of goods which is identical with or deceptively similar to trade mark which is already registered in the name of different proprietor in respect of the same goods or description of goods." The Registrar of Trade of Marks observed :

"In composite mark the disti.nctive words, appear-ing on it play an important part. Words always talk more than devices, because it is generally by the word part of composite mark that orders will be given. Apart from that, the opponents have registered mark consist-ing of the expression Sri Amllal. I have, therefore, to determine whether the expression Sri Anda!, is decep-tively similar to Sri Ambal."

He said:

"the sound of "Ambal'' does not so nearly resemlJle the sound of "Anda!", m spite of certain letters being common to both the marks, as to be likely to cause coniusion or deception among substantial number of persons."

The respondents filed an appeal ill the

Madras High Court.

J agadishan, J. observed :

"It is. settled law that trade mark comprehends not merely the picture design or symbol but also its des-criptive name. copy of colourable imitation of the

name, would constitute an infringement of the mark containiing the name. Nobody can abstract the name or use phonetical equivalent of it . and escape . the charge of piracy ol. the mark pleadmg that the VJsual aspect of his mark is different from the mark of the person opposing its registration."

He held:-

"The words, Ambal and Anda!, have such great ph~­netic similarity that they are undistinguishable having the same sound alll.d pronounciation. In whatever way they are uttered or spoken, slowly or quickly perfectly or imperfectly, meticulously or carelessly and whoever utters them, foreigner or native of India, wherever they are uttered in the noisy market place or in calm and seciuded area, over the phone or in person, the danger of confusion between the two phonetically allied name5 is .imminent and unavoidable."

Accordingly, he allowed the appeal and dismissed the appellant's application for registration of the trade mark. The appellant filed letters patent appeal. The Divisional Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal. The learned Registrar and the two courts below concurrently found that the appellant failed to prove honest concurrent use so as to bring his case within s. 12 ( 3). The pre-sent appeal has been filed by the appellant after obtaining special leave.

The Registrar was of the view that the appellant's mark was not deceptively similar to the respondents' trade marks. He has expert knowledge of such matters and his decision should not be lightly disturbed. But both the courts have found that he was clearly wrong and held that there is deceptive similarity between the tv•o marks. In an appeal under art. 13 6 of the Constitution the onus is upon the appellant to show that the concurrent finding of the courts below erroneous. The appellant must satisfy the court that the conditions of s. 12 (1} have been satisfied. If those conditions are not satisfied his mark C3Ilillot be registered.

Now the words "Sri Ambal" form part of trade mark no. 126808 and are the whole of trade mark no. 146291. There can be no doubt that the word "Ambal" is an essential feature of the trade marlcs. The common "Sri" is the subsidiary part, of the two words "Ambal" is the more distinctive and fixes itself in the recollection of an average buyer with imperfect recollection.

The vital question in issue is whether, if the appellant's mark is used in normal and fair manner in connection with the snuif LI 3Sup.CI/69- S

and il similarly fair and 111ormal user is assumed of the existing registered marks, will there be such likelihood of deception that the mark ought not to be allowed to be registered (see Jn the matter of Broadhead'>· Application(') for re~istration of trade mark). It is for the court to decide the quesuon on comparison of the competing marks as whole and their distinctive and essen-tial features. We have no doubt in our mind that if the proposed mark is used in normal and fair manner the mark would come to be known by its distin~uishing feature "Anda!". There is striking similarity and affimty <if sound between the words "Anda!" and "Ambal". Giving due weight to the judgment of the Registrar and bearing in mind the conclusions of the learned Single Judge and the Divisional Bench, we are satisfied that there i> real danger of confusion between the two marks.

There is no evidence of actual confusion, but that might be due to the fact that the appellant's trade is not of long standing. There is no visual resemblance between the two marks, but ocular comparison is not always the decisive test. The resemblance be-tween the two marks must be considered with reference to the ear as well as the eye. There is close aflinity of sound between Ambal and Anda!.

In the case of Coca-Co/a Co. of CaMda v. Pepsi Cola Co. of Canada Ltd. ( '), it was found that cola was in common use in Canada for naming the beverages. The distinguishing feature of the mark Coca Cola was coca and not cola. For the same reason the distinguishing feature of the mark Pepsi Cola was Pepsi and not cola. It was not likely that any one would confu.s. the word Pepsi with coca. In the present case the word "Sri" may be regarded as in common use. The distinguishing feature of the respondent's mark is Ambal while'that of the appellant's mark is Anda!. The two words are deceptively similar in sound.The name Anda! docs llQt cease to be deceptively ,imilar because it is used in conjunction with pictorial device. The case of De Cordova & Ors. v. Vick Chemical Coy.([1]) is instructive. From the Appendix printed at page 270 of the same volume it appears that Vick Chemical Coy were the proprietors of the regis-tered trade mark consisting of the word "Vaporub" and another registered trade mark consisting of design of which the words "Vicks Vaporub Salve" formed part. The appendix at page 226 shows that the defendants advertised their ointment as 'Karsote vapour Rub". It was held that the defendants had infringed the registered marks. Lord Radcliffe said : ". . . mark is infringed

(I) (1950) 57 R.P.C. 209, 214. (2) (I 942) 59 R.P.C. 127. (3) (1951) 68 R.P.C. 103.

by another trader if, even without using the whole of it upon or .in connection with his goods, _he uses one or more of its essential features."

Mr. Sen stressed the point that the words Ambal and Andal .had distinct meanings. Ambal is the consort of Lord Siva and Anda! is the consort of Ranganatha. He said that in view of the distinct ideas conveyed by the two words mere accidental phone.. tic resemblance could not lead to confusion. In this connection he relied on Venkateswaran's Law of Trade and Merchandise Marks, 1963 ed., page 214, Kerly's Law of Trade Marks and Trade Names; 9th ed., page 465, art. 852 and the decision Application by Thomas A. Smith Ltd., to Register trade mark('). In 1hat case Neville, J. held that the words "limit" and "summit" were words i.n common use, each conveying 1 distinctly definite idea; that there was no possibility of any one being deceived by the two marks; and there was no groundi for refusing registration. Mr. Sen's argument loses sight of the realities of the case. The Hindus in the south of India may be well aware that the words Ambal and Andal represent the lllll1Iles of two distinct goddesses. But the respondent's customers are not confined to Hindus alone. Many of their cnstomers are Christians, Parsees, Muslims and persons of other religious denominations. Moreover, their business is not confined to south of India. The customers who are not Hindus or who do not belong to the south ot lndia may not know the difference between the words Andal and Ambal. The words have lllO direct reference to the character and quality of snuff. The customers who us~ the respondent's goods will have recollection that they are known by the word Ambal. They may also have vague recollection of the portrait of benign goddess used in con-nection with the mark. They are not likely to remember the fine distinctions between Vaishlllavite goddess and Shivaite deity.

We think the judgment appealed from is right and should be affirmed. We are informed that the appellant filed another application no. 212575 seeking registration of labels of which the expression "Radha's Sri Anda! Madras Snuff" forms part. The learned Registrar has disposed of the app!icatioo in favour of the appellant But we understand that an appeal is pending in the High Court. It was argued that there was no phonetic similarity between Sri Arnbal and Radha's Sri Andal and the use of the expression Radha's Sri Andal was not likely to lead to confusion. The Divisional Bench found force in this argument. But as the matter is sub-judice we express no opinion on it.

In th~ result, the appeal is dismissed with costs.

Appeal dismissed.

·~~~~~~~~~-