Law: Trade Marks Act, 1940

Section: 8

  Trade Marks Act (V of 1940)--- ----S. 8---Trade Mark "Philip" for sewing machines---Appellant's application for registration of mark `Philip' was rejected by Registrar, Trade Marks on the plea raised by respondent company---Respondent company's plea was that its trade mark "Philips" which had been registered in Pakistan in 1951 was identical with the appellant's, "Philip" and the goods of the parties being of the same decription and of same class it would be inconvenienced and embarrassed if the appellant's mark was registered---Appellant was unable to show any connection with the mark `Philip' which it required to get registered---Appellant wanted to adop word `Philip' because it was almost identical with respondents Mark "Philips"-- Appellant's, claim of its alleged use of name "Philip" in producing and marketing its goods in substantial quantity was belied on his failure to produce copy of any income tax return of taxable income---Appellant also failed to give proof of payment of income tax touching user of the mark `Philip' remanufacture and sale of his goods since 1974 as claimed by him---Appellant's alleged use of the mark in producing and marketing of goods in substantial quantity thus could not be accepted on face value. Trade Marks Act (V of 1940)--- ----S. 8---Trade Mark "Philip"---Plea of different nature of goods being produced by appellant and respondent---Validity---Contention of appellant that goods produced by appellant and respondent were of different nature and category and that there would be no confusion in the mind of public while purchasing such goods, repelled---Held, if any purchaser of goods was to be offered for sale a machine manufacturing by appellant bearing the mark "Philip" he would naturally take it to be a product of respondent and with the image of quality he has in his mind regarding respondent's products he would readily buy it only to find soon afterwards that he had been duped and cheated---Every likelihood of causing of deception and confusion with the use of mark `Philip' by the appellant existing,…