| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1973 SLD 3082 = 1973 PLD 246 |
Court of Special Judge, Karachi
Miscellaneous Appeal No. 85 of 1967, decided on 17th August 1972.
Presented By: Noorul Arfin, J
Orr Ewing v. Johnson (1882) 7 A C 219 ; In re : Curie & Co.'s Application (1896) 13 R P C 681 ; Board & Son v. Huddart (1904) 2 R P C 149 ; In re : Murphy & Co.'s Trale Mark (1890) 7 R P C 163 ; In re : Huxley's Application (1924) 41 R P C 423 ; In re : Pomril Ltd. (1901) 18 R P C 131 ; De Cordova v. Vick Chemical Co. 68 R P C 103 and 68 R P C 271 ref. (1914) 31 R P C 53 and Wills & Dextor's Trade Marks (1893) 10 R P C 269 distinguished. S. K. Hassan Rizvi for Appellant. Fazal Illahi for
Respondent No. 1.
Miscellaneous Appeal No. 85 of 1967, decided on 17th August 1972.
Presented By: Noorul Arfin, J
Orr Ewing v. Johnson (1882) 7 A C 219 ; In re : Curie & Co.'s Application (1896) 13 R P C 681 ; Board & Son v. Huddart (1904) 2 R P C 149 ; In re : Murphy & Co.'s Trale Mark (1890) 7 R P C 163 ; In re : Huxley's Application (1924) 41 R P C 423 ; In re : Pomril Ltd. (1901) 18 R P C 131 ; De Cordova v. Vick Chemical Co. 68 R P C 103 and 68 R P C 271 ref. (1914) 31 R P C 53 and Wills & Dextor's Trade Marks (1893) 10 R P C 269 distinguished. S. K. Hassan Rizvi for Appellant. Fazal Illahi for
Respondent No. 1.
JAMIA INDUSTRIES LTD.-Appellant
VERSUS
CALTEX OIL (PAKISTAN) LTD., KARACHI AND ANOTHER---- Respondents
Law: Trade Mark Act, 1940
Section: 8, 10(1), 6(a)
Trade Marks Act (V of 1940), Ss. 8, 10(1) & 6(a)-Competing trade marks-Making comparison ; emphasis should be laid on their leading features-Dominant feature of registered trade mark incorporated in competing trade mark-Trade mark, in such case, infringed-Registered trade mark comprising of device of a star within a circle ; proposed competing trade mark consisting of device of five pointed star surrounded by a crescent (but in effect a circle)-Held, proposed competing device resembled registered trade mark and was liable to cause confusion or deception-Regis tration of new trade mark, held, rightly refused. A company applied for registration of a mark containing word "Jamta" with device of five pointed star in a c ascent (almost forming a circle) in respect of its goods (lubricating oil). This application was opposed by another company on the ground that they were the proprietors of a trade mark already registered which consisted of the device of star within a circle, in respect of same class of goods. The applicant seeking registration of the new trade mark urged that the proposed trade mark was neither identical nor similar to the registered trade mark and there was, therefore, no likelihood of any deception or confusion and consequently no infringement of section 8(a) or section 10(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1940. Held : The proposed trade mark was in no way distinctive from the already registered trade mark despite fact that the star in the already registered trade mark was coloured and used the word Caltex whereas the star in the proposed device was in outline only and was accompanied by word Jamia. The rule is now established by judicial consensus, that in making comparison of two marks, emphasis should be laid on their leading features, and that, in doing so, it should be deter mined as to what are the leading characteristics of each of the competing trade marks. The same rule has been stated in different words, that is, what would be the impression left on the mind, whether there is any likelihood that, by adoption from a registered trade mark of one of its leading characteristics, the proposed trade mark may create the impression that…