Case: M/S. NANDHINI DELUXE Vs. M/S. KARNATAKA COOPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS FEDERATION LTD. REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

Act and the Rules framed thereunder, it appears to us that registration of a trade mark cannot be held to be absolute, perpetual and invariable under all circumstances. Section 12 of the Trade Marks Act prohibits registration of identical or deceptively similar trade marks in respect of goods and description of goods which is identical or deceptively similar to the trade mark already registered. For prohibiting registration under Section 12(1), goods in respect of which subsequent registration is sought for, must be (i) in respect of goods or description of goods being same or similar and covered by earlier registration and (ii) trade mark claimed for such goods must be same or deceptively similar to the trade mark already registered. It may be noted here that under sub-section (3) of Section 12 of the Trade Marks Act, in an appropriate case of honest concurrent use and/or of other special circumstances, same and deceptively similar trade marks may be permitted to another by the Registrar, subject to such conditions as may deem just and proper to the Registrar. It is also to be noted that the expression goods and description of goods appearing in Section 12(1) of the Trade Marks Act indicate that registration may be made in respect of one or more goods or of all goods conforming a general description. The Trade Marks Act has noted distinction between description of goods forming a genus and separate and distinctly identifiable goods under the genus in various other sections e.g. goods of same description in Section 46, Sections 12 and 34 and class of goods in Section 18, Rules 12 and 26 read with Fourth Schedule to the Rules framed under the Act. 48. The class mentioned in the Fourth Schedule may subsume or comprise a number of goods or articles which are separately identifiable and vendible and which are not goods of the same description as commonly understood in trade or in common parlance. Manufactured tobacco is a class mentioned in Class 34 of Fourth Schedule of the Rules but within the said class, there are a number of distinctly identifiable goods which are marketed separately and also used differently. In our view, it is not only permissible but it will be only just and proper to register one or more articles under a class or genus if in reality registration only in respect of such articles is intended, by specifically mentioning the names of such articles and by indicating the class under which such article or articles are to be comprised. It is, therefore, permissible to register only cigarette or some other specific products made of manufactured tobacco as mentioned in Class 34 of Fourth Schedule of the Rules. In our view, the contention of Mr Vaidyanathan that in view of change in the language of Section 8 of the Trade Marks Act as compared to Section 5 of the Trade Marks Act, 1940, registration of trade mark is to be made only in respect of class or genus and not in respect of articles of different species under the genus is based on incorrect appreciation of Section 8 of the Trade Marks Act and Fourth Schedule of the Rules. 31. We may mention that the aforesaid principle of law while interpreting the provisions of Trade and Merchandise Act, 1958 is equally applicable as it is unaffected by the Trade Marks Act, 1999 inasmuch as the main object underlying the said principle is that the proprietor of a trade mark cannot enjoy monopoly over the entire class of goods and, particularly, when he is not using the said trade mark in respect of certain goods falling under the same class. In this behalf, we may usefully refer to Section 11 of the Act which prohibits the registration of the mark in respect of the similar goods or different goods but the provisions of this Section do not cover the same class of goods. 32. The aforesaid discussion leads us to hold that all the ingredients laid down in Section 11(2) of the Act, as explained by the Delhi High Court in Nestle India Ltd., have not been satisfied. We are not persuaded to hold, on the facts of this case, that the appellant has adopted the trade mark to take unfair advantage of the trade mark of the respondent. We also hold that use of NANDHINI by appellant in respect of its different goods would not be detrimental to the purported distinctive character or repute of the trade mark of the respondent. It is to be kept in mind that the appellant had adopted the trade mark in respect of items sold in its restaurants way back in the year 1989 which was soon after the respondent had started using the trade mark NANDINI. There is no document or material produced by the respondent to show that by the year 1989 the respondent had acquired distinctiveness in respect of this trade mark, i.e., within four years of the adoption thereof. It, therefore, appears to be a case of concurrent user of trade mark by the appellant. 33. There is some force in the argument of learned counsel for the appellant that IPAB while passing orders dated 4th October, 2011 ignored its earlier order, of a Coordinate Bench, passed on 20th April, 2010. Appeal in which order dated 20th April, 2010 was passed was between the same parties on identical issue. The IPAB had dismissed the said appeal of the respondent and that order had attained finality. Prima facie, this would act as an issue of estoppel between the parties (see the Bhanu Kumar Jain vs. Archana Kumar and Anr., (2005) 1 SCC 787 ; Hope Plantations Ltd. vs. Taluk Land Board, Peermade and Another, (1999) 5 SCC 590 ). However, as we are holding that the impugned orders of the IPAB and High Court are not sustainable in law and have decided these appeals on merits it is not necessary to make any further comments on the aforesaid aspect.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]3. Before we proceed further, it is pertinent to mention at this stage that the milk and milk products, which are sold by the respondent under the trade mark of NANDINI, fall under Class 29 and Class 30 as per classification under Schedule IV to the Trade Marks Rules, 2002. On the other hand, various kinds of foodstuffs sold by the appellant in its restaurants also fall under Class 29 and 30 as well as other Classes.We proceed on the presumption that the trade mark NANDHINI, which is registered in the name of the appellant has acquired distinctiveness though the appellant disputes the same. Otherwise also there is no challenge to the registration of this name in favour of the respondent.(A) Respondent started using trade mark in respect of its products, namely, milk and milk products in the year 1985. As against that, the appellant adopted trade mark NANDHINI in respect of its goods in the year 1989.(B) Though, the respondent is a prior user, the appellant also had been using this trade mark NANDHINI for 12-13 years before it applied for registration of these trade marks in respect of its products.(C) The goods of the appellant as well as respondent fall under the same Classes 29 and 30. Notwithstanding the same, the goods of the appellant are different from that of the respondent. Whereas the respondent is producing and selling only milk and milk products the goods of the appellant are fish, meat, poultry and game, meat extracts, preserved, dried and cooked fruits and vegetables, edible oils and fats, salad dressings, preserves etc. and it has given up its claim qua milk and milk products.(D) Insofar as application for registration of the milk and milk products is concerned, it was not granted by the trade mark registry. In fact, the same was specifically rejected. The appellant was directed to file the affidavit and Form 16 in this behalf to delete the goods milk and milk products which affidavit was filed by the appellant. Further concession is already recorded above.(E) NANDINI/NANDHINI is a generic, it represents the name of Goddess and a cow in Hindu Mythology. It is not an invented or coined word of the respondent.(F) The nature and style of the business of the appellant and the respondent are altogether different. Whereas respondent is a Cooperative Federation of Milk Producers of Karnataka and is producing and selling milk and milk products under the mark NANDINI, the business of the appellant is that of running restaurants and the registration of mark NANDHINI as sought by the appellant is in respect of various foodstuffs sold by it in its restaurants.(G) Though there is a phonetic similarity insofar as the words NANDHINI/NANDINI are concerned, the trade mark with logo adopted by the two parties are altogether different. The manner in which the appellant has written NANDHINI as its mark is totally different from the style adopted by the respondent for its mark NANDINI. Further, the appellant has used and added the word Deluxe and, thus, its mark is NANDHINI DELUXE. It is followed by the words the real spice of life. There is device of lamp with the word NANDHINI. In contrast, the respondent has used only one word, namely, NANDINI which is not prefixed or suffixed by any word. In its mark Cow as a logo is used beneath which the word NANDINI is written, it is encircled by egg shape circle. A bare perusal of the two marks would show that there is hardly any similarity of the appellants mark with that of the respondent when these marks are seen in totality.25. When we examine the matter keeping in mind the aforesaid salient features, it is difficult to sustain the conclusion of the IPAB in its order dated 4th October, 2011 as well in the impugned order of the High Court that the mark adopted by the appellant will cause any confusion in the mind of consumers, what to talk of deception. We do not find that the the two marks are deceptively similar.26. We are of further opinion that the earlier order dated 20th April, 2010 of IPAB approached the subject matter in correct perspective. The test laid down in Polaroid Corporation vs. Polarad Electronics Corporation, 11 287 F.2d 492 (1961) is as follows:The problem of determining how far a valid trademark shall be protected with respect to goods other than those to which its owner has applied it, has long been vexing and does not become easier of solution with the years. Neither of our recent decisions so heavily relied upon by the parties, Harold F. Ritchie, Inc. v. Chesebrough-Ponds, Inc., 2 Cir., 1960, 281 F.2d 755, by plaintiff, and Avon Shoe Co., Inc. v. David Crystal, Inc., 2 Cir., 1960, 279 F.2d 607 by defendant, affords much assistance, since in the Ritchie case there was confusion as to the identical product and the defendant in the Avon case had adopted its mark without knowledge of the plaintiffs prior use, at page 611. Where the products are different, the prior owners chance of success is a function of many variables: the strength of his mark, the degree of similarity between the two marks, the proximity of the products, the likelihood that the prior owner will bridge the gap, actual confusion, and the reciprocal of defendants good faith in adopting its own mark, the quality of defendants product, and the sophistication of the buyers. Even this extensive catalogue does not exhaust the possibilities the court may have to take still other variables into account. American Law Institute, Restatement of Torts, 729, 730, 731. Here plaintiffs mark is a strong one and the similarity between the two names is great, but the evidence of actual confusion, when analyzed, is not impressive. The filter seems to be the only case where defendant has sold, but not manufactured, a product serving a function similar to any of plaintiffs, and plaintiffs sales of this item have been highly irregular, varying, e. g., from $2,300 in 1953 to $303,000 in 1955, and $48,000 in 1956.27. This Court in National Sewing Thread Co. Ltd. vs. James Chadwick and Bros., (1953) AIR SC 357 accepted the following principles which are to be applied in such cases:22. The principles of law applicable to such cases are well settled. The burden of proving that the trade mark which a person seeks to register is not likely to deceive or to cause confusion is upon the applicant. It is for him to satisfy the Registrar that his trade mark does not fall within the prohibition of Section 8 and therefore it should be registered. Moreover in deciding whether a particular trade mark is likely to deceive or cause confusion that duty is not discharged by arriving at the result by merely comparing it with the trade mark which is already registered and whose proprietor is offering opposition to the registration of the mark. The real question to decide in such cases is to see as to how a purchaser, who must be looked upon as an average man of ordinary intelligence, would react to a particular trade mark, what association he would form by looking at the trade mark, and in what respect he would connect the trade mark with the goods which he would be purchasing.28. Applying the aforesaid principles to the instant case, when we find that not only visual appearance of the two marks is different, they even relate to different products. Further, the manner in which they are traded by the appellant and respondent respectively, highlighted above, it is difficult to imagine that an average man of ordinary intelligence would associate the goods of the appellant as that of the respondent.29. One other significant factor which is lost sight of by the IPAB as well as the High Court is that the appellant is operating a restaurant under the trademark NANDHINI and it had applied the trademark in respect of goods like coffee, tea, cocoa, sugar, rice, rapioca, sago, artificial coffee, flour and preparations made from cereals, bread, pastry, spices, bill books, visiting cards, meat, fish, poultry and game; meat extracts; preserved, dried and cooked fruits and vegetables; jellies, jams, fruit sauces, etc. which are used in the products/services of restaurant business. The aforesaid items do not belong to Class 29 or 30. Likewise, stationery items used by the appellant in the aid of its restaurant services are relatable to Class 16. In these circumstances, there was hardly any question of confusion or deception.30. Having arrived at the aforesaid conclusion, the reasoning of the High Court that the goods belonging to the appellant and the respondent (though the nature of goods is different) belong to same class and, therefore, it would be impermissible for the appellant to have the registration of the concerned trade mark in its favour, would be meaningless. That apart, there is no such principle of law. On the contrary, this Court in Vishnudas Trading as Vishnudas Kushandas2 has decided otherwise as can be seen from the reading of para 47 of the said judgment:-47. The respondent Company got registration of its brand name Charminar under the broad classification manufactured tobacco. So long such registration remains operative, the respondent Company is entitled to claim exclusive use of the said brand name in respect of articles made of tobacco coming under the said broad classification manufactured tobacco. Precisely for the said reason, when the appellant made application for registration of quiwam and zarda under the same brand name Charminar, such prayer for registration was not allowed. The appellant, therefore, made application for rectification of the registration made in favour of the respondent Company so that the said registration is limited only in respect of the articles being manufactured and marketed by the respondent Company, namely, cigarettes. In our view, if a trader or manufacturer actually trades in or manufactures only one or some of the articles coming under a broad classification and such trader or manufacturer has no bona fide intention to trade in or manufacture other goods or articles which also fall under the said broad classification, such trader or manufacturer should not be permitted to enjoy monopoly in respect of all the articles which may come under such broad classification and by that process preclude the other traders or manufacturers from getting registration of separate and distinct goods which may also be grouped under the broad classification. If registration has been given generally in respect of all the articles coming under the broad classification and if it is established that the trader or manufacturer who got such registration had not intended to use any other article except the articles being used by such trader or manufacturer, the registration of such trader is liable to be rectified by limiting the ambit of registration and confining such registration to the specific article or articles which really concern the trader or manufacturer enjoying the registration made in his favour. In our view, if rectification in such circumstances is not allowed, the trader or manufacturer by virtue of earlier registration will be permitted to enjoy the mischief of trafficking in trade mark. Looking to the scheme of the registration of trade mark as envisaged in the Trade Marks Act and the Rules framed thereunder, it appears to us that registration of a trade mark cannot be held to be absolute, perpetual and invariable under all circumstances. Section 12 of the Trade Marks Act prohibits registration of identical or deceptively similar trade marks in respect of goods and description of goods which is identical or deceptively similar to the trade mark already registered. For prohibiting registration under Section 12(1), goods in respect of which subsequent registration is sought for, must be (i) in respect of goods or description of goods being same or similar and covered by earlier registration and (ii) trade mark claimed for such goods must be same or deceptively similar to the trade mark already registered. It may be noted here that under sub-section (3) of Section 12 of the Trade Marks Act, in an appropriate case of honest concurrent use and/or of other special circumstances, same and deceptively similar trade marks may be permitted to another by the Registrar, subject to such conditions as may deem just and proper to the Registrar. It is also to be noted that the expression goods and description of goods appearing in Section 12(1) of the Trade Marks Act indicate that registration may be made in respect of one or more goods or of all goods conforming a general description. The Trade Marks Act has noted distinction between description of goods forming a genus and separate and distinctly identifiable goods under the genus in various other sections e.g. goods of same description in Section 46, Sections 12 and 34 and class of goods in Section 18, Rules 12 and 26 read with Fourth Schedule to the Rules framed under the Act.48. The class mentioned in the Fourth Schedule may subsume or comprise a number of goods or articles which are separately identifiable and vendible and which are not goods of the same description as commonly understood in trade or in common parlance. Manufactured tobacco is a class mentioned in Class 34 of Fourth Schedule of the Rules but within the said class, there are a number of distinctly identifiable goods which are marketed separately and also used differently. In our view, it is not only permissible but it will be only just and proper to register one or more articles under a class or genus if in reality registration only in respect of such articles is intended, by specifically mentioning the names of such articles and by indicating the class under which such article or articles are to be comprised. It is, therefore, permissible to register only cigarette or some other specific products made of manufactured tobacco as mentioned in Class 34 of Fourth Schedule of the Rules. In our view, the contention of Mr Vaidyanathan that in view of change in the language of Section 8 of the Trade Marks Act as compared to Section 5 of the Trade Marks Act, 1940, registration of trade mark is to be made only in respect of class or genus and not in respect of articles of different species under the genus is based on incorrect appreciation of Section 8 of the Trade Marks Act and Fourth Schedule of the Rules.31. We may mention that the aforesaid principle of law while interpreting the provisions of Trade and Merchandise Act, 1958 is equally applicable as it is unaffected by the Trade Marks Act, 1999 inasmuch as the main object underlying the said principle is that the proprietor of a trade mark cannot enjoy monopoly over the entire class of goods and, particularly, when he is not using the said trade mark in respect of certain goods falling under the same class. In this behalf, we may usefully refer to Section 11 of the Act which prohibits the registration of the mark in respect of the similar goods or different goods but the provisions of this Section do not cover the same class of goods.32. The aforesaid discussion leads us to hold that all the ingredients laid down in Section 11(2) of the Act, as explained by the Delhi High Court in Nestle India Ltd., have not been satisfied. We are not persuaded to hold, on the facts of this case, that the appellant has adopted the trade mark to take unfair advantage of the trade mark of the respondent. We also hold that use of NANDHINI by appellant in respect of its different goods would not be detrimental to the purported distinctive character or repute of the trade mark of the respondent. It is to be kept in mind that the appellant had adopted the trade mark in respect of items sold in its restaurants way back in the year 1989 which was soon after the respondent had started using the trade mark NANDINI. There is no document or material produced by the respondent to show that by the year 1989 the respondent had acquired distinctiveness in respect of this trade mark, i.e., within four years of the adoption thereof. It, therefore, appears to be a case of concurrent user of trade mark by the appellant.33. There is some force in the argument of learned counsel for the appellant that IPAB while passing orders dated 4th October, 2011 ignored its earlier order, of a Coordinate Bench, passed on 20th April, 2010. Appeal in which order dated 20th April, 2010 was passed was between the same parties on identical issue. The IPAB had dismissed the said appeal of the respondent and that order had attained finality. Prima facie, this would act as an issue of estoppel between the parties (see the Bhanu Kumar Jain vs. Archana Kumar and Anr., (2005) 1 SCC 787 ; Hope Plantations Ltd. vs. Taluk Land Board, Peermade and Another, (1999) 5 SCC 590 ). However, as we are holding that the impugned orders of the IPAB and High Court are not sustainable in law and have decided these appeals on merits it is not necessary to make any further comments on the aforesaid aspect.