K. R. Chinna Krishna Chettiar Vs. Sri Ambal &amp; Co., Madras &amp; Anr
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 marks. 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.9. The vital question in issue is whether, if the appellants mark is used in a normal and fair manner in connection with the snuff and if similarly fair and normal user is assumed of the existing registered marks will there be such a likelihood of deception that the mark ought not to be allowed to be registered? (See In the matter of Broadheads Application for registration of a trade mar, 1950-67 RPC 209). It is for the Court to decide the question on a comparison of the competing marks as a whole and their distinctive and essential features. We have no doubt in our mind that if the proposed mark is used in a normal and fair manner the mark would come to be known by its distinguishing feature "Andal. There is a 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 learned Single Judge and the Divisional Bench, we are satisfied that there is a real danger of confusion between the two marks.10.There is no evidence of actual confusion, but that might be due to the fact that the appellants 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 between the two marks must be considered with reference to the ear as well as the eye. There is a close affinity of sound between Ambal and Andal.11. In the case of Coca-Cola Co. of Canada v. Pepsi Cola Co. of Canada Ltd., 1942-59 RPC 127, it was found that cola was in common use in Canada for naming the beverages. The distinguishing feature of the mark cocacola 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 confuse the word Pepsi with coca. In the present case the word "Sri" may be regarded as in common use. The distinguishing feature of the respondents mark is Ambal while that of the appellants mark is Andal. The two words are deceptively similar in sound.12. The name Andal does not cease to be deceptively similar because it is used in conjunction with a pictorial device. The case of Decordova v. Vick Chemical Coy., 1951-68 RPC 103 is instructive. From the Appendix printed at page 270 of the same volume it appears that Vick Chemical Coy, were the proprietors of the registered trade mark consisting of the word "Vaporub" and another registered trade mark consisting of a design of which the words "Vicks Vaporub Salve" formed a 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:".....a mark is infringed 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".13. Mr. Sen stressed the point that the words Ambal and Andal had distinct meaning. Ambal is the consort of Lord Siva and Andal is the consort of Ranganatha. He said that in view of the distinct ideas conveyed by the two words a mere accidental phonetic resemblance could not lead to confusion. In this connection he relied on Venkateswarans Law of Trade and Merchandise Marks, 1963 Ed., page 214, Kerlys Law of Trade Marks and Trade Names, 9th Ed., page 465, Article 852 and the decision, Application by Thomas A. Smith Ltd., to Register a trade mark, 1913-30 RPC 363. In that case Neville, J., held that the words "limit" and "summit" were words in common use, each conveying a distinctly definite idea that there was no possibility of any one being deceived by the two marks; and there was no ground for refusing registration. Mr. Sens argument loses sight of the realities of the case.The Hindu in the south of India may be well aware that the words Ambal and Andal represent the names of two distinct Goddesses. But the respondents customers are not confined to Hindus alone. Many of their customers 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 of India may not know the difference between the words Andal and Ambal. The words have no direct reference to the character and quality of snuff. The customers who use the respondents goods will have a recollection that they are known by the word Ambal. They may also have a vague recollection of the portrait of a benign Goddess used in connection with the mark. They are not likely to remember the fine distinctions between a Vaishnavite Goddess and a Shivaite deity.14. 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 "Radhas Sri Andal Madras Snuff" forms a part. The learned Registrar has disposed of the application 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 similarly between Sri Ambal and Radhas Sri Andal and the use of the expression Radhas 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.
0[ds]7. The Registrar was of the view that the appellants 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 a deceptive similarity between the two marks. In an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution the onus is upon the appellant to show that the concurrent finding of the Courts below is erroneous. The appellant must satisfy that Court that the conditions of Section 12 (1) have been satisfied. If those conditions are not satisfied his mark cannot be registered.8. 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 marks. 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 imperfectis for the Court to decide the question on a comparison of the competing marks as a whole and their distinctive and essential features. We have no doubt in our mind that if the proposed mark is used in a normal and fair manner the mark would come to be known by its distinguishing feature "Andal. There is a 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 learned Single Judge and the Divisional Bench, we are satisfied that there is a real danger of confusion between the two marks.10.There is no evidence of actual confusion, but that might be due to the fact that the appellants 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 between the two marks must be considered with reference to the ear as well as the eye. There is a close affinity of sound between Ambal and Andal.11. In the case of Coca-Cola Co. of Canada v. Pepsi Cola Co. of Canada Ltd., 1942-59 RPC 127, it was found that cola was in common use in Canada for naming the beverages. The distinguishing feature of the mark cocacola 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 confuse the word Pepsi with coca. In the present case the word "Sri" may be regarded as in common use. The distinguishing feature of the respondents mark is Ambal while that of the appellants mark is Andal. The two words are deceptively similar in sound.12. The name Andal does not cease to be deceptively similar because it is used in conjunction with a pictorial device.Sens argument loses sight of the realities of the case.The Hindu in the south of India may be well aware that the words Ambal and Andal represent the names of two distinct Goddesses. But the respondents customers are not confined to Hindus alone. Many of their customers 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 of India may not know the difference between the words Andal and Ambal. The words have no direct reference to the character and quality of snuff. The customers who use the respondents goods will have a recollection that they are known by the word Ambal. They may also have a vague recollection of the portrait of a benign Goddess used in connection with the mark. They are not likely to remember the fine distinctions between a Vaishnavite Goddess and a Shivaite deity.14. 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 "Radhas Sri Andal Madras Snuff" forms a part. The learned Registrar has disposed of the application 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 similarly between Sri Ambal and Radhas Sri Andal and the use of the expression Radhas 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.
### Instruction:
First, predict whether the appeal in case proceeding will be accepted (1) or not (0), and then explain the decision by identifying crucial sentences from the document.

### Input:
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 marks. 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.9. The vital question in issue is whether, if the appellants mark is used in a normal and fair manner in connection with the snuff and if similarly fair and normal user is assumed of the existing registered marks will there be such a likelihood of deception that the mark ought not to be allowed to be registered? (See In the matter of Broadheads Application for registration of a trade mar, 1950-67 RPC 209). It is for the Court to decide the question on a comparison of the competing marks as a whole and their distinctive and essential features. We have no doubt in our mind that if the proposed mark is used in a normal and fair manner the mark would come to be known by its distinguishing feature "Andal. There is a 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 learned Single Judge and the Divisional Bench, we are satisfied that there is a real danger of confusion between the two marks.10.There is no evidence of actual confusion, but that might be due to the fact that the appellants 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 between the two marks must be considered with reference to the ear as well as the eye. There is a close affinity of sound between Ambal and Andal.11. In the case of Coca-Cola Co. of Canada v. Pepsi Cola Co. of Canada Ltd., 1942-59 RPC 127, it was found that cola was in common use in Canada for naming the beverages. The distinguishing feature of the mark cocacola 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 confuse the word Pepsi with coca. In the present case the word "Sri" may be regarded as in common use. The distinguishing feature of the respondents mark is Ambal while that of the appellants mark is Andal. The two words are deceptively similar in sound.12. The name Andal does not cease to be deceptively similar because it is used in conjunction with a pictorial device. The case of Decordova v. Vick Chemical Coy., 1951-68 RPC 103 is instructive. From the Appendix printed at page 270 of the same volume it appears that Vick Chemical Coy, were the proprietors of the registered trade mark consisting of the word "Vaporub" and another registered trade mark consisting of a design of which the words "Vicks Vaporub Salve" formed a 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:".....a mark is infringed 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".13. Mr. Sen stressed the point that the words Ambal and Andal had distinct meaning. Ambal is the consort of Lord Siva and Andal is the consort of Ranganatha. He said that in view of the distinct ideas conveyed by the two words a mere accidental phonetic resemblance could not lead to confusion. In this connection he relied on Venkateswarans Law of Trade and Merchandise Marks, 1963 Ed., page 214, Kerlys Law of Trade Marks and Trade Names, 9th Ed., page 465, Article 852 and the decision, Application by Thomas A. Smith Ltd., to Register a trade mark, 1913-30 RPC 363. In that case Neville, J., held that the words "limit" and "summit" were words in common use, each conveying a distinctly definite idea that there was no possibility of any one being deceived by the two marks; and there was no ground for refusing registration. Mr. Sens argument loses sight of the realities of the case.The Hindu in the south of India may be well aware that the words Ambal and Andal represent the names of two distinct Goddesses. But the respondents customers are not confined to Hindus alone. Many of their customers 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 of India may not know the difference between the words Andal and Ambal. The words have no direct reference to the character and quality of snuff. The customers who use the respondents goods will have a recollection that they are known by the word Ambal. They may also have a vague recollection of the portrait of a benign Goddess used in connection with the mark. They are not likely to remember the fine distinctions between a Vaishnavite Goddess and a Shivaite deity.14. 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 "Radhas Sri Andal Madras Snuff" forms a part. The learned Registrar has disposed of the application 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 similarly between Sri Ambal and Radhas Sri Andal and the use of the expression Radhas 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.

### Response:
0

### Explanation:
7. The Registrar was of the view that the appellants 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 a deceptive similarity between the two marks. In an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution the onus is upon the appellant to show that the concurrent finding of the Courts below is erroneous. The appellant must satisfy that Court that the conditions of Section 12 (1) have been satisfied. If those conditions are not satisfied his mark cannot be registered.8. 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 marks. 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 imperfectis for the Court to decide the question on a comparison of the competing marks as a whole and their distinctive and essential features. We have no doubt in our mind that if the proposed mark is used in a normal and fair manner the mark would come to be known by its distinguishing feature "Andal. There is a 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 learned Single Judge and the Divisional Bench, we are satisfied that there is a real danger of confusion between the two marks.10.There is no evidence of actual confusion, but that might be due to the fact that the appellants 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 between the two marks must be considered with reference to the ear as well as the eye. There is a close affinity of sound between Ambal and Andal.11. In the case of Coca-Cola Co. of Canada v. Pepsi Cola Co. of Canada Ltd., 1942-59 RPC 127, it was found that cola was in common use in Canada for naming the beverages. The distinguishing feature of the mark cocacola 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 confuse the word Pepsi with coca. In the present case the word "Sri" may be regarded as in common use. The distinguishing feature of the respondents mark is Ambal while that of the appellants mark is Andal. The two words are deceptively similar in sound.12. The name Andal does not cease to be deceptively similar because it is used in conjunction with a pictorial device.Sens argument loses sight of the realities of the case.The Hindu in the south of India may be well aware that the words Ambal and Andal represent the names of two distinct Goddesses. But the respondents customers are not confined to Hindus alone. Many of their customers 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 of India may not know the difference between the words Andal and Ambal. The words have no direct reference to the character and quality of snuff. The customers who use the respondents goods will have a recollection that they are known by the word Ambal. They may also have a vague recollection of the portrait of a benign Goddess used in connection with the mark. They are not likely to remember the fine distinctions between a Vaishnavite Goddess and a Shivaite deity.14. 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 "Radhas Sri Andal Madras Snuff" forms a part. The learned Registrar has disposed of the application 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 similarly between Sri Ambal and Radhas Sri Andal and the use of the expression Radhas 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.
