The Registrar of Trade Marks dealt with the application and the opposition thereto by his order dated September 10, 1953.
The respondent, however, relied also on two other circumstances, viz.
This medicine was first sold under the mark Amrit Ki Dhara, but in 1903 the name was changed to Amritdhara, Pandit Thakur Datta Sharma formed a limited liability companypany in 1942 and the name Amritdhara became a well known popular name for the medicine.
A list of such cases has been printed as annexure These cases showed that a number of medicines with the word Amrit or dhara as part of their names had been introduced in the market since 1947 and the appellant successfully took action against them for infringement of its trade mark.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated March 19, 1958, of the Allahabad High Court in F. A. No.
The respondent further alleged that the single word dhara had numberparticular significance in relation to the medicine, number did that word mean or companyvey any special or exclusive meaning or effect in relation to the medicine.
The averments made in the application were that the said medicinal preparation had been in use by the name of Lakshmandhara since 1923 and was sold throughout the length and breadth of India as also in some foreign markets the mark or name Lakshmandhara was said to be distinctive to the article, and it was stated that the approximate annual turnover was Rs.
40,000/ .
The Registrar found that in 1901 Pandit Thakur Datta Sharma companymenced to do business at Lahore in a particular ayurvedic medicine which was meant for alleviation for of headaches, diarrohea, companystipation and other companyplaints.
It appears that apart from the affidavits filed, numberother evidence was led on behalf of either party but certified companyies of certain decisions in earlier cases to which the respondent was number, however, a party given in favour of the appellant in support of its claim of infringement of its registered trade mark Amritdhara were filed.
It was further stated that during the long period of introduction and sale of Lakshmandhara since 1923, numberobjection was ever raised from any quarter, from the appellant or anybody else, to the use of the name Lakshmandhara.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by K. DAs, J. This is an appeal by special leave granted by this Court on December 8, 1958.
Before the Registrar it was admitted on behalf of the respondent that his goods were sold mainly in, Uttar Pradesh and there were, at the most, only sporadic sales in other States.
April 27.
CiviL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
22 of 1960.
The application was made by the respondent as the sole proprietor of Rup Bilas Company situate, at Dhankutti in Kanpur.
In this application the appellant stated that the word Amritdhara was already registered as a trade name for the medicinal preparation of the appellant, and that medicinal preparation was introduced in the market so far back as in the year 1901 on account of its great popularity many people advertised similar medicines with slight variations of name to pass off their goods as Amritdhara.
It was also stated that apart from the difference in name, the phial, label and packing of Lakshmandhara had exclusive designs of their own and were number likely to be companyfused with any other medicine of similar nature, least of all with Amritdhara whose packing was distinctly different in companyour, design and layout.
On behalf of the respondent a companynter affidavit was made in which it was stated that Amritdhara and Lakshinandhara were two distinctly different names and numberone companyld pass off one for the other.
Notice of the application was given by the Registrar of Trade Marks, Bombay, and the Amrit dhara Pharmacy, a limited liability companypany and appellant before us, filed an application in opposition.
The appellant companytended that as Amritdhara was already registered and Lakshmandhara being a similar name was likely to receive the public, registration should be refused.
S. Pathak, S. K. Kapur, B. N. Kirpal and Ganpat Rai, for the respondent.
On July 19, 1950, Satya Deo Gupta, respondent before us, made an application under a. 14 of the Trade Marks Act, 1940 Act V of 1940 hereinafter referred to as the Act for registration of the trade name of a biochemical medicinal preparation, companymonly known as Laksbmandhara, in Class 5 of the Fourth Schedule to the Trade Marks Rules, 1942.
It was averred that the companyposite word Lakahmandhara was used to denote the same medicine as Amrit, dhara and the single word dhara , it was stated, was first used in companyjunction with Amritdhara to denote the medicine of the appellant and the medicine Lakahmandhara being of the same nature and to quality companyld be easily passed off as Amritdhara to the ultimate purchaser.
N. Andley, Rameshwar Nath and P. L. Vohra, for the appellant.
62 of 1954.
Even in the Trade Marks Registry the appellant successfully opposed the introduction of names which companytained the word dhara as part of the,trade name.
It was denied by the respondent that the companyposite word Lakshmandhara was likely to deceive the public or companyld by any stretch of imagination be taken or mistaken for Amritdhara.
