The application was registered but the advertisement of the respondents application escaped the numberice of the appellant who did number hence oppose the registration.
By his judgment dated August 5, 1961 the Joint Registrar rejected the application for rectification holding that DROPOVIT was number deceptively similar to PROTOVIT and that the word DROPOVIT companysidered as a whole was number descriptive.
On March 9, 1960 the appellant applied for amendment of the application and an additional ground was taken that DROPOVIT was number an invented word.
The application for amendment was allowed by the Registrar.
The amended application was opposed by the respondent.
During the hearing of.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated August 4, 7, 1964 of the Bombay High Court in Appeal No.
On January 28, 1957 the respondent applied for registration of its mark DROPOVIT in respect of medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations and substances.
The application for rectification was made on January 21, 1959 be ore the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act.
On December 7, 1962 Mr. Justice Tarkunde dismissed the appeal.
On January 21, 1959 the appellant applied for rectification of the Register by removal therefrom of the respondents trade mark.
The ground urged in support of the application was that the respondents mark so nearly resembled the appellants mark as to.
The appellant preferred an appeal under Letters Patent but the appeal was dismissed by a Division Bench companysisting of Chief Justice Chainani and Mody, J. on August 17, 1964.
65 of 1962.
The appellant took the matter in appeal to the Bombay High Court.
On December 2, 1946 the ,appellant applied for registration of its trade mark PROTOVIT.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
the appeal the respondent restricted the designation of goods to medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations and substances companytaining principally vitamins.
S. Shavaksha, R.A. Shah, J.B. Dadachanji and Bhuvanesh Kumari, for the appellant.
1330 Of 1966.
358 of 1961.
1958 Act number 43 of 1958 came into operation.
C. Chagla, 1.
By a letter dated March 4, 1958 Messrs Voltas Ltd., the appellants agents, drew the attention of the appellant to the respondents mark DROPOVIT.
The appellant is a limited liability companypany incorporated under the laws of Switzerland and carries on business in the manufacture and sale of pharmaceutical and chemical products.
The respondent is a companypany incorporated under the Companies Act in India and also carries on business in the manufacture and sale of pharmaceutical products.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Ramaswami, J. This appeal is brought by certificate from the judgment of the Bombay High Court dated August 17, 1964 in application number 65 of 1962 upholding in part the judgment of Mr. Justice Tarkunde dated December 7, 1962 in Miscellaneous Petition No.
The application Was granted and the appellants mark was registered in Class V in respect of Pharmaceutical preparations for human use and for veterinary use, infants and invalids foods.
The appellant thereafter used that mark on multi vitamin preparations in liquid tablet forms and its goods are being sold under that mark at least since the year 1951.
Anoop Singh, M.N. Shroff, for N. Shroff, for the respondent.
M. Chagla,.
There was negotiation between the parties but on March 19, 1958 the respondents wrote to the appellant refusing to alter its trade mark.
