...the case must be considered. As was observed by Parker, J., in Re Pianotist Co.'s Application, (1906) 23 RPC 774, which was also a case of the comparison of two words-You...SONAMARSHAL in respect of similar goods not as the matter of co-incidence or accident but wilh deliberate and wilful attempt to pass off its goods as and for the real goods of the plaintiff and.... In that case, the Supreme Court has laid down certain tests for determining whether the two trade names can be considered as similar and that in what circumstances the trade mark is likely to deceive...

...following observations of Parker, J. in Re Pianotist Co.'s Application, (1906) 23 RPC 774, which have been quoted in various decisions, including Cadila Health Care Ltd., read thus....”25. The Court referred to the following observations in R.J Strasenburgh Co. v. Kenwood Laboratories, INC., 1955, 106 UPSQ 379:—‘The defendant concedes...argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that in such cases, it is not necessary that there should be actual evidence of confusion: Likelihood (and even possibility) is sufficient. The...

...further that there is a similarity between the two including phonetical similarity. In order to appreciate this aspect of the case, it would be worthwhile to quote the observations of Parker, J., In re Pianotist Co.'s...the defendants' company is “A.E.C” and that of the plaintiff's company is “G.E.C” but the plaintiff's case is that the word “A” is obliterated in such a manner so that it should read like “G” and.... These observations of Parker, J. were approved by the Supreme Court in Amritdhara Pharmacy v. Satya Deo Gupta , AIR 1963 SC...

...the matter, all the circumstances of the case must be considered. As was observed by Parker, J. in Re: Pianotist Co.'s Application, (1906) 23 R.P.C 774 which was also a case of the...Industries Pvt. Ltd. (‘STIPL’), the Petitioner Takkar (India) Tea Company Co. (‘TITC’) has filed this writ petition.Brief facts:2. The case of the Petitioner is that it is...Bombay 3; Hindustan Lever Ltd.… v. Poineer Soap Factory…., 24 (1983) DLT 237, In Re: R.T Engineering and Electronics Co...

...matter, all the circumstances of the case must be considered. As was observed by Parker, J., in Re Pianotist Co.'s Application, (1906) 23 RPC 774, which was also a case of the comparison...Rubber Co., Limited Durex Products Incorporated (Ref) 13 11. (1997) 4 SCC 201...Vishnudas Trading as Vishnudas Kishendas v. Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Limited Hyderabad (Ref) 14Sri M. Mohan Rao, S.S Rama, H.M Manjunath and B.S Vedamurthy, Advocate for...

...actual evidence of confusion : Likelihood (and even possibility) is sufficient. The following observations of Parker, J. in Re Pianotist Co.'s Application, (1906) 23 RPC 774, which...Kadam, Senior Advocate, with Mr. H.W. Kane, Mr. Rahul Kadam & Mr. Nikhil Sharma, i/b W.S. Kane & Co.... FOR THE DEFENDANTS Mr. Janak Dwarkadas, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Amit Thakkar & Mr. Ramesh Gajria, i/b Gajria & Co...

...trademark label MANGOto just to take the advantage of the good will of the applicant. As was observed by Parker, J., in Re Pianotist Co.'s Application, (1906) 23 RPC 774, which was...wide and beyond the scope of the actual services offered by the applicants and the very mention of the word MANGO in the hospitality business would normally be co-related with the applicant's hotels...Appellate Board but that non-representation can not preclude the Appellate Board bench to decide the present matter on merit. As in the present case there is no doubt that the respondent no 1 has adopted the...

...14 reads thus; “As was observed by Parker, J. in Re Pianotist Co. s Application (1906) 23 RPC 774 which was also a case of the comparison of two words.... v. J.P. and Co. Mysore, (1972) 3 SCR 289 and Rahul Uttam Suryawanshi v. Sunil Manikchand Kasliwal, (2017) 1 Mah LJ 315. 20. On...Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Parle Products (P) Ltd. v. J.P. and Co. Mysore, (1972) 3 SCR 289...

...Amritdhara Pharmacy v. Satya Deo Gupta , AIR 1963 SC 449, a Bench of three learned Judges of the Supreme Court relied upon the test formulated in the judgment of Parker, J. in Re Pianotist Co.'s...judgment of Waller, J. in Geigy A.G v. Chelsea Drug and Chemical Co. Ltd., (1966 RPC 64), wherein it was held that between the words BUTAZONE and BUTAZOLIDIN the possibility of...under which if mark had already been registered on the register. Reliance was also placed on a judgment of Mody, J. in Himalaya Drug Co. v...

...at this stage was not thought advisable. Relevant portion of paragraphs 13 and 14 reads thus; 15 of 18 901-ao-1092-2019.doc As was observed by Parker, J. in Re Pianotist Co. s...& Co. Mysore , 1972 SCR (3) 289 and Rahul Uttam Suryawanshi Vs. Sunil Manikchand Kasliwal, 2017 (1) Mh. L.J., 315. 20. On the other...other if offered to him. These are broadly the observations of the Honble Supreme Court in case of Parle Products (P) Ltd Vs. J.P & Co...

..., J in Re Pianotist Co.'s. Application4 on the question of passing off, the Amritdhara Court said: “You must take the two words. You must judge them, both by their look and by their sound. You must...decision of the Supreme Court in Amritdhara Pharmacy v. Satya Deo Gupta AIR 1963 SC 449 Quoting the decision of Parker...various pharmaceutical products. The Supreme Court considered the past case law on the subject in the context of both an infringement action and a passing off action. It is specifically cited the classic...

...Parker, J. In re Pianotist Co.'s Application, (1906) 23 RPC 774, which was also a case of comparison of two words. Their Lordship's observed that the following circumstances were to be..., reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ruston & Hornsby Ltd. v. Zamindara Engineering Co...Ruston & Hornsby Ltd. v. Zamindara Engineering Co.†., reported in (1969) 2 SCC 727...

...considering the matter, all the circumstances of the case must be considered. As was observed by Parker, J., in Re Pianotist Co.'s Application...Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Parle Products (P) Ltd. vs. J.P. & Co., Mysore, AIR 1972 SC 1359 is the relevant...the Register if it is likely to do so in the course of its legitimate use in a market where the two marks are assumed to be in use by traders in that market. In...

...case must be considered. As was observed by Parker, J. in Re Pianotist Co.'s Application, (1906) 23 RPC 774, which was also a case of the comparison of two words...pieces of truth known to him or because he may not even take the trouble to do so." The tests for comparison of the two word marks were formulated by Lord Parker in Pionotist Co., Ltd.'s...SC (K.R.Chinna Krishna Chettiar vs. Ambal and Co., Madras and another) 7. 2005 (31) PTC 502...

...market.”29. The Supreme Court there followed the celebrated observations of Parker, J., in In re, Pianotist Co.'s, (1906) 23 RPC 774 at p. 777 on the principles of...or other resemblance between the marks.” This was the famous case of “Hovis” bread. At p. 102 of that Report, Evershed, J., declared that “the onus lies upon Smith Hayden & Co. as applicants for..., Hawthorn & Co., Ltd., (1934) 52 RPC 15 and Re, William Bailey (Birmingham) Ltd.., Re. Gilbert & Co., (1935) 52 RPC 136. In fact, the general principle of trade...

...on the basis of the test postulated by Parker, J. in In re. Pianotist Co Application7, which has been followed by the Supreme Court and various High Courts times...between the mark can be of various types. In the case of word marks, the court is normally concerned with the aspect of phonetic similarity. Phonetic similarity between marks is classically to be decided...likelihood of confusion has, therefore, to be assessed by comparing TUMORIN and TUMOTIN as whole marks. 16. Reverting to the Pianotist test, who are the consumers, and...

...confusion but the likelihood of confusion to be the test in guiding this matter. In the case of Re : Pianotist Co.'s Application, (1906) 23 RPC 774 Parker, J. observed as follows at...lies not so much in the actual decision as in the test applied for determining what is likely to deceive or cause confusion. It is important to remember that the Section does not require actual...

...Pharmacy v. Satya Deo Gupta, AIR 1963 SC 449, the Supreme Court heavily banked upon the observation of Parker, J. in the Pianotist Co.'s Application, Re, (1906) 23 RPC 774. The following observations of...may be relevant in the extent of dissimilarity between the competing marks.10. The Supreme Court in the initial years of our Republic in National Sewing Thread Co. Ltd. v. Janies...which he would be purchasing. In Corn Products Refining Co. v. Shangrila Food Products Ltd., AIR 1960 SC 142 : (1960) 1 SCR 968 the Supreme Court held that it is well recognised that in deciding the...

...recollect on of the whole.17. In Halsbury's Laws of England, Third Edition, Vol. 38, page 588, paragraph 983 following it is stated that the rules for comparison are what Parker, J., said in (12) Re Pianotist Co.'s...distinctiveness, refuse registration in Part A, but would allow registration in Part B of the register.6. Counsel for the appellant relied on the decision in re: (2) H.S Burford & Co. Ltd.'s...common name and no single person of that name was engaged in manufacturing motor cars or any parts of motor cars. Counsel for the appellant also relied on the decision (3) Teofani & Co. v. A...