F. Hoffmann-LaRoche v. Geoffrey Manners, AIR 1970 SC 2062
FACTS:
- In this instance, the Appellant owned the company’s manufacturing and selling activities, wherein it dealt with medicinal, chemical, and industrial goods, and it was supervised by laws of Switzerland. The Respondent was a business that operated in India and manufactured and sold chemical and medicinal items.
- The trademark PROTOVIT was granted in 1946, and the Appellant had been using it as a mark on multivitamin preparations and tablet form, as well as on all other items marketed since 1951. In the meantime, the Respondent registered the trademark DROPOVIT in 1957.
- The Respondent’s trade mark was requested to be removed from the Register in 1959 by the Appellant on the grounds that it closely resembled to its own and was likely to cause confusion among customers.
- The Joint Registrar denied this application, ruling that the Respondent’s mark is not misleading or confusingly similar to the Appellant’s mark and that the phrase “DROPOVIT” is not descriptive.
- The Single Judge and Divisional Bench also decided in favour of Respondent.
- The Appellant went to the Supreme Court
ISSUE:
- Whether “”DROPOVIT’ is deceptive and similar to the word “PROTOVIT” and it offends the provision of Section 12(1) of the Trade and Merchandise Act, 1958?
- Whether “DROPOVIT” was descriptive or an invented word for Section 9 of the Act?
HELD:
- It was held by the Apex Court that the High Court and the Joint Registrar of Trade Marks were right in holding that there was no real tangible danger of confusion if Respondent’s trademark was allowed to continue to remain on the Register
- In order to decide whether the word “DROPOVIT” is deceptively similar to the word “PROTOVIT” each of the two words must, therefore, be taken as a whole word. Each of the two words consists of eight letters, the last three letters are common.
- It was also observed that the word “DROPOVIT” is an invented word does not fall under the ambit of the descriptive word and was entitled to be registered as a trade mark and is not liable to be removed from the Register on which it already exists.
- As far as the deceptive similarity is concerned, Courts have largely depended upon an ordinary man’s reasoning, that is, of the average customer.
- Hence, it was held ‘DROPOVIT’ is neither deceptive nor similar to the word ‘PROTOVIT’