http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6  

PETITIONER: K.   R. CHINNA KRISHNA CHETTIAR

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SRI AMBAL & CO., MADRAS & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 14/04/1969

BENCH: BACHAWAT, R.S. BENCH: BACHAWAT, R.S. SIKRI, S.M. RAMASWAMI, V.

CITATION:  1970 AIR  146            1970 SCR  (1) 290  1969 SCC  (2) 131

ACT: Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, ss. 2(j) and 12-Trade marks  when deceptively similar-’Sri Andal’ and ’Sri  Ambal’ though  names  of two different  goddesses  are  deceptively similar   in  sound  within  meaning  of   s.   12(1)-Visual dissimilarity not decisive when sounds  deceptively similar.

HEADNOTE: The appellant was the sole proprietor of a concern known  as Radha  & Co. The respondents Ambal & Co. were a  partnership concern.   The  respondents  as  also  the  appellant   were manufacturers and dealers in snuff, carrying on business  at Madras and having business activities inside and outside the State of Madras.  In 1958 the appellant sought  registration of a trade mark consisting of a label with a picture of  the goddess Sri Andal and the legand ’Sri Andal’ in the  central panel,  and  the words ’Sri Andal Madras Snuff’  in  various languages in the upper and lower panels.     The appellant’s application was objected to by the respondents on the  ground that  it was deceptively similar to their  registered  trade marks.    One  of  these consisted of a label  containing  a device  of goddess Sri Ambal in the centre with  the  legand ’Sri  Ambal parimala snuff’ at the top of the label and  the name  ’Sri  Ambal & Co. Madras’ at the  bottom.   The  other trade  mark  consisted of the expression ’Sri  Ambal’.   The Registrar of Trade Marks held that the sound of ’Ambal’  did not  so  nearly resemble the sound of ’Andal’  in  spite  of certain  letters  being common to both the marks  as  to  be likely  to cause confusion or deception among a  substantial number of persons.  A Single Judge of the High Court and the Divisional  Bench however took the opposite  view  whereupon the  appellant  came  to  this Court.   No  plea  of  honest concurrent  use -within the meaning of s. 12(2) of  the  Act could  be raised in view of the concurrent finding  in  this respect by the Registrar as well as the two courts below. HELD  :  (i)  The Registrar had  expert  knowledge  and  his decision  should  not be lightly disturbed.   But  both  the courts had found that he was clearly    wrong and that there was deceptive similarity between the two marks.   In      an appeal under Art. 136 of the Constitution the onus was  upon

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6  

the  appellant  to show that the concurrent finding  of  the courts  below  was erroneous and that the conditions  of  s. 12(1) had been satisfied [293 F] (ii) The  question in issue was whether if  the  appellant’s mark was used in a normal and fair manner in connection with the snuff and if similarly fair and normal user was  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 ? The court had  to  decide  the question  on a comparison of the competing marks as a  whole and their distinctive and essential features. [293 H-294 B] So considered there could be no doubt that the word  ’Ambal’ was  the  distinguishing feature of the trade  mark  of  the respondent  and  the  word ’Andal’  was  the  distinguishing feature of the appellant’s trade mark.  There is a  striking similarity and affinity of sound between the words ’Andal’                             291 and  ’Ambal’  Giving  due  weight to  the  judgment  of  the Registrar and bearing in mind the conclusions of the  Single Judge  and the Divisional Bench it must be held  that  there was real danger of confusion between the two marks, [294  B- C] (iii)     There  was 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. [294 D] (iv) The  argument  that on account of the  different  ideas ’conveyed  by the words ’Ambal’ and ’Andal’  the  accidental phonetic  resemblance’ could not lead to confusion  was  not acceptable  because  it lost sight of the realities  of  the case.   The Hindus in the South of India may be  well  aware that  the words Ambal and Andal represent the names  of  two distinct goddesses.  But the respondent’s customers were not confined to the Hindus of the South of India alone and  they were not likely to remember the fine distinctions between  a Vaishnavite goddess and a Shivaite deity. The appeal, accordingly, must be disallowed.                          [295 B-F]                           [295 H] In  the matter of Broadhead’s Application, (1950) 57  R.P.C. 209,  214,  Coca Cola Co. of Canada, v. Pepsi  Cola  Co.  of Canada Ltd. (1942) 59 R.P.C. 127, De Cordova & Ors. v.  Vick Chemical.   Cov.  (1951) 68 R.P.C. 103, and  Application  by Thomas  A.  Smith Ltd. to Register a trade mark,  (1913)  30 R.P.C. 363, referred to.

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No, 749 of 1966. Appeal  by special leave from the judgment and  order  dated November 21, 1962 of the Madras High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 57 of 1962. A.   K.  Sen,  K.  Jayaram  and  A.  Thiagarajan,  for   the appellant. M.   C. Chagla, N. K. Anand, M. P.Rao and O. C. Mathur, for respondent No. 1. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Bachawat,  J.  The  appellant is the sole  proprietor  of  a trading concern known as Radha & Co., The respondents  Ambal & Co., are a partnership firm.  The respondents as also  the appellant are manufacturers and dealers in snuff carrying on business at Madras and having business activities inside and outside  the  State  of  Madras.   On  March  10,  1958  the appellant filed application no. 183961 for registration of a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6  

trade mark in class 34 in respect of " snuff manufactured in Madras." The respondents filed a notice of opposition.   The main  ground  of opposition was that the proposed  mark  was deceptively  similar to their registered trade  marks.   The respondents  were  the proprietors of the  registered  marks nos. 126808 and 146291.  Trade mark no. 126808 consists of a label containing a device of a goddess Sri Ambal seated on a globe  floating on water enclosed in a circular  frame  with the legend "Sri 292 Ambal parimala snuff" at the top of the label, and the  name and address "Sri Ambal & Co., Madras" at the bottom.   Trade mark no. 146291 consists of the expression "Sri Ambal".  The mark of which the appellant seeks registration consists of a label  containing  three panels.  The first  and  the  third panels  contain in Tamil, Devanagri, Telugu and Kannada  the equivalents  of  the words "Sri Andal  Madras  Snuff".   The centre  panel contains the picture of goddess Sri Andal  and the legend "Sri Andal". Sri Andal and Sri Ambal are separate divinities.  Sri  Andal was a vaishnavite woman saint of, Srivilliputur village  and was deified because of her union with Lord Ranganatha.   Sri Ambal is the consort of Siva or Maheshwara.  The respondents have been in the snuff business for several decades  and have used the word Ambal as part of their  work for  more  than half a century.  The question  in  issue  is whether  the  proposed mark is deceptively  similar  to  the respondents’  marks.   "Mark" as defined in s. 2(j)  of  the Trade  and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 includes  "a  device, brand, heading, label, ticket, name, signature, word, letter or  numeral  or  any combination  thereof".   Section  12(1) provides that "save as provided in sub-section (3), no trade mark  shall  be registered in respect of any goods  or  des- cription  of  goods which is identical with  or  deceptively similar  to a trade mark which is already registered in  the name of a different proprietor in respect of the same  goods or  description of goods." The Registrar of Trade  of  Marks observed :               "In  a composite mark the  distinctive  words,               appearing  on  it  play  -an  important  part.               Words  always talk more than devices,  because               it  is  generally  by  the  word  part  of   a               composite  mark  that orders  will  be  given.               Apart   from  that,  the  opponents   have   a               registered  mark consisting of the  expression               Sri  Ambal.  I have, therefore,  to  determine               whether  the expression Sri Andal,  is  decep-               tively similar to Sri Ambal."               He said :               "  the  sound of "Ambal" does  not  so  nearly               resemble  the  sound of "Andal", in  spite  of               certain  letters  being  common  to  both  the               marks,  as to be likely to cause confusion  or               deception   among  a  substantial  number   of               persons."               The respondents filed an appeal in the  Madras               High Court. Jagadishan, J. observed               "It   is  settled  law  that  a   trade   mark               comprehends  not merely the picture design  or               symbol but also its descriptive name.  A  copy               of colourable imitation of the                                    293               name, would constitute -an infringement of the               mark containing the name.  Nobody can abstract               the name or -use a phonetical equivalent of it

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6  

             and  escape the charge of piracy of  the  mark               pleading that the visual aspect of his mark is               different from the mark of the person opposing               its registration."               He held:-               "The  words, Ambal and Andal, have such  great               phonetic    similarity    that    they     are               undistinguishable  having the same  sound  and               pronounciation.   In  whatever  way  they  are               uttered or spoken, slowly or quickly perfectly               or imperfectly, meticulously or carelessly and               whoever  utters them, a foreigner or a  native               of  India,  wherever they are uttered  in  the               noisy  market place or in a calm and  secluded               area, over the phone or in person, the  danger               of  confusion  between  the  two  phonetically               allied names is imminent -and unavoidable." Accordingly,  he  allowed  the  appeal  and  dismissed   the appellant’s application for registration of the trade  mark. The appellant filed a letters patent appeal.  The Divisional Bench  of the High Court dismissed the appeal.  The  learned Registrar  and the two courts below concurrently found  that the  appellant failed to, prove honest concurrent use so  as to  bring his case within s. 12(3).  The present appeal  has been filed by the appellant after obtaining special leave. The Registrar was of the view that the appellant’s 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  art. 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 the court  that  the conditions  of  s.  12 (I) have been  satisfied.   If  those conditions are not satisfied his mark cannot be registered. 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 imperfect recollection. The  vital question in issue is whether, if the  appellant’s mark is used in a normal and fair manner in connection  with the snuff LI 3Sup.CI/69- 5 294 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 Broadhead’s  Application(1) for  registration of a trade mark).  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. There is no evidence of actual confusion, but that might  be due  to the fact that the appellant’s trade is not  of  long

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6  

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. In the case of Coca-Cola Co. of Canada v. Pepsi Cola Co.  of Canada Ltd.(2), it was found that cola was in common use  in Canada for naming the beverages.  The distinguishing feature of  the mark Coca Cola 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 respondent’s mark  is  Ambal while that of the appellant’s mark is Andal.  The two  words are deceptively similar in sound. The  name  Andal does not cease to  be  deceptively  similar because  it is used in conjunction with a pictorial  device. The  case of De Cordova & Ors. v. Vick Chemical  Coy.(3)  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  mark& Lord Radcliffe said : ". . . a mark is infringed (1)  (1950) 57 R.P.C. 209, 214. (3)  (1951) 68 R.P.C. 103. (2) (1942) 59 R.P.C. 127. 29 5 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." Mr.  Sen stressed the point that the words Ambal  and  Andal had  distinct meanings.  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 Venkateswaran’s Law of Trade and  Merchandise Marks,_ 1963 ed., page 214, Kerly’s Law  of Trade Marks and Trade Names, 9th ed., page 465, art. 852 and the  decision  Application  by Thomas  A.  Smith  Ltd.,  to, Register  a  trade mark(1).  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. Sen’s argument loses sight of the realities of the case. The Hindus in the south of India may be well -aware that the words  Ambal and Andal represent the names of  two  distinct goddesses.  But the respondent’s 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  respondent’s  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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6  

Vaishnavite goddess and a Shivaite deity. 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 "Radha’s 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 similarity between Sri Ambal  and Radha’s Sri Andal and the use of the expression Radha’s  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. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with costs. G.C.                                                  Appeal dismissed. (1)  (1913) 30 R.P.C. 363. 296