Amritdhara Pharmacy Vs. Satya Deo Gupta:The test of an "average man with imperfect recollection
Case Title:Amritdhara Pharmacy Vs. Satya Deo Gupta
Date of Judgment:27th April 1962
Case No.:Civil Appeal No. 22 of 1960
Citation: AIR 1963 SC 449
Court:Supreme Court of India
Judges:Justice S.K. Das, Justice M. Hidayatullah, Justice J.C. Shah, H. J.
Introduction:The case of Amritdhara Pharmacy vs. Satya Deo Gupta is a landmark judgment in Indian trademark law, particularly concerning the principles of deceptive similarity and acquiescence under the Trade Marks Act, 1940. The central issue revolved around the registration of the trademark "Lakshmandhara" and whether it bore a deceptive resemblance to the pre-existing registered mark "Amritdhara." The Supreme Court’s judgment provided crucial guidance on determining the likelihood of confusion in trademarks and the effect of acquiescence on a claim of exclusivity.
Factual Background:Amritdhara Pharmacy had been using the trade name "Amritdhara" for a medicinal preparation since 1901, formally registering it as a trademark.Satya Deo Gupta, the respondent, applied for the registration of "Lakshmandhara" as a trademark for a similar medicinal preparation in 1950.The appellant, Amritdhara Pharmacy, opposed the registration on the ground that "Lakshmandhara" was deceptively similar to "Amritdhara" and could cause confusion among consumers.The respondent contended that:"Lakshmandhara" had been in use since 1923.The words "Amrit" and "Dhara" were common in Hindi and could not be monopolized.The term "Lakshmandhara" had gained distinctiveness through long usage.
Procedural Background:The Registrar of Trade Marks ruled that "Lakshmandhara" was deceptively similar to "Amritdhara" but permitted its registration in Uttar Pradesh due to the acquiescence of Amritdhara Pharmacy. Both parties appealed to the Allahabad High Court:The High Court ruled in favor of the respondent, holding that there was no likelihood of confusion and allowing the registration for the entire country.Aggrieved by the High Court’s decision, Amritdhara Pharmacy appealed to the Supreme Court of India.
Issues Involved in the Case:Whether "Lakshmandhara" was deceptively similar to "Amritdhara" under Sections 8 and 10(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1940?
Submissions of the Parties:
Petitioner (Amritdhara Pharmacy):"Lakshmandhara" was phonetically and visually similar to "Amritdhara," likely to deceive the public. The common use of "dhara" in both trademarks led to consumer confusion.3. The Registrar rightly limited the respondent’s trademark to Uttar Pradesh due to acquiescence, but the High Court erred in permitting nationwide registration.
Respondent (Satya Deo Gupta):"Amritdhara" and "Lakshmandhara" were different in meaning and pronunciation. The word "Dhara" was a common term and could not be monopolized. "Lakshmandhara" had been in use since 1923, showing honest concurrent use.There was no evidence of actual deception or confusion.
Discussion on Judgments and Precedents Cited:
Pianotist Co.'s Application, (1906) 23 R.P.C. 774:Established the test for deceptive similarity:Consider the look and sound of the words. Consider the nature of goods they represent.Consider the class of customers purchasing them.The Supreme Court applied this test and found that an "unwary purchaser" with "imperfect recollection" might be deceived by the similarities.
Corn Products Refining Co. Vs. Shangrila Food Products Ltd., [1960] 1 S.C.R. 968:Held that trademark similarity must be assessed from the perspective of an average consumer with an "imperfect recollection."Applied by the Supreme Court to determine that "Lakshmandhara" could confuse consumers.
William Bailey (Birmingham) Ltd.’s Application, (1935) 52 R.P.C. 137:Stated that trademarks should be considered in their entirety, not just by comparing individual components.The Supreme Court emphasized that the words "Amritdhara" and "Lakshmandhara" should be compared as wholes.
Reasoning and Analysis of the Supreme Court:
Deceptive Similarity:The Court found phonetic and visual similarities between "Amritdhara" and "Lakshmandhara."The products were of the same type (medicinal preparations).The test of an "average man with imperfect recollection" indicated a likelihood of confusion.The High Court erred in splitting the words and analyzing their etymological meanings.
Acquiescence:The Supreme Court upheld the Registrar’s finding that Amritdhara Pharmacy had acquiesced to the use of "Lakshmandhara" in Uttar Pradesh since 1923.However, this did not justify national registration.The limitation to Uttar Pradesh was a reasonable condition imposed by the Registrar.
Final Decision:The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and restored the order of the Registrar of Trade Marks."Lakshmandhara" could only be registered for sale in Uttar Pradesh and not the entire country.
Law Settled by the Case:
Test for Deceptive Similarity: The likelihood of deception must be assessed from the perspective of an ordinary purchaser with imperfect recollection.
Comparison of Trademarks: Words in a trademark should be considered as a whole, not merely by their individual components.
Acquiescence in Trademark Law: Long-standing inaction by a trademark owner may limit their ability to challenge a later trademark but does not automatically justify national registration.
Honest Concurrent Use: Even long usage of a trademark does not override the principle of deceptive similarity if confusion is likely.
Conclusion:The Supreme Court’s decision in Amritdhara Pharmacy vs. Satya Deo Gupta reaffirmed fundamental principles of trademark law, particularly deceptive similarity and the role of acquiescence. The judgment is significant in shaping Indian jurisprudence on trademarks, balancing the rights of prior trademark owners with the interests of subsequent users.
This case continues to serve as a reference point in intellectual property law, guiding courts in assessing deceptive similarity and determining when acquiescence bars relief in trademark disputes.
Disclaimer:The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman,IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney] ,High Court of Delhi
