DALIP CHAND AGGARWAL Vs. ESCORTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the order of the learned single Judge by which he accepted the opposition of the respondents to the registration of the trade-mark 'Escorts' in favour of the appellant which had been allowed by the Assistant Registrar.

(2.) The respondent company was incorporated under the Companies Act as far back as 1944. It manufactures and sells various agricultural equipment, razor blades, tractors, washing machines, motor cycles, shock absorbers, thermometers and other medical appliances since 1951. In 1961 the respondents sought and obtained registration of its trade-mark of the word 'Escorts' in clause (9) and (II) of schedule 4 of the Rules framed under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act 1958 (hereinafter to be called the Act). This trade-mark relates to goods amongst others to electric irons, electric kettles, soldering irons and elements for electric irons and kettles.

(3.) Od 23.3.1963 the appellant sought registration of a trade-mark of the word 'Escort' under clause (9) in respect of electric irons, electric kettles, soldering irons and elements of electric irons and kettles. It is not disputed that these items are covered by the earlier registration obtained by the respondents in 1961. The respondents naturally put in opposition to the registration application of the appellant. Section 9 of the Act lays down the requisites for registration in part A and B of the Register. Section 11 (a) prohibits registration of a mark, the use of which would be likely to deceive and cause confusion. Section 12(1) further lays down that no trade-mark shall be registered in respect of any goods or description 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 ofgoodi. Sub-section (1) of Section 12 is however, subject to sub-section (3) which empowers in the case of honest concurrent use or of other special circumstances which, in the opinion of the Registrar, make it proper to do so, that it may permit the registration by one or more than one proprietor of trade-marks which are identical or nearly resemble each other (whether any such trade mark ii already registered or not) in respect of the same goods or description of goods.