LAWS(DLH)-1980-10-30

DEEP CHAND ARYA Vs. KIRAN SOAP WORKS

Decided On October 07, 1980
DIP CHAND ARYA Appellant
V/S
KIRAN SOAP WORKS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case both the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 are in the business of manufacture and sale of washing soaps. The plaintiff M/s. Deep Ghand Arya Industries is in the trade since the year 1959. In April, 1976 the plaintiff adopted the trade mark 'SINAULA' in respect of their products. The trade mark 'SINAULA' of the plaintiff is registered under No. 314128 dated 19th April, 1976. The plaintiff is packing and marketing its products in the wrapper entitled 'SINAULA'. The wrapper used by the plaintiff is registered under the Copyright Act, 1957. According to the plaintiff, the colour scheme, get-up, lay-out and arrangement of the plaintiff's wrapper is an artistic work and the same is protected under the provisions of the Copyright Act.

(2.) The defendant M/s. Kiran Soap Works came in the business of the manufacture and sale of washing soap in June 1979 and they are trading under the trade-mark 'SINDRELA' and are packing and marketing their product in the wrapper entitled 'SINDRELA'. The wrapper used by the defendants have same colour scheme, get up, lay out and arrangement as of the wrapper of the plaintiff.

(3.) The case of the plaintiff is that the trade mark 'SINDRELA' adopted by the defendant is deceptively similar to the mark of the plaintiff and it amounted to an infringement of the trade mark of the plaintiff and that further the defendants with a dishonest intention are packing and marketing their washing soaps in the wrapper 'SINDRELA' which is an exact copy of the wrapper of the plaintiff and that the sale of the product of the defendants in the wrapper entitled 'SINDRELA' is bound to confuse and deceive purchaser which include unwary class of purchasers such as housewives, washermen, servants, etc. The plaintiff further alleged that the sales of its products run into several lakhs of rupees and that the defendants, with mala fide intention and to exploit the reputation of the plaintiff, have adopted the impugned trade mark and the wrapper.