KIRIT KUMAR GIRDHARLAL DOSHI Vs. WIMCO LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 18-7-1973, the applicant filed an application under Section 18(1) of the Act bearing No. 289498 for registration of a trade mark consisting of a device of boat and word "Boat" in Class 34 for a specification of goods which read as 'safety matches". The said application was advertised in the trade marks journal on 1-1-1980.

(2.) THE opponent Wimco Limited filed notice of opposition for registration of the applicant's trade mark "Boat" stating that the opponents is carrying on an old, established and reputed business in the manufacture and sale of safety matches under a distinctive trade marks consisting of the word ship and the device of a ship registered as trade mark Nos. 6858 and 6859, and so they are the proprietors to the trade marks comprising the word and the device ship for safety matches and the impugned mark is deceptively similar and the goods covered under the registration are also similar and so, the registration of the impugned mark is prohibited by the provisions of Section 12(1) of the Act. THE opponent further contends that the registration of the impugned mark is prohibited by the provisions of Sections 11, 12(3), 19 and 18(1) of the Act.

(3.) THE Counsel for the appellant pointed out that there are vast difference in the devices in the shape of boat and the ship. But, these devices have to be noticed so meticulously and by observing these trade marks for a while. Immediately on perusing the device, an ordinary illiterate common man cannot distinct them so easily. THE goods involved in both the marks are the same i.e., safety matches. Even though the word boat and the ship are mentioned in those labels, the devices appear to be similar. Merely on seeing it, it cannot be distinguished so easily.