KISHLAY FOODS PVT. LTD. Vs. RIDHI SIDHI ENTERPRISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. B.D Konwar, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. R. C Saikia, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

(2.) The appellant plaintiff preferred the Title Suit No.02/2018 in the Court of the learned District Judge, Kamrup(M) inter-alia praying for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the respondent defendant or their agents etc from selling their products, which is stated to be noodles in fried palled in pouch packets or cartons, which are deceptive or are confusingly similar to the pouch packets of the appellant plaintiff of the same products. In the suit, the Misc Case 07/2018 was instituted by the appellant plaintiff for an ad-interim temporary injunction restraining the respondent defendant or their agents etc from selling the noodles fried palled in pouches which according to the appellant plaintiff are deceptively or confusingly similar to that of pouch packets in which the appellant plaintiff sell their products.

(3.) The appellant plaintiff in order to substantiate that the pouch packets in which the present respondent defendant are selling are deceptively or confusingly similar to their pouch products, had relied upon the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Parle Products (P) Ltd Vs. J.P and Co., Mysore, reported in (1972) 1 SCC 618, wherein the proper procedure to be adopted by the Court in arriving at a prima-facie conclusion where the manner in which the products are sold are deceptively or confusingly similar or not had been laid down. The appellant plaintiff also relied upon a further decision of the Supreme Court in Cadila Health Care Ltd Vs. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd, reported in (2001) 5 SCC 73, wherein upon discussing the law laid down in various pronouncements, certain factors were enumerated which are required to be gone into for deciding the question of being deceptively similar. In paragraph-9 of Parle Products (P) Ltd (Supra), it had been held as follows:-