Amritdhara Pharmacy VS. Satya Deo Gupta
[AIR 1963 SC 449, (1963) 2 SCR 484]
Coram: Division Bench comprising of Hon’ble Justice S.K. Das, M. Hidayatullah and Hon’ble Justice J.C. Shah
Forum: Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 22 of 1960
Date of Decision: April 27, 1962.

Note: Although this case pertains to the Trademarks Act, 1940, it is still considered a landmark case in the realm of trademark registration.

Facts:

  • The Plaintiff, Amritdhara Pharmacy, was a limited liability company that had been using the trade name "Amritdhara" for a medicinal preparation since 1901, with considerable reputation acquired since 1903.
  • Satya Deo Gupta, the Respondent, was the sole proprietor of Rup Bilas Company in Kanpur, manufacturing a medicinal preparation known as "Lakshmandhara" since 1923. The respondent's product was mainly sold in the State of Uttar Pradesh.
  • On July 19, 1950, Satya Deo Gupta, the Respondent, applied for the registration of the trade name 'Lakshmandhara' for a biochemical medicine, in use since 1923.
  • The dispute arose from the Appellant's opposition to the Respondent's registration of "Lakshmandhara," claiming it was likely to deceive and cause confusion with their registered trade name "Amritdhara." The Registrar of Trade Marks initially held in favor of the Respondent, but the High Court reversed the decision.
  • Hence, the present appeal was filed by the Amritdhara Pharmacy ( Appellant) before the Supreme Court.

Background:

  • The Trade Marks Registrar found "Amritdhara" and "Lakshmandhara" similar enough to potentially confuse the public.
  • The High Court, however, allowed the Respondent's appeal, noting that "Amrit," "Dhara," "Lakshman," and "Dhara" are common Hindi words, unlikely to be confused. It acknowledged the Respondent's honest concurrent use but ruled against them on acquiescence.
  • The judgment was delivered in an appeal by special leave before the Hon’ble Supreme Court from judgment and order dated March 19, 1958, of the Allahabad High Court in F.A No. 62 of 1954.

Main issue:

  1. Whether the proposed tradename Lakshmandhara was likely to deceive the public and cause confusion with the existing trade name Amritdhara?
  2. Whether there was any acquiescence to bring it under special circumstances, mentioned in section 10(2) of the Trademark Act 1940?