particularly those in the name of IFB Agro Industries, were not representative of public use or dilution, since the appellant had entered into a confidential Settlement Agreement with IFB and had consciously chosen not to oppose those particular filings. Such selective and confidential settlements cannot be construed to undermine the appellant’s trademark rights. For this, placing reliance on Cadila Healthcare Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd.6 and Corn Products Refining Co. (supra) , learned counsel asserted that even minor variations or conceptual similarities can give rise to a likelihood of confusion, particularly when the goods in question are identical and the prior mark is well-established. Analysis and Findings: 18. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent no.2 and also gone through the documents placed on record along with the relevant judgments on the issue cited by them. 19. Based on the above, admittedly , the appellant is not only the prior adopter but is also the registered proprietor of the trademark “CAPTAIN” under registration no.1485228 as also of the trademark “CAPTAIN MORGAN” under registration no.708544 and also holds similar multiple registrations. The appellant has also been continuously using the same and has acquired immense goodwill therein, both internationally and in India. 20. In such a scenario, particularly whence the appellant is already the owner of the family of “CAPTAIN” marks, including “CAPTAIN MORGAN GOLD, “CAPTAIN MORGAN WHITE”, there is every likelihood of the impugned mark “CAPTAIN BLUE” of the respondent no.1 to be perceived as yet another variant emanating from the appellant
