Allowed

Ruston & Hornsby Ltd. v. the Zamindara Engineering Co.

Supreme Court8 Sept 19691969 INSC 224 · [1970] 2 S.C.R. 2221969 INSC 224

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Suit for permanent injunction over registered trade mark 'RUSTON' against respondent's mark 'RUSTAM INDIA'. Supreme Court held addition of 'India' was of no consequence where marks were deceptively similar; allowed appeal, granting injunction, nominal damages and delivery-up.

What did the court decide?

Permanent injunction against use of 'RUSTAM'/'RUSTAM INDIA', Rs.100/- nominal damages, delivery-up of price-lists, bills, invoices and advertising material, with costs.

What the court decided

Ruston & Hornsby Ltd. versus the Zamindara… — Intellectual Property | Supreme Court (1970)

¶1

'2 22

¶2

¶3

RUSTON & HORNS8Y LTD.

¶4

¶5

THE ZAMINDARA ENGINEERING CO.

¶6

September 8, 1969

¶7

(J. C. SHAH AND V. RAMASWAMI, JJ.]

¶8

Trade Marks Act, 1940, s. 21-Trade ;,zark deceiptively si1nilarWhether addition of word 'India' distinguishes.

¶9

For the infringement of its registered trade mark "RUSTON" by the respondent's trade mark "RUSTAM", the appellant filed a suit for permanent injunction. The. respondent pleaded 11\at "RUSTAM" was not an infringement of "RUSTON" and stated that the words "RUSTAM INDIA" W<!re used. The trial court dismissed the suit holding that there was no visual or phonetic simi!aritv between "RUSTON" and "RUSTAM". The High Court in appeal, held that there was deceptive resemblance between the words "RUSTON" and "RUSTAM", but heft! that the use of "RUSTAM INDIA" did not constitute an infringement because the appellant's engines were manufactured in England and the respondent's in India, .ind the suffix 'INDIA' \'as sufficien-t warning that the engine sold was not the engine ma•u(actured in England. Allowing the appeal this Court,

¶10

HELD : In an action for infringement when the defendant's trade mark is identical with the plaintiff's mark, the. court will not enquire \'hether the infringement is such as is likely to, deceive or cause confusion. But \Vhere the aHeged infringement consists of using not the exact mark on the.R:~gister but somthing similar to it, the test of _infringement is the. same al" in an action for passing off. Jn other words, the test as to the likelihood of confusion or deception arising from siffiilarity of marks is the same hoth in Infringement anc. passing off actions. [225 H]

¶11

Jn the present case the High Court found that there \v::is deceptive resemblance between the word "RUSTON" and the worJ "RUSTAM" ::ind therefore the use of the bar>t: \VJrd "RUSTAM" constituted infringeM ment of the appellant's trade mark "RUSTON". The respondent did not prefer an appeal against the judgm·cnt of the High Court on this point and it was, therefore., not open to hin1 to challenge that finding. If the respondent's trade mark \Va~ deceptively similar to that of the appellant the fact that the word ·'INDIA'' was added to· the respondent's trade mark was of no consequence and the appellant \Vas entitled to .succeed in its action for infrin_gernent of its trade mark. [226 B] · MillinRton v. Fox, 3 I\1v & Cr. 338 and Savilla Perfunieef Ltd. '. June Perfect Ltd., 58 R.P.C. 147 at 161, referred .to. · • CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appea( No. 1274 of 1966.

¶12

Appeal by special leave from the judgment and' decree dated November 23, 1965 of the Allahabad High Court in First Appeal No. 208 of 195.8. ~

K. S. Shavaksha, R. A. Shah, !. B. Dadachanji and Bhuvanesh Kumari, for the appellant.

¶19

HORNSBY LTD. v. ZAMINDARA ENG. co. (Ramaswami. J.) 223·

¶20

A S. K. Mehta, K. L. Mehta and Sona Bhatiani. for respondent.

¶21

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

¶22

¶23

Ramaswami, J.-This appeal is br<mght by special leave from· the iudgment of the Allahabad High Court dated November 23, 1965 in First Appeal No. 208 ct 1958.

¶24

The appellant is a limited liability company incorporated

¶25

under the English Companies Act with its registered office at Lincoln, England. It carries on business in the manufacture and sale of diesel internal combustion engines and their parts and accessories. Rustori Hornsby (India) Ltd., a company registered

¶26

c in l1ndia under the Companies Act, 1956 is a subsidiary of the appellant. The-respondent is a firm carrying on business in the

¶27

· maITUfacture and sale of diesel internal combustion engines and· their parts. The appella1nt was a registered proprietor of the registered trade mark Ruston being registration No. 5120 in Class 7 in respect of internal combustion engines. Ruston and

¶28

D Hornsby (India) Ltd .. is the registered user 01' the said trade mark and manufactures i1n India and sells in India internal combustion engines under the trade mark "RUSTON". Sometime in June, 1955 the apoellant came to learn that the respondent was manu· facturing and selling diesel inter1nal combustion engines under the trade mark "RUSTAM". On July 8, 1955 the appellant wrote

¶29

E through its attorneys a letter to the respondent and called upon it to desist from using the trade mark "RUSTAM" on its engines as it was an infringement of the re.2ist-red trade mark "RUSTON". The defendant replied that "RU TAM" was not an infringement of "RUSTON" as the words "RUSTAM INDIA" was used. On February 17. 1956 "the appellant instituted a suit "praying for a permanent injunction restraining the respondent and its agents

¶30

F from infringing the trade mark "RUSTON". On January 3, 1958 the Ad.ditional District Judge, Meerut, dismissed the suit holding that there was no visual or phonetic similarity between "RUSTON" and "RUSTAM". The appellant tuck the matter in appeal in the Allahabad High Court. By its judgment dated November 23, 1965 the Higl-i Court held that the use of the word RUST AM bv the respondent constituted infringement of the appellant's trade mark "RUSTON" ~nd the respondent should be prohibited from using the trade mark "RUSTA_M". ·But the. High Court proceeded to hold that the use oi the words "RUSTAM" 1NDIA" was not a111 infringement because the plaintiff's engines were manufactured in England and the defendant's engines were m<inufactured in India. The suffix "India" would be a sufficient

¶31

H warni,n? that th'e en~ine sold was not a "RUSTON" engine manufactured in England and the respendent may be perrriitted · to use the combination "RUSTAM INDIA".

¶32

:224

¶33

(1970] 2 S.C.R.

¶34

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶35

Section 21 of the Trade Marks Act, 1940 states :

¶36

"Subject to the provisions of section 22, 25 and 26 :the registration of a person i11 the register as proprietor of a trade mark in respect of any goods shall, give to that person the exclusive right to the use of the Trade mark in relation to those goods and, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision, that right shalI be deemed to be infringed by any person who, not behg the proprietor of the trade mark or a registered user thereof using by way of the permitted use, uses a mark identical with it or so nearly resembling it as to be likely to deceive or cause confusion, in the course of trade, in relation to any goods in respect of which it is registerP.d, and in such manner as to render the use of the mark likely to be take!l eitlier-

( a) as being used as a trade mark; or

¶41

(b) to import a reference tq some person having the right either as a proprietor or as registered user to use the trade mark or to goods with ·which such a person as aforesaid is connected in the course o~ trade."

¶42

The distinction between an infringement action lllld a passing ·off action is important. Apart from the question as to the nature •Of trade mark the issue in an infringeme,nt action is quite different from the issue in a passing off action. In a passing off action the ·issue is as follows :

¶43

"Is the defendant selling goods so marked as <o be designed or calculated to lead purchasers to believe that they are the plantiff's goods ?"

But in ain infringement action the issue is as fo,llows :

¶48

"Is the defendant using a marJ< which is the same as or which is a colourable imitallon of the, plaintiffs registered trade mark ?"

¶49

¶50

It very often happens that although the defendant is not using the trade mark of the plaintiff, the get up.of the defendant's goods ·may be so much like the plaintiff's that a clel!r-case of passing off would be proved. It is on the contrary conceivable that although the defendant may be using the plaintiff's mark the get up of the defendant's goods may be so different from the get up of the plain. tiffs goods and the prices also may be so different that there would be no probability of deception of the public. Nevertheless, •iin an action on the trade mark, that is to say, in an infringement

¶51

¶52

HORNSBY LTD. v. ZAMINDARA ENG. co. (Ramaswami, J.) 225:

¶53

A action, an injunction would issue as soon as it is proved that the' defendant is improperly using the plaintiff's mark.

¶54

The action for infringement is a statutory right. It is dependent upqn the validity of the registration and subject to other restrictions laid down in ss. 30, 34 and 35 of the Act. On the other B hand the gist of a passing off action is that A is not entitled to represent his goods as the goods of B but it is not necessary for B to prove that A did this knowingly or with a1ny intent to deceive. It is enough that the get-up of B's goods· has become distinctive of them and that there is a probability of coP.fosion between them and the goods of A. No case of actual deception nor ~ny actual damage need be proved. At common law the c action was not maintainable unless there had been fraud on A's part. In equity, however, Lord Cottenham L.C. in Millington v. Fox(') held that it was immaterial whether the defendant had been fraudule1nt or not in using the plaintiff's trade mark and granted an injunction accordingly. The common law courts, however, adhered to their view that fraud was necessary until the· D Judicature Acts, by fusing Jaw and equity, gave the equitable rule the victory over the common law rule.

¶55

The two actions, however, are closely similar in some respects. As was observed by the Master of the Rolls in Saville Perfumery· Ltd. v. June Perfect Ltd.(').

¶56

¶57

"The Statute law relating to infringement of trade marks is based on the same fundamental idea as the law relating tc passing-off. But it differs from that law in two particulars, namely (1) it is concerned only with one method of passing-off, 1namely, the use of a trade mark, and (2) the statutory protection is absolute in F the sense that once a mark is shown to offend, the user of it cannot escape by shuwing that by something outside the actual mark itself he has distinguished his goods from those of the registered proprietor. Accordingly, in co.nsidering the question of infringement the Courts have held, and it is now expressly provided by the Trade G Marks Act, 1938, section 4, that infringement takes place not merely by exact imitation but by the use of a mark so nearly resembling the registered marl; as to be likely to deceive."

¶58

In an action for infringement where the defendant's trade mark is identical with the plaintiff's mark, the Court will not enquire·

¶59

11 whether the infringement is such as is likely to deceive or cause confusion. But where the alleged infringem~nt consists of using: <1) 3 My & Cr. J38. (2) 58 R. P. C. 147 at 161.

¶60

[1970] 2 S.C.R.

¶61

226

¶62

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶63

: not the exact mark on the Register, but something similar to it, . the test of infringement is the same as in an action for passing off. In other words, the test as to likelihood of confusiqn or deception arising from similarity of marks is the same both in infringement . and passing off actions.

¶64

In the present case the High Court has found that there is a . deceptive resemblance between the word "RUSTON" and the word "RUSTAM" a,nd therefore the use of the bare word "RUSTAM" constituted infringement of the plaintiff's trade mark "RUSTON". The respondent has not brought an appeal against the judgment c.f the High Court on this point and it is, therefore, not open to him to chall~nge that finding. If the respondent's trade mark is deceptively similar ·o that of the appellant the fact that the word 'INDIA' is added to the respondent's trade mark is of no consequence and the appellant is enitled to succeed in its action for infringement of its trade mark.

¶65

¶66

¶67

We are accordi;ngly of the opinion that this appeal should be . allowed and the appellant should be granted a decree restraining the respondents by a permanent injunction from infringing the plaintiff's trade mark "RUSTON" a;nd from using it in connection with the engines machinery and accessories manufactured and sold-- by it under the trade mark of "RUSTAM INDIA". The appellant is also entitled to an injunction restraining; the respondent and its agents from selling or advertising for sale of engines. machinery or accessories Uinder the name of "RUSTAM" or · "RUSTAM INDIA". The appellant is also granted a decree for nominal damages to the extent of Rs. 100/-. The appellant is further entitled to an order calling upon the respondent to deliver ·to the appellant price-lists, bills, invoic.~s and other advertising and other advertising material bearing the mark "RUSTAM" or "RUSTAM INDIA". The appeal is allowed with costs to the above extent. 'Y.P. Appeal allowed.

¶68

D from using it in connection The advertising for sale of engines. E also granted a decree for The appellant is invoic.~s and other advertising and other advertising "RUSTAM INDIA". F Appeal allowed.

Ruston & Hornsby Ltd. v. the Zamindara Engineering Co.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Ruston & Hornsby Ltd. v. the Zamindara Engineering Co.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Md. Hanif versus the State of Assam

Rampur Distillery Company Ltd. versus Company Law Board & Anr.

State of Mysore versus S. v. G. Iyengar

F. Hoffmann-La Roche & Co. Ltd. versus Geoffrey Manners & Co. Pvt. Ltd.

Satya Charan Dutta versus Urmilla Sundari Dassi & Ors.

State of U.P versus Raj Kumar Rukmani Raman Brahma