Deceptive similarity in trade marks rejected where overall comparison and market context showed no likelihood of confusion.

A trade mark rectification challenge failed because the respondent's registered mark was not found deceptively similar to the appellant's mark. The court compared the marks as a whole, taking into account the nature of the goods, the class of purchasers, and the manner in which the marks were displayed on the machines. It also noted the appellant's long prior use and independent reputation, and that both parties' machines carried the trade mark and registration particulars, reducing the likelihood of confusion. On that assessment, the mark was held not to be likely to deceive or cause confusion.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondent's registered mark was deceptively similar to the appellant's registered mark so as to justify rectification under Section 56 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958.

Analysis: The marks were compared as a whole, having regard to the nature of the goods, the class of purchasers, and the manner of display on the machines. The appellant had used its mark for a long period and had built up an independent reputation. Both parties' machines bore the trade mark and registration particulars, reducing the chance of confusion. On that assessment, the respondent's mark was not found to be likely to deceive or cause confusion.

Conclusion: The rectification application failed and the respondent's mark was held not deceptively similar to the appellant's mark.

---