Trade mark infringement turns on deceptive similarity and goods-specific protection, with the own-name defence failing here.

A registered trade mark is protected only for the specific goods covered by the registration, and use of a deceptively similar mark on confectionery was treated as infringing where "Perry's" closely resembled "Parry's" in sound and appearance and was likely to confuse purchasers. Registration of the mark for biscuits in the same class did not extend protection to confectionery, which was treated as a distinct good. The own-name defence also failed because the impugned use was not accepted as bona fide personal-name use. Injunction relief was therefore available against use on confectionery, while use for biscuits remained permissible.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the respondents' use of the mark "Perry's" on confectionery infringed the appellants' registered mark "Parry's"; (ii) whether registration of the respondents' mark for biscuits in a common class extended protection to confectionery; and (iii) whether the respondents could rely on the own-name defence under the trade mark law.

Issue (i): whether the respondents' use of the mark "Perry's" on confectionery infringed the appellants' registered mark "Parry's".

Analysis: Exclusive rights under the trade mark statute attach to the registered mark in relation to the goods for which it is registered. In assessing infringement, the decisive test is whether the rival marks are so nearly resembling as to be likely to deceive or cause confusion among purchasers. The two marks were held to be strikingly similar in sound and appearance, and the similarity was especially dangerous when applied to the same class of goods, namely confectionery.

Conclusion: The use of "Perry's" on confectionery infringed the appellants' registered trade mark and was not permissible.

Issue (ii): whether registration of the respondents' mark for biscuits in a common class extended protection to confectionery.

Analysis: The statutory scheme permits registration by reference to classes of goods for administrative convenience, but the protection of the registration is confined to the particular goods for which the mark is registered. A registration for biscuits does not, by reason only of their being placed in the same class, confer an exclusive right to use the mark on confectionery. Biscuits and confectionery were treated as distinct goods for this purpose.

Conclusion: Registration for biscuits did not authorise use of the mark on confectionery.

Issue (iii): whether the respondents could rely on the own-name defence under the trade mark law.

Analysis: The protection for bona fide use of a personal name does not extend to an abbreviated or expanded form that is used as a trade mark in a manner likely to conflict with an existing registered mark. The respondent's use of "Perry's" was not accepted as protected use of a full personal name within the meaning of the statute.

Conclusion: The own-name defence failed.

Final Conclusion: The appellants were entitled to injunction relief restraining the respondents from using the impugned labels on confectionery, while the respondents remained free to use their mark in relation to biscuits.

Ratio Decidendi: A registered trade mark is protected only in relation to the specific goods for which it is registered, and use of a deceptively similar mark on different goods will infringe where the marks are visually or phonetically likely to cause confusion.

---