Honest concurrent use can justify registration of an identical trade mark despite confusion risk where genuine long-term use is shown.

The statutory bar against deceptive or confusing trade marks does not exclude the Registrar's discretion to allow registration in cases of honest concurrent use or other special circumstances, and that discretion may extend even where the competing mark is identical and not already on the register. Genuine commercial use in India over a substantial period, together with long-standing use, the nature of the goods, and the absence of actual confusion, was treated as sufficient to establish honest concurrent use and relevant special circumstances. On that basis, registration of the respondent's mark was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the mark was liable to refusal on the ground that it was likely to deceive or cause confusion under the statutory prohibition, and whether the special discretion for honest concurrent use or other special circumstances could still be invoked. (ii) Whether honest concurrent use and special circumstances were established so as to justify registration of an identical mark.

Issue (i): Whether the mark was liable to refusal on the ground that it was likely to deceive or cause confusion under the statutory prohibition, and whether the special discretion for honest concurrent use or other special circumstances could still be invoked.

Analysis: The statutory scheme treated the general prohibition against deceptive or confusing marks and the special power to permit registration in cases of honest concurrent use or other special circumstances as operating together. The prohibition in the general provision was not read as excluding the Registrar's discretion under the special provision. The special provision was construed broadly enough to apply even where the competing mark was not already on the register. The language and purpose of the enactment did not justify confining the special discretion to cases falling only within the narrower registration prohibition.

Conclusion: The special discretion could be exercised even though the mark was identical and there was a risk of deception or confusion.

Issue (ii): Whether honest concurrent use and special circumstances were established so as to justify registration of an identical mark.

Analysis: The evidence supported commercial use of the mark in India over a substantial period. The volume of use was not required to be large if it was genuine business use, and the facts showed continuing market presence sufficient to constitute honest concurrent use. The Court also accepted relevant special circumstances connected with the use of the mark, including its long-standing use and the nature of the goods, while rejecting the socio-economic consideration as an independent basis. The absence of actual instances of confusion further supported the conclusion.

Conclusion: Honest concurrent use and relevant special circumstances were proved, justifying registration of the respondent's mark.

Final Conclusion: The registration of the respondent's mark was upheld and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: The general prohibition against deceptive or confusing trade marks does not exclude the Registrar's discretion to permit registration for honest concurrent use or other special circumstances, and that discretion may be exercised where genuine commercial use and relevant special circumstances are proved.

---