Trade mark confusion and class-wide monopoly fail where marks differ in overall impression and use is limited to specific goods.

A trade mark must be assessed as a whole, having regard to the goods, manner of use and overall consumer impression, and registration may not be refused merely because competing marks fall within the same class. Here, the appellant's mark was visually and contextually different, its goods were not the same as the respondent's milk and milk products, and the respondent could not claim monopoly over an entire class when its actual use was confined to a limited range of goods. The court also found that protection for a well-known mark and the broader bar under Section 11(2) were not made out, while the appellant's long use supported concurrent use for its different goods.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant's mark could be refused registration on the ground of deceptive similarity or likelihood of confusion under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and whether the respondent could monopolise the entire class of goods despite trading only in a limited range of products.

Analysis: The competing marks had to be assessed as a whole, along with the nature of the goods, the manner of use, and the overall impression on an average consumer. The appellant's mark differed visually and in get-up, and its goods were not the same as the respondent's milk and milk products. The Court held that the mere fact that both sets of goods fell within the same class did not, by itself, bar registration. The earlier proprietor could not claim monopoly over the entire class where its actual business was confined to a limited segment, and the principle against trafficking in trade marks required the registration to be confined to the specific goods genuinely used. The Court also held that the ingredients for invoking the well-known mark protection and the broader prohibition under Section 11(2) were not established on the facts, and that the appellant's long use supported concurrent use in relation to its different goods.

Conclusion: The appellant's mark was not barred from registration for its specified goods, and the respondent's objection based on confusion, deceptive similarity, and class-wide monopoly failed.

---