TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1994 (2) TMI 313
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the controversy are as follows:-- 2. The plaintiffs are manufacturers of and distribute spirituous liquors such as gin, whisky, brandy and other liquor and alcoholic preparations. The defendants are also manufacturers of and blenders and bottlers of and market Gin and other liquor and alcoholic preparations. The plaintiffs claim that they were the first in the field to come out with the concept and idea to manufacture an alcoholic preparation being a premature of gin and lime. The plaintiffs then got prepared an original artistic work with the intention of it being applied to the bottle label for the said preparation. The trade mark which was given to this preparation was the word "Duet" as also the trade mark 'Gin N Lime". The plai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r interim reliefs contending inter alia that the word "Duet" and words "Gin N Lime" and "Gin N Orange" cannot be used as trade marks in respect of premature preparations of "Gin and Lime" and "Gin and Orange" as the said words are not invented words and have direct reference to the quality and character of the goods in respect of which the same are applied. The defendants contend that the trade mark of the plaintiffs' is "Blue Riband" and their products are sold in the market as "Blue Riband Duet Gin N Lime" and "Blue Riband Tango Gin N Orange". The labels of the word "Duet" and words "Gin N Lime" applied on the bottle of Gin suggest that the said preparation of Gin contained in the bottle is made of Gin and Lime or is mixture of Gin an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... mark because it had a direct reference to the character to quality of the goods in respect of which registration was sought. The mark was held to be not distinctive, being the phonetic equivalent of "quick copy". Kwik Kopy Trade Mark (1982) RPC 102 In Safemix Trade mark (1978) RPC 397, registration was refused on the ground that the mark "Safe-mix" had a direct reference to the character or quality of the goods concerned and that it was not distinctive. It was held that the mark consisted of the words Safe and Mix conjoined and since these are both dictionary words the combination does not render the mark invented within the meaning of S. 9(1)(c) of Trade Marks Act, 1938. Similarly in the matter of an application by R. Demuth Limited, Volu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that in exceptional circumstances the rule may however be inapplicable, namely, where the common word has lost its primary meaning by long user of the word by a trader in relation to his goods and has become identified with the particular goods of that trader. 5. Bearing in mind these legal principles, I propose to consider the plaintiffs' prayer for interim reliefs. On perusal of the certificates of the Chartered Accountant of the plaintiffs annexed at Exhs. 'C' and 'D' and the invoices at Exhs. 'E-1', 'E-2' and 'E-3' it is clear that the trade mark of the plaintiffs is "Blue Riband Duet Gin N Lime" and "Blue Riband Tango Gin N Orange" and not "Duet Gin N Lime" or "Tango Gin N Orange" as claim....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arly referable to the goods and ingredients of the nature of prematures used by the companies. 6. Even on comparison of the trade mark of the plaintiffs with the defendants' trade mark, it is difficult to hold that the two marks are deceptively similar and are likely to create any confusion in the minds of the customers. In parker Knoll v. Knoll International Ltd. (1962) RPC 265 Lord Denning explained the words "to deceive" and the phrase "to cause confusion" as follows: "Secondly, 'to deceive' is one thing. To 'cause confusion' is another. The difference is this : When you deceive a man, you tell him a lie. You make a false representation to him and thereby cause him to believe a thing to be true which is fa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... may refuse the registration, or rather you must refuse the registration in that case." On comparison of the two marks bearing the aforesaid principles in mind, it is difficult the appreciate as to how there is even a remote possibility of any customer being misled. In my opinion, when a customer goes to a shop to buy the plaintiffs' product, he will not ask for "Duet" or "Gin N Lime" or "Gin N Orange" but he will ask for a "Blue Riband Gin N Lime" or "Blue Riband Tango Gin N Orange". Further having regard to the fact that the customer who is likely to buy the products of the plaintiffs and the defendants will be normally educated and discerning type, it is impossible to hold that there is any likelihood of confusion. It is pertinent....