Judgement Briefs

Intellectual Property Rights

Corn Products Refining Co. v. Shangrila Food Products Ltd.

AIR 1960 SC 142

Citation
AIR 1960 SC 142
Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
8 October 1959
Bench
A.K. Sarkar, J.L. Kapur and S.K. Das JJ.

Facts

  • Corn Products Refining Co. owned the registered trademark GLUCOVITA.
  • The mark was used for glucose powder mixed with vitamins.
  • Shangrila Food Products applied to register GLUVITA for biscuits.
  • Corn Products opposed the application.
  • It argued that:
  • GLUVITA was visually and phonetically close to GLUCOVITA;
  • glucose powder and biscuits were related food products;
  • both could be sold through similar shops and purchased by the same consumers.
  • Shangrila argued that:
  • the products were different;
  • the prefix “Glu” was common in the trade;
  • consumers would not confuse biscuits with glucose powder.
  • The Registrar permitted registration with a limitation to biscuits.
  • The High Court upheld that decision.
  • Corn Products appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issue

  • Whether GLUVITA was deceptively similar to GLUCOVITA.
  • Whether the difference between glucose powder and biscuits prevented confusion.
  • Whether the presence of other marks using “Glu” weakened Corn Products’ claim.

Rule

  • Marks must be compared as a whole and not broken into isolated syllables.
  • The court must consider:
  • visual resemblance;
  • phonetic resemblance;
  • similarity of idea;
  • nature of goods;
  • class of purchasers;
  • trade channels;
  • surrounding market circumstances.
  • The test is not whether careful comparison reveals differences.
  • It is whether an average purchaser of ordinary intelligence and imperfect recollection is likely to be confused.
  • Goods need not be identical.
  • Confusion may occur where the goods:
  • are associated;
  • serve related purposes;
  • are sold through common outlets;
  • are likely to be thought to come from the same trader.
  • Mere evidence that other marks appear on the register does not prove that those marks are actually used or have weakened the earlier mark in the market.

Application

  • The Court compared GLUCOVITA and GLUVITA in their totality.
  • Both began with “GLU” and ended with “VITA.”
  • When spoken normally, rather than slowly and syllable by syllable, their overall sounds were close.
  • A purchaser would not generally place both products side by side and perform a detailed comparison.
  • The purchaser would rely on an imperfect memory of the earlier mark.
  • The Court also rejected a rigid classification of the goods.
  • Although one product was glucose powder and the other was a biscuit, both were food products.
  • Biscuits could contain glucose and vitamins.
  • Consumers could reasonably think that GLUVITA biscuits were another product line connected with the maker of GLUCOVITA.
  • Both products could be sold:
  • in grocery shops;
  • through general food retailers;
  • to ordinary members of the public.
  • The likelihood of association therefore remained real.
  • Shangrila relied upon other registered marks containing “Glu.”
  • The Court held that entries on the register alone had little evidentiary value.
  • Unless those marks were shown to be genuinely used in the market, they did not establish that consumers had become accustomed to distinguishing between numerous similar marks.
  • The overall similarity and related nature of the goods outweighed the differences.

Conclusion

  • The Supreme Court allowed Corn Products’ appeal.
  • It held that GLUVITA was deceptively similar to GLUCOVITA and was likely to cause confusion.
  • Registration of GLUVITA for biscuits was refused.
  • Use this case for: deceptive similarity is assessed through the overall impression of the marks, related goods and imperfect consumer recollection—not through microscopic comparison.