Introduction
In the competitive world of trade and commerce, a trade mark is often the most valuable asset a business possesses. It represents not merely a symbol or a label, but the goodwill and reputation built over years of honest trade.
When a rival trader attempts to ride on that goodwill by adopting a deceptively similar mark, the law steps in to protect the original user and registered proprietor.
The case of Manmohan Garg versus Radha Krishna Narayan Das, decided by the Supreme Court of India on February 19, 1998, and reported as (1998) 3 SCC 244, is a compact but instructive judgement that reinforces the principle that prior registration of a trademark carries decisive weight in infringement proceedings and that a claim of prior use which is directly contradicted by a party’s own documentary evidence will receive no sympathy from any court.
The dispute concerned the famous “Khargosh Chhap” (Rabbit Brand) bidi trade mark—a mark registered as far back as 1945—and the attempt by the appellant to justify his use of a deceptively similar label by falsely claiming that he had been using his own mark since 1936.
The Supreme Court dismissed this claim with firmness, affirming the concurrent findings of the High Court.
Case Summary
| Particulars | Details |
|---|---|
| Case Title | Manmohan Garg vs Radha Krishna Narayan Das |
| Citation | (1998) 3 SCC 244 |
| Case Number | C.A. No. 14200 of 1996 |
| Date of Judgment | February 19, 1998 |
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Coram | Justice Dr A.S. Anand, Justice B.N. Kirpal and Justice S. Rajendra Babu |
| Subject | Trade Mark Infringement • Prior User • Deceptive Similarity |
Factual And Procedural Background
The respondent firm, Radha Krishna Narayan Das, was the proprietor of the well-known trademark “Khargosh Chhap” used in relation to bidis—the small hand-rolled cigarettes that are widely consumed across India.
The history of this trade mark is a long and well-documented one.
The mark “Khargosh Chhap” was first registered with the Sub-Registrar of Bombay on January 26, 1928, making it one of the earlier commercially registered bidi trademarks in India.
Subsequently, when the Trade Marks Act, 1940, came into force, the respondent got the mark formally registered under that Act on August 14, 1945, in respect of bidis to be sold under that trademark throughout the territories of India except Madras and Mysore.
The registration number allotted was 112689.
Going a step further to protect its packaging as well, the respondent also got the Jhilli registered—meaning the tissue paper wrapper used to pack the bidis—on July 2, 1954, under Registration No. 164797.
The respondent’s Khargosh Chhap bidis had, over the years, acquired considerable popularity and reputation in the market.
The appellant, Manmohan Garg, was also in the business of manufacturing and selling bidis.
According to the respondent, looking at the popularity, reputation, and commercial success of the Khargosh Chhap brand of bidis, the appellant started selling bidis using a label which was deceptively similar to and a colourable imitation of the respondent’s Khargosh Chhap label, both in respect of the design, layout, get-up, and colour scheme.
The appellant used the trademark “Goat Cub” on his bidis, and the respondent alleged that the overall appearance and presentation of the appellant’s label were so similar to its own Khargosh Chhap label as to be likely to deceive purchasers and cause confusion in the market.
On these allegations, the respondent filed a civil suit before the Court of the District Judge, Bhopal, seeking a permanent injunction restraining the appellant from selling bidis under the label “Khargosh Chhap” or any deceptively similar label, along with damages and a decree for accounts.
The trial court, however, dismissed the suit on March 16, 1981.
The respondent, aggrieved by this dismissal, filed a first appeal before the High Court.
The learned single judge of the High Court allowed this appeal on February 19, 1991, holding that the respondent had successfully established infringement of its registered trademark No. 112689 by the appellant, by reason of deceptive similarity between the mark used by the appellant and the respondent’s registered trademark.
The appellant then challenged this order through a Letters Patent appeal before a Division Bench of the High Court.
The Division Bench dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal on December 20, 1985, thereby confirming the findings and the order of the learned single judge.
The appellant thereafter approached the Supreme Court by way of a Special Leave Petition, which was converted into Civil Appeal No. 14200 of 1996.
Issues Before The Supreme Court
- Whether the appellant’s “Goat Cub” label was deceptively similar to the respondent’s registered trade mark “Khargosh Chhap”.
- Whether the appellant successfully proved prior use of the mark since 1936.
- Whether the appellant could defeat the respondent’s statutory rights arising from registration under the Trade Marks Act, 1940.
Reasoning And Analysis Of The Court
Deceptive Similarity
KEEP THE ENTIRE ORIGINAL TEXT OF THIS SECTION EXACTLY AS PROVIDED.
Claim Of Prior Use
KEEP THE ENTIRE ORIGINAL TEXT OF THIS SECTION EXACTLY AS PROVIDED.
Importance Of Documentary Evidence
KEEP THE ENTIRE ORIGINAL TEXT OF THIS SECTION EXACTLY AS PROVIDED.
Final Decision
KEEP THE ENTIRE ORIGINAL TEXT UNDER “Final Decision” EXACTLY AS PROVIDED.
Points Of Law Settled In The Case
- Registration of a trade mark carries significant evidentiary value in infringement proceedings.
- A plea of prior use must be supported by consistent documentary evidence.
- A party is bound by admissions contained in its own affidavits and documents.
- Concurrent findings of fact by the High Court are rarely interfered with by the Supreme Court.
- Deceptive similarity is determined by the overall visual impression created by competing marks.
Case Information
| Field | Information |
|---|---|
| Title | Manmohan Garg vs Radha Krishna Narayan Das |
| Date of Order | February 19, 1998 |
| Case Number | C.A. No. 14200 of 1996 |
| Citation | (1998) 3 SCC 244 |
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Coram | Justice Dr A.S. Anand, Justice B.N. Kirpal and Justice S. Rajendra Babu |
Disclaimer
Readers are advised not to treat this as a substitute for legal advice as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
Written By
Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman
IP Adjutor (Patent and Trademark Attorney)
High Court of Delhi
