Sunder Parmanand Lalwani v. Caltex (India) Ltd AIR 1969 Bom 24:

FACTS:

The applicant wanted to register TM ‘Caltex’ for their watches (selling since 1.5 years): Caltex (India) opposed this saying they were the proprietors of the mark ‘Caltex’ since 1937, and granting trademark to the applicants would deceive and/or cause confusion to the consumers: The Deputy registrar ruled in favour of the applicant stating that the TM are identical but the goods and services are not identical: Appeal filed in court:

ISSUE:

Whether the use of mark ‘Caltex’ was likely to deceive or cause confusion?:

HELD:

The court held that the goods are different but other factors need to be considered to determine confusion/deception: Caltex is a well-known large company, capable of starting any new industry or trade: Granting TM to the applicant will result in likelihood of confusion: (Remember the average consumer is imperfect man with average memory): Hence the applicants were barred from using the TM Caltex:

Video Summary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhhBAABxhG0&list=PL1DBVyVi7EaCojbQa5_XKBVJqA1y1REh&index=3