Kr Krishna Chettiar v Sri Ambal 1970 a landmark judgment by the Supreme Court of India is a key reference on the requirements for trademark registration and grounds for refusal. It addresses Section 12(1) of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, which prevents the registration of a trademark if it is identical or deceptively similar to an existing trademark registered for the same goods or services. Explore other important Landmark Judgements.

Kr Krishna Chettiar v Sri Ambal 1970 Historical Context and Facts

The case Kr Krishna Chettiar v Sri Ambal involves a trademark conflict between two snuff manufacturers namely, Radha & Co. (Appellant) and Ambal & Co. (Respondents). It revolves around the alleged deceptive similarity between their respective trademarks featuring religious imagery and names. The legal dispute involved issues of trademark registration, likelihood of consumer confusion and the applicability of the principle of honest concurrent use under the Trade Marks Act 1999. The following are the brief facts of Kr Chinna Krishna Chettiar v Sri Ambal & Co:

Kr Krishna Chettiar v Sri Ambal Parties Involved 

The Appellant operated as the sole proprietor of a business named Radha & Co., whereas the Respondents functioned their business as a partnership firm under the name Ambal & Co.
Both the Appellant and Respondents were engaged in the manufacturing and sale of snuff, with business operations in Madras and other parts of India.

Trademark Application by the Appellant

In 1958, the Appellant applied to register a trademark label that displayed:

• The image of the goddess Sri Andal
• The legend 'Sri Andal' in the central panel
• The phrase 'Sri Andal Madras Snuff' written in various languages in the top and bottom sections of the label.

Objection by the Respondents

The Respondents opposed the trademark application filed by the Appellant. The Respondent claimed that it was deceptively similar to their already registered trademarks which included:

• A label featuring the image of goddess Sri Ambal, the phrase 'Sri Ambal Parimala Snuff' at the top and 'Sri Ambal & Co. Madras' at the bottom
• A word mark using the term 'Sri Ambal'.

Decision of the Registrar of Trade Marks

The Registrar of Trade Marks dismissed the objection and ruled that:

• Although the marks shared some common letters but the sound of 'Ambal' did not closely resemble 'Andal'
• There was no likelihood of confusion or deception among a substantial number of consumers.

Reversal by the High Court

The matter went to the High Court where both the Single Judge and the Division Bench took a contrary view. They held that the trademarks were deceptively similar and that confusion was likely and reversed the decision of the Registrar.

Appeal to the Supreme Court

The Appellant challenged the decision of the High Court in the Supreme Court of India.
However, the Appellant could not rely on the plea of honest concurrent use under Section 12(2) of the Trade Marks Act, as the Registrar and both lower courts had consistently rejected this claim.

Download Kr Krishna Chettiar v Sri Ambal Free PDF

The following issues were addressed in Kr Krishna Chettiar v Sri Ambal -

1.Whether the Trademark of the Appellant was Deceptively Similar to the Registered Trademark of the Respondent?

The main issue in Kr Chinna Krishna Chettiar v Sri Ambal & Co was whether the Appellant’s proposed trademark which featured the word ‘Andal’ was deceptively similar to the registered trademarks of the Respondent featuring the word ‘Ambal’, thereby likely to cause confusion or deception among the public under Section 12(1) of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958.

2.Whether Phonetic Resemblance alone can constitute Deceptive Similarity?

The case Kr Krishna Chettiar v Sri Ambal also raised the question of whether phonetic similarity even in the absence of visual or conceptual resemblance is sufficient to reject the trademark registration.

3.Extent of Deference to the Registrar's Expert Opinion

The Supreme Court in Kr Chinna Krishna Chettiar v Sri Ambal & Co examined another important issue, whether the Courts should defer to the expertise of the Registrar of Trade Marks or whether they can overrule his findings when they believe an error has occurred in the assessment of deceptive similarity.

4.Applicability of Section 12(2) of Trademarks Act: Honest Concurrent Use

The Kr Krishna Chettiar v Sri Ambal case also indirectly addressed whether the Appellant could claim benefit under Section 12(2) of Trademarks Act. The Court noted that no such plea was maintainable due to concurrent findings by the Registrar and lower courts.

Kr Krishna Chettiar v Sri Ambal 1970 Legal Provisions involved

In Kr Krishna Chettiar v Sri Ambal 1970, Section 12 (1) and (2) played an important role. The following are the analysis of these provisions -

• Section 12(1) of the Trademark Act

Section 12(1) of the Trademark prohibits the registration of a trademark that is identical with or deceptively similar to a trademark already registered in the name of a different proprietor for the same or similar goods or services, if it is likely to cause confusion or deception in the minds of the public.

In Kr Chinna Krishna Chettiar v Sri Ambal & Co the respondents (Ambal & Co.) objected to the registration of the appellant’s (Radha & Co.) trademark “Sri Andal” on the ground that it was deceptively similar to their already registered marks “Sri Ambal” and “Sri Ambal Parimala Snuff.”

• Section 12(2) of the Trademark Act

Section 12(2) allows for the registration of a trademark that is similar or identical to an already registered mark in cases where the applicant can prove honest concurrent use or other special circumstances. In Kr Krishna Chettiar v Sri Ambal the Appellant was not allowed to rely on this provision due to adverse findings by the Registrar and lower courts.

The Supreme Court in Kr Krishna Chettiar v Sri Ambal dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgments of both the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court, which had rejected the claim of the Appellant for trademark registration. The Apex Court held that although the Registrar of Trade Marks possessed technical expertise, his decision was clearly wrong, and both lower courts had correctly found that there was deceptive similarity between the marks.

Standard of Review

The Court in Kr Chinna Krishna Chettiar v Sri Ambal & Co highlighted that in an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution, the Appellant bore the burden of proving that the concurrent findings of fact were erroneous and that the requirements of Section 12(1) of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act had been met.

Test for Deceptive Similarity

The Supreme Court in Kr Krishna Chettiar v Sri Ambal examined whether the normal and fair use of the mark by the Appellant (depicting ‘Sri Andal’) would likely cause confusion when compared to a similar use of the existing registered marks of the Respondent (depicting ‘Sri Ambal’). It applied the test of visual and phonetic comparison of marks as a whole and ruled that although the marks were visually different but the phonetic similarity between ‘Andal’ and ‘Ambal’ was striking enough to mislead consumers.

Importance of Phonetic Resemblance

The Court in Kr Chinna Krishna Chettiar v Sri Ambal & Co rejected the argument that the words represented different goddesses and held that while South Indian Hindus might distinguish between a Vaishnavite deity (Andal) and a Shaivite goddess (Ambal), the broader consumer base across India would not grasp such religious subtleties, especially in the context of commercial goods like snuff.

Supporting Precedents

To support its conclusions, the Court in Kr Krishna Chettiar v Sri Ambal referred to several cases on trademark law:

• In the Matter of Broadhead's Application (1950) 57 R.P.C. 209, 214
  The case highlighted the need to consider marks as a whole including both visual appearance and phonetic sound to examine potential confusion.
• De Cordova & Ors. v. Vick Chemical Co. (1951) 68 R.P.C. 103
  It held that using even the essential or dominant part of a registered trademark could cause confusion. It reinforced that partial copying may amount to infringement.
• Coca-Cola Co. of Canada v. Pepsi-Cola Co. of Canada Ltd. (1942) 59 R.P.C. 127
  The Court noted that even if a descriptive word like ‘Cola’ is common, the distinctive prefix ‘Coca’ gave it protection from deceptive similarity. The case highlighted the value of unique brand elements.
• Application by Thomas A. Smith Ltd. (1913) 30 R.P.C. 363
  It recognized that phonetic resemblance even without identical visual appearance or conceptual meaning, could lead to confusion and thus justified rejection of the similar mark.

Kr Krishna Chettiar v Sri Ambal Final Conclusion

The Supreme Court in Kr Krishna Chettiar v Sri Ambal held that the likelihood of confusion between the two marks was real and substantial, and therefore, the trademark of the Appellant should not be registered. The Supreme Court affirmed that both visual and phonetic impressions matter and a mark that could mislead the public or dilute an existing brand’s identity must be disallowed.

Conclusion

In Kr Krishna Chettiar v Sri Ambal 1970 the Supreme Court on 14th April 1969 upheld the decision of the High Court and ruled that the trademark of the Appellant "Sri Andal" was deceptively similar to the "Sri Ambal" mark of the Respondent. The Court highlighted the importance of both visual and phonetic similarity in determining the likelihood of consumer confusion.