In Brief
A restaurant operator (appellant) adopted the trade mark "NANDHINI" in 1989 for its restaurant business and applied for registration covering various food items across Classes 29 and 30. A milk producers' cooperative (respondent) opposed the registration, claiming its "NANDINI" mark for dairy products, registered in 1985, was deceptively similar and well-known. The IPAB and High Court cancelled the appellant's registration. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that despite both marks falling within the same classes, the appellant's goods (meat, fish, vegetables, spices) were distinctly different from the respondent's milk and milk products. The Court found the visual appearance and manner of use substantially different, and that an ordinary consumer would not confuse the marks. The appellant's continuous use since 1989 constituted honest concurrent use. The Court ruled that a proprietor cannot monopolise an entire class when using a mark only for specific goods within it.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.