Site navigation

In Amritdhara Pharmacy v Satya Deo Gupta (Supreme Court, 1962), the Court found that 'Lakshmandhara'…

The Registrar found the marks confusingly similar, but held that the appellant's long acquiescence was a special circumstance under section 10(2) of the Trade Marks Act,…

Choose your answer

In Amritdhara Pharmacy v Satya Deo Gupta (Supreme Court, 1962), the Court found that 'Lakshmandhara' was likely to deceive or cause confusion with the registered mark 'Amritdhara', yet it restored the order of the Registrar of Trade Marks. What had that order done?

Select one answer
Answer and explanation

Correct answer C

The Registrar found the marks confusingly similar, but held that the appellant's long acquiescence was a special circumstance under section 10(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1940, and "confined the registration to sales" within Uttar Pradesh, where the respondent's goods were mainly sold. The Supreme Court restored that limited registration. A complete refusal is wrong, because acquiescence justified the limited registration.

Practice for these exams

Related exam syllabi

Related questions in this topic