The Supreme Court held that the restaurant mark NANDHINI was not deceptively similar to the dairy federation's NANDINI, because the goods, trade channels and consumers differed. A proprietor cannot monopolise an entire class of goods, only the goods it actually deals in.
The Supreme Court held that when a defendant adopts a mark identical to a registered trade mark for identical goods or services, likelihood of confusion is presumed under Section 29(3) of the Trade Marks Act 1999. The plaintiff need not separately prove confusion, reputation, or damage, and the Section 30(1) honest-practices defence is unavailable unless both honesty and the absence of unfair advantage are shown.
A Division Bench of the Madras High Court revived the 'Idhayam' trademark suits, holding that the unauthorised affixing of a registered mark in India on goods meant solely for export is a triable cause of action for infringement. A digest of the facts, the Order VII Rule 11 error, and the export-as-use question under the Trade Marks Act 1999.