This case revolves around a trademark dispute under the Trade Marks Act, 1940, where Corn Products Refining Co., a U.S.-based company, opposed the trademark registration of "Gluvita" by Shangrila Food Products Ltd. The core issue was the phonetic and visual similarity of "Gluvita" to the already registered mark "Glucovita," leading to concerns about deception or confusion among consumers. The Supreme Court of India ultimately ruled in favor of Corn Products Refining Co., emphasizing the importance of trade reputation and the likelihood of consumer confusion.

• Factual Background:
  • Parties Involved:
    • Appellant (Corn Products Refining Co.): A U.S. corporation that had registered the mark "Glucovita" in India under Class 30 for glucose powder mixed with vitamins and under Class 5 for infant and invalid foods.
    • Respondent (Shangrila Food Products Ltd.): An Indian manufacturer of biscuits that applied for the registration of "Gluvita" under Class 30.
• Trademark Dispute:
  • Shangrila Food Products Ltd. applied for the registration of "Gluvita" on November 5, 1949, under Class 30.
  • Corn Products Refining Co. opposed this application, arguing that:
    • The name "Gluvita" was deceptively similar to "Glucovita."
    • The public might be misled into believing that "Gluvita" biscuits were associated with or manufactured by Corn Products Refining Co.
• Registrar’s Decision:
  • The Registrar found that:
    • "Gluvita" and "Glucovita" were not phonetically or visually similar.
    • The goods (glucose powder vs. biscuits) were not of the same description.
    • There was no likelihood of confusion or deception.
  • Consequently, the Registrar allowed the registration of "Gluvita."
• Procedural Background:
  • Appeal to Bombay High Court (Single Judge - Desai, J.):
    • Corn Products Refining Co. challenged the Registrar’s decision before the Bombay High Court.
    • Justice Desai ruled in favor of Corn Products Refining Co., holding that:
      • The marks were deceptively similar.
      • The appellant had acquired significant goodwill and reputation in the Indian market.
      • The registration of "Gluvita" should be denied under Section 8(a) of the Trade Marks Act, 1940.
  • Division Bench Appeal in Bombay High Court (Chagla, C.J. & Shah, J.):
    • Shangrila Food Products Ltd. appealed against Desai, J.’s decision.
    • The appellate bench ruled in favor of Shangrila Food Products Ltd., reasoning that:
      • The reputation of "Glucovita" was limited to trade circles and not to the general public.
      • The common elements "Gluco" and "Vita" were used in various trade marks and thus did not necessarily indicate an association with Corn Products Refining Co.
  • Appeal to the Supreme Court:
    • Corn Products Refining Co. then appealed to the Supreme Court of India.
    • The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Division Bench and restored the order of Desai, J., ruling in favor of Corn Products Refining Co.
• Issues Involved:
  • Whether "Glucovita" and "Gluvita" were deceptively similar?
  • Whether the reputation of the "Glucovita" trademark extended beyond trade circles to the general public?
  • Whether the presence of other trademarks with common prefixes or suffixes ("Gluco" and "Vita") affected the likelihood of deception or confusion?
  • Whether the trade connection between glucose and biscuits was sufficient to cause confusion among consumers?
• Final Decision:
  • The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Corn Products Refining Co.
  • The appellate judgment was set aside, and the decision of Desai, J. was restored.
  • "Gluvita" was not allowed to be registered as a trademark due to its deceptive similarity to "Glucovita."
• Key Legal Principles Established:
  • Phonetic and visual similarity is a critical factor in determining deceptive similarity in trademarks.
  • Reputation of a trademark is not confined to trade circles but extends to the general public through advertising and sales.
  • A trade connection between products can contribute to consumer confusion even if the goods are not identical.
  • The presence of similar marks on the register does not prove their market usage or impact on consumer perception.
  • The burden of proving the market reputation of similar marks lies on the party relying on them.

Case Title:Corn Products Refining Co. Vs Shangrila Food Products Ltd.
Date of Order:October 8, 1959
Citation:AIR 1960 SC 142
Name of Court:Supreme Court of India
Name of Judges:Justice A.K. Sarkar, Justice J.L. Kapur, and Justice S.K. Das, H.J.

Disclaimer: The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor - Patent and Trademark Attorney
Email: ajayamitabhsuman@gmail.com, Ph no: 9990389539