Name of the case – National Bell Co. V. Metal Goods Manufacturing Co. Pvt. Ltd. (1970) 3 SCC 665

Civil Appeals Nos. 1952 and 1953 of 1966

Decided On,

18 March 1970

At,

Supreme Court of India

By, HON’BLE JUSTICE J. M. SHELAT AND HON’BLE JUSTICE C. A.VAIDIALINGAM.

Published In

1971 AIR (SC) 898, 1970 (3) SCC 665, 1971 (1) SCR 70

ISSUE-

The main question before the Court was whether registered marks “50” and “Fifty” employed by cycle bells of Metal Goods Manufacturing Co. could be deleted from the register of trademarks under Section 32 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, on the basis that they were not distinctive and had become publici juris when the rectification proceedings were started.

RULE-

Section 32 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 provides that the mark registered for more than 7 years is conclusive evidence of validity and can be challenged only on restricted grounds: (a) that registration was acquired through fraud, (b) that the mark was registered contrary to the requirements of Section 11 (such as being misleading or disentitled to protection), or (c) that the trademark was not distinctive when the rectification proceedings began. Section 11 prohibits the registration of marks likely to be mis lead or which are not eligible for the protection in a court of law.

ANALYSIS-

The appellant’s case was that “50” and “Fifty” were trade numerals which were in common use and therefore not distinctive or capable of monopolization. They also cited prior use by overseas manufacturers such as Lucas. The Supreme Court, however, ruled that no previous registration or proprietary assertion by the said overseas entities was established, and that consumers did not identify the numerals in isolation with the products. As the marks were registered in 1953 and rectification was first prayed only in 1961, Section 32 shielded their validity unless an exception was established.. The Court further held that clause (e) of Section 11 does not merely overlap Section 9 (distinctiveness), but it is concerned with more serious impediments such as illegality or deceit. Secondly, the respondent-company had used the marks continuously and also initiated timely legal proceedings against infringers. This was sufficient to establish that the trademarks had not lost their distinctiveness and were not publici juris at the time proceedings had started.

CONCLUSION-

The Supreme Court confirmed the Division Bench’s order and dismissed the appellants’ application for rectification, declaring that the trademarks “50” and “Fifty” had maintained their distinctiveness, were rightfully registered, and were protected under Section 32 of the Act. The appeals were rejected with costs.

I concur with this ruling, as it appropriately maintains the doctrine that registered marks, once safeguarded under Section 32, should not be lightly unsettled unless there are compelling grounds produced, to ensure stability in trademark rights.