A RKHALEEL AND SONS Vs. REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS IN INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts and circumstances which have led to this appeal under Section 76 of the Trade Marks Act 1940, briefly stated, are as follows:

(2.) The first contention which has been urged on behalf of the appellant is, that the Deputy Registrar has erred in taking the view that the expression "Speedmaster" is not an invented word and therefore not eligible for registration under Section 6(1)(c) of the Trade Marks Act 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It has been urged on behalf of the appellant that this expression is a combined word which is not found in the English dictionary and that for purpose of Section 6(1)(c) of the Act, it amounts to an invented word. In support of this argument, reliance has been placed on the cases found at page 53 of 35 R.P.C., (In re, Standard Woven Fabric Co. Appln.) p. 134 of 59 R. P. C. (Dunlop Rubber Co., Ltd. v. Booth), and p. 105 of 66 R. P. C., (In re, Hallgarten's Appln.) In the first of these cases, the question was whether the word "Stanwal" was "an invented word. On the applicant therein, explaining that this expression as brought about by combining the first parts of the two words "Standard" and "Walpole", it was conceded on behalf of the Registrar that "Stanwal" was an invented word. In the 59, R. P. C. case, the question was as to whether the word "Trakgrip" could be registered; the registration of that word seems to have been permitted, mainly on the ground that it had acquired familiarity from the fact that it had been long and extensively used in connection with the particular articles in which the applicants had been dealing. In the 66 R. P. C. case, the word "Whisqueur" was allowed to be registered on the ground that it was an invented word, though it was the result of combining parts of the words "Whisky" and "Liqueur". On behalf of the Registrar, it has been pointed out that the component parts of any of the expressions sought to be registered in the above cases, were not themselves complete words. It is pointed out that the two component parts of the expression sought to be registered in the present case, consist of the words "speed" and "master", each of which is a complete word having a definite meaning of its own; it is contended by Sri Chandrasekhar that a mere combination of two such words cannot result in an invented word. In this connection, he invited our attention to Lord Halsbury's observations in the Solio case, In re, Eastman Photographic Materials Co. Ltd's Appln. (1898) 15 R. P. C. 476 which are to the effect that a compound word like "Cheapand good", cannot be treated as an invented word. In the same case, Lord Herschell observed as follows:

(3.) It is clear on a consideration of the authorities above referred to that a mere combination of two distinct words each of which has its own meaning, cannot be accepted as an invented word for the purposes of Section 6(1)(c) of the Act. The learned Advocate for the appellant has not placed before us any decided case to support a view to the contrary. In the present case the word "Speed-master" no doubt does not find a place in the English dictionary; but, that is because, the dictionary does not contain all combined or compound words. The word "speed", is a complete word in itself and has its own meaning; so also the word "master". A mere combination of two such words, cannot lie accepted as an invented word. The claim that it is eligible for registration as an "invented word" should be rejected. The view taken, by the Registrar on this point, is correct.