Corn Products v. Shangrila Food Products: Glucovita and Gluvita
Citation & Court
Corn Products Refining Co. v. Shangrila Food Products Ltd., Supreme Court of India (A.K. Sarkar, J.L. Kapur and S.K. Das JJ.), decided 8 October 1959; AIR 1960 SC 142; [1960] 1 SCR 968
Need help with this?
Facing an examination report, a show-cause hearing or an opposition? See our trademark objection reply and opposition service. We are a trademark consultant in Ahmedabad working with businesses across Gujarat.
The Dispute
Shangrila, a biscuit maker, applied in November 1949 to register GLUVITA for goods in class 30, later limited to biscuits; it had not used the mark before applying. Corn Products, a New Jersey corporation, had registered GLUCOVITA in 1942 for dextrose mixed with vitamins and glucose for food, and opposed under sections 8(a) and 10(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1940. The Deputy Registrar allowed the application, a single judge of the Bombay High Court reversed him, and a Division Bench restored his order, partly because many registered marks used 'Gluco' or 'Vita'. The Supreme Court had to decide whether GLUVITA was likely to deceive or confuse buyers.
What the Court Held
- Similarity is a matter of first impression, judged on the marks as a whole by a buyer of average intelligence and imperfect recollection; the extra syllable 'co' did not let Indian buyers tell the marks apart, and both conveyed the same idea of glucose and vitamins.
- Marks on the register prove nothing about use. A party relying on a series of marks that share a common element must prove, by evidence, that those marks are in extensive use in the market; Shangrila led no such evidence.
- Even where goods are not of the same description, a trade connection (glucose is used in making biscuits) can make confusion likely, so GLUVITA was refused for biscuits.
- Reputation attaches to the mark itself; buyers need not know who makes the goods. Sales in small retail packs and popular advertising showed reputation among the general public.
How to Use This in Your Reply
Opponents can cite it when an applicant answers a similarity point by attaching register search results showing many marks with the same prefix or suffix: in opposition, register entries alone do not show use, and the party relying on them must prove market use. Applicants who want to argue that a shared element is common should therefore file evidence of actual market use, such as invoices or market samples, not just search printouts. The trade-connection reasoning helps opponents whose goods differ from the applicant's but are linked in practice, such as an ingredient and a finished product, and the 'same idea' point helps where two marks convey one concept.
Important Limit
Decided under sections 8(a) and 10(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1940; the matching grounds are now sections 9 and 11 of the 1999 Act. The strict proof rule was stated for opposition: the passage the Court approved lets the Registrar, at ex parte examination, presume some registered marks are used or intended for use. It does not help where wide market use of the shared element is proved.
Judgment Source
Read the judgment. For other cases on the same issue, see trademark case laws in India, by issue.
Facing this exact situation in your own filing?
Send us your examination report, opposition notice, or hearing date — we'll tell you how this applies.