What is the key test applied by the Court?

The average consumer test—look at overall similarity as seen by a person of average intelligence and imperfect recollection.

Were ‘Amritdhara’ and ‘Lakshmandhara’ deceptively similar?

Yes. The Supreme Court found overall similarity likely to confuse ordinary buyers of medicinal preparations.

Do we compare parts of a mark or the whole?

The whole mark must be compared. Splitting words and comparing fragments is incorrect.

What about acquiescence and honest concurrent use?

Long, honest use by the respondent with knowledge of the appellant brought the case within Section 10(2) special circumstances.

What was the final outcome?

The Supreme Court restored the Registrar’s decision and allowed registration with a territorial limitation to Uttar Pradesh.

Amritdhara Pharmacy v. Satyadeo

Amritdhara Pharmacy v. Satyadeo (1963)

A simple guide to deceptive similarity, the average consumer test, and how honest concurrent use & acquiescence affected registration.

Supreme Court of India 1963 — AIR 1963 SC 449 Trademark ~6 min read

deceptive similarity average consumer test honest concurrent use

```

Quick Summary

Two marks—Amritdhara and Lakshmandhara—were used for similar medicinal preparations. The Supreme Court said we must see the mark as a whole, through the eyes of an average consumer with imperfect memory. It found overall similarity and a real chance of confusion. Yet, due to honest concurrent use and acquiescence, registration was allowed but limited to sales in Uttar Pradesh.

Issues

Are “Amritdhara” and “Lakshmandhara” deceptively similar under Sections 8 and 10(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1940?
Do honest concurrent use and acquiescence under Section 10(2) permit registration with limits?

Rules

Deceptive Similarity: Compare the marks as a whole from the perspective of an average buyer with imperfect recollection.
Non-registrability: A mark likely to deceive or cause confusion cannot be registered (Sections 8, 10(1)).
Section 10(2): Honest concurrent use and acquiescence may justify registration, often with suitable limitations.

Citation: Amritdhara Pharmacy v. Satyadeo, AIR 1963 SC 449.

Facts (Timeline)

1901 — Reputation: Amritdhara Pharmacy’s mark “Amritdhara” gains goodwill for a medicinal preparation.

1923 — Use by Respondent: Satyadeo uses “Lakshmandhara” for similar goods; admits main sales in Uttar Pradesh, sporadic elsewhere.

Registrar Proceedings: Amritdhara opposes registration for deceptive similarity. Respondent pleads honest concurrent use and acquiescence.

High Court: Takes a parts-by-parts comparison and favours respondent.

Supreme Court: Applies overall impression test; finds likely confusion but allows registration limited to Uttar Pradesh due to special circumstances under Section 10(2).

Timeline of events in Amritdhara Pharmacy v. Satyadeo trademark dispute

Arguments

Appellant (Amritdhara)

Longstanding goodwill since 1901; similar goods and buyers.
Overall aural & visual similarity likely to confuse ordinary consumers.
Registration barred by Sections 8 and 10(1).

Respondent (Satyadeo)

Honest concurrent use since 1923; knowledge by appellant.
Sales mainly in Uttar Pradesh; limited overlap elsewhere.
Acquiescence justifies registration under Section 10(2).

Gavel and trademark labels symbolizing confusion and honest concurrent use

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the marks were likely to deceive and cause confusion when seen as a whole by the average consumer. It rejected the High Court’s parts-by-parts comparison. On acquiescence and honest concurrent use, the Court accepted that long, good-faith use with the appellant’s knowledge brought the case within Section 10(2). It restored the Registrar’s decision and allowed registration limited to Uttar Pradesh.

Ratio

Compare the whole mark from the angle of an average, unwary buyer. If overall similarity is likely to confuse, registration is barred—unless special circumstances like honest concurrent use and acquiescence justify controlled registration.

Why It Matters

Confirms the average consumer test for deceptive similarity.
Rejects splitting marks into parts; focus on overall impression.
Shows how honest concurrent use can lead to limited registration.

Key Takeaways

See the whole mark, not fragments.
Think like an average buyer.
Medicinal goods → higher risk of confusion.

Honest use + acquiescence matter.
Registration can be territorially limited.
Registrar’s practical powers affirmed.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “WHOLE VIEW, AVERAGE YOU.”

Look Whole: Don’t split the mark.
Think Buyer: Average memory, quick glance.
Check History: Honest use + acquiescence → limited registration.

IRAC

Issue	Rule	Application	Conclusion
Are the marks deceptively similar and, if so, can registration still be allowed?	Average consumer test; whole-mark comparison; Sections 8, 10(1), and Section 10(2) (honest concurrent use & acquiescence).	“Amritdhara” and “Lakshmandhara” sound/look alike for similar goods; confusion likely. Long, honest use with knowledge shown.	Similarity found; registration allowed with U.P.-only limitation due to special circumstances.

Glossary

Deceptive Similarity: A mark so close to another that buyers may be confused about source.
Average Consumer Test: Viewpoint of an ordinary buyer with imperfect memory, not a careful expert.
Honest Concurrent Use: Good-faith, parallel use by another trader that may justify limited registration.
Acquiescence: When a rights-holder knowingly allows another to build reputation, limiting later objections.