{"references": ["M/S. Nandhini Deluxe v.. M/S. Karnataka Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Ltd., AIR 2018 SC 3516. Trade Marks Rules, 2002, Ministry of Commerce and Industry Class 29. Meat, fish, poultry and game; meat extracts; preserved, dried and cooked fruits and vegetables; jellies, jams, fruit sauces; eggs, milk and milk products; edible oils and fats Class 30. Coffee, tea, cocoa, sugar, rice, tapioca, sago, artificial coffee; flour and preparations made from cereals, bread, pastry and confectionery, ices; honey, treacle; yeast, baking powder; salt, mustard; vinegar, sauces, (condiments); spices; ice M/S. Nandhini Deluxe v. M/S. Karnataka Co-operative Milk Producer Federation Ltd. Advocate Khoj, Nov 2020, 16, 9:00 pm. https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=10306 A. K Sikri, M/S. Nandhini Deluxe v. M/S. Karnataka Co-operative Milk Producer Federation Ltd., Indian Kanoon, Nov 2020, 12 , 2:00 pm. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/3173546/ M/S. Nandhini Deluxe v. M/S. Karnataka Co-operative Milk Producer Federation Ltd. Advocate Khoj, Nov 2020, 16, 6:15 pm. https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=10306 Vishnudas Trading v. Vazir Sultan Tobacco Ltd., JT 1996 (6). A. K Sikri, M/S. Nandhini Deluxe v. M/S. Karnataka Co-operative Milk Producer Federation Ltd., Indian Kanoon, Nov 2020, 12, 08:34 pm. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/3173546/ Balkrishna Hatcheries v.Nando'S International Ltd.,2007 (109) Bom L R 306. A. K Sikri, M/S. Nandhini Deluxe v. M/S. Karnataka Co-operative Milk Producer Federation Ltd., Indian Kanoon, Nov 2020, 12, 3:00 am. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/3173546/ Vishnudas Trading v. Vazir Sultan Tobacco Ltd., JT 1996 (6). M/S. Nandhini Deluxe v. M/S. Karnataka Co-operative Milk Producer Federation Ltd. Advocate Khoj, Nov 2020, 16, 2:45 am. https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=10306 The Trade Marks Act, 1999, \u00a7 11,No. 47, Acts of Parliament, 1999 (India.). Relative grounds for refusal of registration. \u2014 (2) A trade mark which\u2014 (a) is identical with or similar to an earlier trade mark; and (b) is to be registered for goods or services which are not similar to those for which the earlier trade mark is registered in the name of a different proprietor, shall not be registered, if or to the extent, the earlier trade mark is a well-known trade mark in India and the use of the later mark without due cause would take unfair advantage of or be detrimental to the distinctive character or repute of the earlier trade mark. The Trade Marks Act, 1999, \u00a7 12, No. 47, Acts of Parliament, 1999 (India). Registration in the case of honest concurrent use, etc.\u2014In the case of honest concurrent use or of other special circumstances which in the opinion of the Registrar, make it proper so to do, he may permit the registration by more than one proprietor of the trademarks which are identical or similar (whether any such trade mark is already registered or not) in respect of the same or similar goods or services, subject to such conditions and limitations, if any, as the Registrar may think fit to impose. M/S. Nandhini Deluxe v. M/S. Karnataka Co-operative Milk Producer Federation Ltd. Advocate Khoj, Nov 2020, 16, 7:33 pm. https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=10306 The Trade Marks Act, 1999, \u00a7 11(2), No. 47, Acts of Parliament, 1999 (India). The Trade Marks Act, 1999, \u00a7 11(2), No. 47, Acts of Parliament, 1999 (India). A. K Sikri, M/S. Nandhini Deluxe v. M/S. Karnataka Co-operative Milk Producer Federation Ltd., Indian Kanoon, Nov 2020, 12, 3:22 pm. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/3173546/ M/S. Nandhini Deluxe v. M/S. Karnataka Co-operative Milk Producer Federation Ltd. Advocate Khoj, Nov 2020, 16, 1:12 am. https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=10306 Vishnudas Trading v. Vazir Sultan Tobacco Ltd., JT 1996 (6). Mr. A. D. Padmasingh Isaac v. Aachi Aappakadai Chettinad A/c Restaurant, Indian Kanoon, Nov 2020, 12, 2:20 pm. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/52700318/ Kedar Nath Gupta v. J.K. Organisation, S. Kapoor, Indian Kanoon, Nov. 2020, 12, 12:00 pm. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/132046/ Mittal Electronics v. Sujata Home Appliances(P) Ltd. @ ORS Indian Kanoon, Nov. 2020, 12, 12:30 pm. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/50578813/ The Trade Marks Act, 1999, \u00a7 11(2), No. 47, Acts of Parliament, 1999 (India). Vishnudas Trading v. Vazir Sultan Tobacco Ltd., JT 1996 (6). Mittal Electronics v. Sujata Home Appliances(P) Ltd. & ORS Indian Kanoon, Nov. 2020, 12, 9:12 pm. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/50578813/"]}

The ensuing Case Commentary of the Landmark Judgment[1] in trademark law would be addressing a recurrent query concerning identical and similar trademarks. Are the Intellectual Property Rights infringed when two companies use a similar trademark for their products? The follow-up questions to the aforementioned query also include, “What are the factors considered by the competent court of jurisdiction while facing issues relating to the usage of similar trademarks by different companies for identical or unidentical products?”, “What if both trademarks are registered under the same class in the trademark registry?” The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Nandhini Deluxe case ended the muddle by shedding ample light regarding similar trademarks by rendering its categorical judgment on 26 July, 2018. [1] M/S. Nandhini Deluxe v. M/S. Karnataka Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Ltd., AIR 2018 SC 3516.