Deceptive Similarity and Judicial View

Trademarks play a vital role in creating a brand name and goodwill of any business. Not only does it helps in creating a brand value but also, aids in revenue generation. Being of such vital importance, trademark is vulnerable to getting infringed and/or misused. One such way of trademark is making “deceptively similar” trademarks.

“Deceptively similar” trademarks can be understood as a trademark created, almost similar or a look-alike of an already existing trademark in order to deceive and confuse the consumers. This concept of deceptive similarity has been discussed in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 under Section 2(h) as:

“A mark shall be deemed to be deceptively similar to another mark if it so nearly resembles that other mark as to be likely to deceive or cause confusion.”

The concept of deceptive similarity has been widely recognised as a ground for trademark infringement under various trademark regimes. Under the Indian legal system as well, deceptive similarity is consider as a ground for not granting the registration of the trademark to an applicant by the Registrar of Trademarks.

However, the Act does not ascertain any criteria that can decide the ambit and scope of the phrase “deceptive similarity,” hence, there is a vacuum. In order to remove the vacuum, it is essential to note the judicial stand on various cases regarding the said matter. Indian Courts have dealt with several cases providing with landmark principles and guidelines in matters of deceptive similarity. In order to adjudicate cases of intellectual properties and deceptive similarity, principles of phonetic and visual similarity, goodwill, reputation, test of likelihood, etc. have been recognised as some criteria to test deceptive similarity, by the Courts.

Some important cases concerning the judicial view of the Courts in the matter of Deceptive Similarity

  • M/S Lakme Ltd. v. M/S Subhash Trading1

    In this case, the plaintiff was selling cosmetic products under the trademark name “Lakme” and the defendant was also selling similar products under the name “LikeMe”. A case of trademark infringement was thus filed by the plaintiff. The High Court held that the names were not deceptively similar and are two separate marks with difference in their spelling and appearance.

  • SM Dyechem Ltd. v. Cadbury (India) Ltd.2

    In this case, plaintiff started a business of chips and wafers under the trademark “PIKNIK”. Later, defendant started business of chocolates under the name “PICNIC”. A suit alleging trademark infringement was filed thereafter. The Court held the marks not to be deceptively similar as they are different in appearance and composition of words.

  • Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceutical Ltd.3

    In this case Supreme Court laid down certain guidelines for adjudication of matters concerning deceptive similarity of trademarks. In this particular case, the parties to the case were the successors of the Cadila group. The dispute arose on the issue of selling of a medicine by the defendant under the name “Falcitab” which was similar to the name of a medicine which was being manufactured by the plaintiff under the name “Falcigo”. Both the drugs were used to cure the same disease and hence, the contention was that the defendant’s brand name is creating confusion between the consumers. Injunction was demanded by the plaintiff. As a defence, the defendant claimed that the prefix “Falci” has been derived from the name of the disease, i.e., Falcipharam malaria.

    The court observed that because of the diversified population of the country and varying infrastructure of the medical profession due to language, urban-rural divides, etc. and with the probabilities of medical negligence, it is important that confusion of marks should be strictly prevented in pharmaceuticals and drugs. The Court, thereby, held that being medical products more precaution and care must be taken and the names of the brand, therefore, being phonetically similar shall amount to being deceptively similar.

  • M/S Allied Blenders and Distillers Pvt. Ltd. v. Govind Yadav & Anr.4

    In this case, plaintiff claimed that the defendant’s trademark “Fauji” is defectively similar with that of the plaintiff’s, that is, “Officer’s Choice”. The claim was made on the ground of similarity of idea in making of the trademarks as the word “Fauji” is a hindi translation of a military officer. Adding to it, both the parties are in the business of alcoholic beverages. Further, packaging of both the bottles are also alike.

    Though, trade dress plays a significant role in deciding the cases of trademark infringement, in this case, the court held that there is no deceptive similarity between the trademarks “Officer’s Choice” and “Fauji” and hence, dismissed the trademark infringement suit.

Conclusion

The doctrine of deceptive similarity is widely used in the Courts in matters of trademark infringement. Trademark being of vital importance in business and its goodwill it is of high need to protect it from misuse and infringement. Judiciary has taken a keen interest in matters of Intellectual Properties and several principles and guidelines have been provided through various judicial decisions in order to make adjudication of cases of trademark infringement much smooth. The court has also looked after the problems which may arise if a strict criteria is made for determination of deceptive similarities. It is evident from the cases above that the courts are going beyond the literal meanings of the legislations to provide justice and safeguarding the rights of the traders and protecting the interests of the consumers.

Author: Ms. Sonal Sodhani, Student, New Law College, BVDU, Pune, Intern at Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorneys. In case of any queries please contact/write back to us at pratistha@iiprd.com.

References:

[1]1996 (64) DLT 251

[2](2000) 5 SCC 573

[3](2001) 5 SCC 73

[4]CS (COMM) 819/2018; Borkar, S. & Jain, A. Case Comment, K&K ADVOCATES AND IP ATTORNEYS, (Feb. 20, 2019, 04:24 PM), https://www.khuranaandkhurana.com/2019/02/09/case-comment-on-delhi-high-court-holding-no-deceptive-similarity-in-the-marks-officerss-choice-fauji/.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

eighteen − 12 =

Archives

  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • September 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010