Meaning
Deceptive similarity of trademarks is a legal concept that refers to the likelihood of confusion among consumers between two trademarks. When two trademarks are considered to be deceptively similar, it means that they are so similar in appearance, sound, meaning, or overall impression that consumers are likely to confuse one for the other. ANTICIPATORY BAILS IN INDIA
(Opens in a new browser tab)
Trademark infringement occurs when one party uses a mark that is deceptively similar to another party’s trademark in a way that is likely to cause confusion or deceive consumers. The owner of the original trademark may take legal action against the infringing party to protect their rights. Trademark Lawyer Kolkata
(Opens in a new browser tab)
In determining whether two trademarks are deceptively similar, the courts consider several factors, including the nature of the goods or services being offered, the channels of trade, the degree of similarity between the marks, and the degree of care that consumers are likely to exercise when purchasing the goods or services. REGULAR BAILS IN INDIA
(Opens in a new browser tab)
If a trademark is found to be deceptively similar to another trademark, it may be considered a violation of intellectual property laws and may be subject to legal action. The owner of the original trademark may seek injunctive relief to stop the infringing party from using the mark, as well as damages for any harm caused by the infringement. Domain Name Disputes Resolution
(Opens in a new browser tab)
It is important for businesses and individuals to conduct a thorough trademark search before adopting a new mark to avoid any potential infringement issues. It is also advisable to seek the assistance of a trademark lawyer to navigate the complex legal landscape of trademark law and ensure that their trademarks are properly protected. Concealment of Material Facts
(Opens in a new browser tab)
Deceptive similarity of trademarks Laws
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision reported as 1969 (2) SCC 131 K.R. Chinna Krishna Chettiar Vs. Shri Ambal and Co., Madras & Anr. held that the resemblance between the two marks must be considered with reference to the ear as well as the eye. It was held:
“ There is no evidence of actual confusion, but that might be due to the fact that the appellant’s trade is not of long standing. There is no visual resemblance between the two marks, but ocular comparison is not always the decisive test. The resemblance between the two marks must be considered with reference to the ear as well as the eye. There is a close affinity of sound between Ambal and Andal.”
In 2007 (35) PTC 714 (Bom.) Encore Electronics Ltd. Vs. Anchor Electronics and Electricals Pvt. Ltd. which decision was followed by the High Court of Delhi in (2011) 47 PTC 337 (Delhi) Consitex S.A. Vs. Kamini Jain & Ors. it was held: “The phonetic similarity between ‘Anchor’ on the one hand and ‘Encore’, on the other, is striking. Taps9 Legal Services
(Opens in a new browser tab)
The two marks are phonetically, visually and structurally similar. The overall impression conveyed by a mark as a whole, has to be assessed in evaluating whether the mark of the Defendant is deceptively similar to the mark of the Plaintiff. Phonetic similarity constitutes an important index of whether a mark bears a deceptive or misleading similarity to another. The phonetic structure indicates how the rival marks ring in the ears. Courts in a country such as ours whose culture is enriched by a diversity of languages and scripts have to consider how the rival marks are spelt and pronounced in languages in which they are commonly used.
For More information contact
Tapan Choudhury,
Advocate,
Mob- 9873628941
Email ID [email protected]
