mavii

Deceptive similarity in trademark law refers to the likelihood of consumer confusion between two trademarks that are not identical but resemble each other closely. Defined under Section 2(1)(h) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, it emphasizes that a mark can be considered deceptively similar if it is lik ... This principle was clearly established in ...

Deceptive similarity in trademark law refers to a situation where one trademark closely resembles another, creating a likelihood of misleading or confusing the public. This concept applies even if the two marks are not identical, as their similarity in appearance, sound, or meaning may lead consumers to wrongly associate them with one another. ...

The criteria for detecting deceptive similarity were established long ago by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Cadila Healthcare Ltd v. Cadila Pharmaceutical Ltd. in 2001.

Deceptive similarity to the trademark is one of the critical or common grounds on which the trademark application is objected. A deceptively similar mark has been discussed under Section 2 (h) of the Trademark Act 1999, “ A mark is deemed to be deceptively similar to another mark if it so merely resembles that other mark as to be likely to or ...

Deceptive Similarity: Factors when comparing Deceptive similarity does not turn on the comparison of the marks side by side but rather on the consumer perception and the likelihood of confusion. The fundamental elements when considering deceptive similarity are the nature of the trade mark and the type of goods or services for which ...

'Deceptive similarity' is a pivotal criterion in determining trademark infringement and plays a crucial role in safeguarding consumers from confusion. Through an in-depth analysis of legal principles, case law, and legislative provisions, this article aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the concept and its application in various ...

The Trademarks Act does not specifically prescribe any criteria to decide the scope and applicability of ‘deceptive similarity ’in a case. But, there are various judicial decisions that have been passed over the years that have helped provide certain framework or principles to determine the same and to understand wider interpretation of the ...

The concept of deceptive similarity has been elaborately discussed in the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (hereinafter ‘Act’)under Section 2(h) which states that, “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.” Section 11(1)(a) of the Act, which states the relative grounds for refusal of ...

Intention to deceive is not necessary: The guiding principle. ... Deceptive Similarity as a ground for refusal of trademark registration is the most important feature of the Act, along with other supplementary provisions covered under the purview of Deceptive Similarity. As already discussed, proof of intention to show Deceptive Similarity is ...

The case is a landmark where the Supreme Court by taking references from the various English case laws, finally established certain principles to be consider to decide the existence of deceptive similarity. The principles are as follows:-“The nature of the marks ; The degree of resemblances between the marks, phonetically or ideally similar

In simple words, deceptive similarity can also be defined as similarity between the trademarks which can likely deceive the general public of average intellect to believe that the mark in question is in some way or the other linked to the registered or a well-known trademark. ... 1.Principle of phonetic and visual similarity. 2. Rule of entirety.

The Indian legal system has widely recognized the concept of deceptive similarity as a ground for trademark infringement. However, while the Trade Marks Act, 1999 acknowledges the term ‘deceptive similarity’ as under Section 2(h), it does not lay down any rigid criteria that would narrow the ambit or scope of adjudication by the judiciary.

The higher courts in India have dealt with the matter extensively in a number of landmark judgements and have laid down various principles upon which the concept of deceptive similarity now rests. Principle of phonetic and visual similarity, rule of entirety, rule of disintersection, test of likelihood and confusion, goodwill and recognizable ...

As the Trademark Act do not set out fixed criteria for the concept of deceptive similarity, the plethora of judgments by Supreme Court and High Court does. According to judgments several principles are to be considered for deciding the scope of deceptive similarity such as Principle of phonetic and visual similarity, rule of entirety, test of ...

The extensive body of landmark decisions has paved the way for the development of guiding principles that will aid in the enforcement of the law, including the tests of likelihood and confusion, visual and phonetic similarity, rule of entirety, rule of disinterring section, goodwill, and recognizable reputation.

The principles established by the courts in deciding whether two marks are deceptively similar to one another would also apply to deciding whether two marks are similar or resemble one another. Factors that must be taken into consideration while determining deceptive similarity: • Similarity in the nature, and purpose of the rival traders ...

This concept of deceptive similarity has been discussed in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 under Section 2(h) as: ... 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 ...

Principle of phonetic and visual similarity, rule of entirety, rule of disintersection, test of likelihood and confusion, goodwill and recognisable reputation are some of the important criterias which have been affirmed by the courts in order to present a clear understanding of the concept of deceptive similarity which in turn helps in ...

This article delves into a case where the Delhi High Court reinforced these principles, emphasizing that deceptive similarity must be assessed from the perspective of an average consumer, not a specialist. Case Background: The plaintiff, a company established in Taiwan in 1954, specializes in manufacturing adhesive tapes and labels.