In the case of M/S. Lakme Ltd. vs M/S. Subhash Trading And Others, 1996, the plaintiff herein as we all know sells cosmetic products under the Lakme trademark and the defendant used the LikeMe trademark for the same class of products. It was held that there was a strong similarity between the two words and that the words were also phonetically similar.
Hence, any trademark can be misused, and one of the way is to make a deceptively similar trademark. The term “deceptive similarity” has been defined under Section 2 (h) of the Trademark Act, 1999. Meaning, a kind of similarity between the marks which deceives general public that such mark is somehow related to the well-known trademark.
In another case of Parle Products (P) Ltd. v. JP Co. Mysore, the Hon’ble court gave the test to determine the deceptive similarity between two trademarks. It said that a detailed analysis of ...
The judicial decisions passed throughout years have widened the scope of interpretation of infringement in terms of deceptive similarity of a trademark. It helps the trademark regime function in just and equitable. We have even observed cases like Cadila healthcare where court has taken a stricter or rigid approach in the public interest.
This article delves into the intricate concept of 'deceptive similarity' under trademarks law, exploring its nuances and implications in the protection of intellectual property. '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 ...
Interpretation and Scope of Deceptive Similarity. The concept of deceptive similarity has been discussed under Section 2(h) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 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 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 ...
RELEVANT CASES . CASE 1. M/S Lakme Ltd. v. M/S Subhash Trading. In this case, the plaintiff was selling cosmetic products under the trademark name “Lakme” and therefore the defendant was also selling similar products under the name “LikeMe”. A case of trademark infringement was filed by the plaintiff against the defendant.
Some important cases concerning the judicial view of the Courts in the matter of Deceptive Similarity. M/S Lakme Ltd. v. M/S Subhash Trading 1. 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 ...
This case has again touched upon the issue of the two marks being deceptively similar to each other under Section 11(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Since the two marks in question relate to medicinal products, the Delhi High Court has examined the same in a strict sense by applying the test of deceptive similarity laid down by the Apex Court ...
Mahindra and Mahindra ltd. The document discusses deceptive similarity under trademark law in India. It provides context on the history and purpose of trademark law. It defines deceptive similarity and outlines some key criteria courts use to determine if two marks are deceptively similar, such as the nature of the marks, degree of resemblance, nature of goods/services, class of customers, and ...
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
The document discusses deceptive similarity under Indian trademark and design law. It provides an introduction to trademarks and industrial designs, and explains the concept of 'deceptive similarity' according to relevant statutes. It also discusses the 'average man of ordinary intelligence' and includes case law analyses related to determining deceptive similarity.
• The similarity of the traders of the concerned marks. • The mode of purchase and class of purchasers for the goods and services of the marks in question. Test of Deceptive Similarity of marks: The test of deceptive similarity was decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Parle P Products v. JP Co. Mysore.
Famous Deceptively Similar Trademark Case. The case was between the famous coffee house “Starbucks” and the “Sardarbaksh” that started of its business on the cart and later on opened five outlets throughout Delhi. Starbuck is a famous registered trademark all over the globe. According to the facts of this case the court asked ...
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.
