Concept of Deceptive Similarity Under Trademark Law
Amit kumar Singh3 Dec, 2025
Concept of Deceptive Similarity under Trademark Law is important for providing legal protection against the unauthorised use of similar marks in the marketplace. This principle is important in terms of legal protection. A trademark is an indicator of the origin and quality of goods or services. When a consumer encounters a new mark similar to an established one, they may mistakenly assume a connection between the two brands. It may lead to confusion.
The Trade Marks Act, 1999, restricts the registration and usage of marks that are deceptively similar to existing trademarks. The declaration of deceptive similarity includes a careful, holistic assessment by the courts. The focus is on the possibility of confusion from the perspective of an average person. This mechanism is helpful to protect the Intellectual Property Rights (IP) of the brand owner. Also, it maintains fair competition in commerce.
Concept of Deceptive Similarity under TradeMark Law Overview
Deceptive similarity is mentioned in the Trade Marks Act, 1999. This acts as a means to refuse the registration and start an infringement suit. The complete objective is to protect the public from misled. Here is a description of the major provisions under this law:
|
Concept of Deceptive Similarity under TradeMark Law Overview |
||
|
Act/Section |
Description |
Key Provision |
|
Section 2(1)(h) |
Defines Deceptively Similar |
A mark is deceptively similar if it is similar to another mark so closely that it may deceive or cause confusion. |
|
Section 11(1) |
Relative Grounds for Refusal |
It bars the registration of a mark that is identical or similar to an existing trademark. It especially relates to similar goods or services. It is likely to cause confusion. |
|
Section 29(2) |
Trademark Infringement |
It states that a registered trademark is infringed if an unauthorised person uses a mark that is similar in relation to similar goods or services. |
|
Section 29(4) |
Well-Known Marks |
It provides proper protection to trademarks that prevent the use of a similar mark even for dissimilar goods. If it takes unfair advantage of the reputation of the well-known mark. |
Factors Considered in Determining Deceptive Similarity
Deceptive Similarity is determined by the overall impression created by the marks, not based on a side-by-side comparison. It considers the perspective of a consumer who may not have both marks in front of them at the same time. Courts use several legal tests to assess this possibility of confusion.
Test of Sound, Appearance and Idea
The most basic test is the comparison of the competing marks in three ways, these include:
Visual Similarity (Appearance): In this way, structural resemblance, font, colour combination, packaging, and overall layout of the marks are looked at. For example, a court might check and compare the logos of two biscuit brands, as was the case in Parle Products Pvt. Ltd. v. J.P. & Co.
Phonetic Similarity (Sound): This test focuses on how the marks sound when spoken. Marks that are spelled differently but sound the same For example "Cadila" and "Cadila," or "Falcigo" and "Falcitab" in the pharmaceutical context, are possible to be regarded as deceptively similar.
Conceptual Similarity (Idea): This checks whether the idea, meaning, or message conveyed by the marks is the same. For example, two marks that both translate to the same concept, for example “Sun" and “Surya" may be found similar. Their look and sound is not similar, but idea looks similar.
Target Consumer and Nature of Goods
The class of purchasers and the nature of the goods or services are important factors, as the standard of scrutiny varies:
Class of Purchasers: The possibility of confusion is checked against the average consumer of those specific goods. For daily-use, inexpensive products, the consumer is expected to exercise less care, which leads to a stricter view of similarity.
Nature of Goods: In certain industries, like pharmaceuticals a higher standard of scrutiny is applied. Even a slight chance of confusion is considered dangerous due to the potential risk to public health. This makes it easier to prove deceptive similarity.
The Holistic Test: The 'Imperfect Recollection' Standard
Courts often apply the test of an average man of ordinary intelligence and imperfect recollection. The core principle is whether a person who recalls one mark imperfectly from memory is likely to be confused on seeing the rival mark. This holistic approach focuses on the essential, or dominant, features of the mark rather than minute differences.
Consequences of Proving Deceptive Similarity
If a court determines that a trademark is deceptively similar to an existing registered mark, the consequences are significant for the infringing party. It provides robust protection for Intellectual Property Rights holders.
Refusal of Registration: The Trademark Registrar will refuse to register the deceptively similar mark under Section 11 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
Injunction: The court will grant an injunction (a court order) immediately restraining the infringer from using the mark any further. This is the most common and critical remedy.
Damages or Account of Profits: The trademark owner can claim compensation for the losses suffered due to the confusion or ask for an account of profits, which means recovering the profits made by the infringer from the unauthorized use of the mark.
Seizure and Destruction of Goods: The court may order the seizure and destruction of the infringing goods, labels, and advertising material.
| Importance of Intellectual Property Rights | Nature of Intellectual Property |