Four Pillars Enterprises Co. Ltd. Vs Mahipal Jain and Ors

When Intent to Confuse Exists, Trademark Similarities Take Precedence Over Dissimilarities

Introduction:

The legal landscape of trademark law hinges on the protection of brand identity and the prevention of consumer confusion. This principle is particularly evident when examining cases where intent to confuse is apparent. Courts emphasize trademark similarities over dissimilarities in such scenarios to uphold the integrity of original marks and prevent unfair competition. 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. The company owns the trademark "DEER BRAND" in Class 17, covering products such as PVC insulating tape, adhesives tape, and water sticking tape, with the trademark registered from July 18, 1985, on a proposed-to-be-used basis. The plaintiff introduced its products to the Indian market in 1993 and has since utilized the "DEER BRAND" and "DEVICE OF DEER" in connection with its goods.

Conversely, the defendant entered the Indian market later and argued that the plaintiff's "DEER" marks had fallen into disuse since 2011. The defendant contended that trademarks which have not been used for an extended period cannot be asserted. Furthermore, they claimed that "DEER" and "REINDEER" are different animals, thus no confusion could arise between the marks.

The defendant also presented a chart showing various other trademarks incorporating the "DEER" logo or word, arguing that "DEER" is a common element in trademarks.

Court’s Analysis and Findings:

The court dismissed the defendant’s argument that "DEER" and "REINDEER" being different animals negated any possibility of confusion. The court emphasized that the test for deceptive similarity is based on the perception of an average consumer with imperfect recollection, not a zoologist.

In examining the likelihood of confusion, the court referred to two established principles from English jurisprudence. In Munday Vs. Carey (1905) RPC 27), it was held that when there is an intent to confuse, focus should be on similarities rather than dissimilarities. Furthermore, in Slazenger & Sons Vs. Feltham & Co. (1889) 6 RPC 531), the court asserted that when a defendant strains to make their mark as similar as possible to the plaintiff’s, the presumption is that they intended to deceive consumers successfully.

Intent to Confuse:

The court noted that the defendants made a deliberate attempt to imitate the plaintiff’s trademark to deceive consumers. The trade dress adopted by the defendants was nearly identical to that of the plaintiff, creating a high likelihood of consumer confusion. Additionally, the defendants misrepresented their goods as "Made in Taiwan," likely to capitalize on the plaintiff’s established market reputation, as the plaintiff’s products are genuinely manufactured in Taiwan.

This clear intention to confuse the consumer justified the court’s decision to grant an injunction against the defendants. The court reiterated that in cases where an intent to confuse is evident, the emphasis should be on the similarities between the trademarks, as consumers are more likely to be misled by such similarities.

Trademark Similarity and Consumer Protection:

The court’s ruling underscores the critical role of trademark law in protecting both brand owners and consumers. By focusing on the similarities between the trademarks when intent to confuse is apparent, the court ensures that consumers are not misled by deceptively similar marks. This approach also protects the investment and reputation of trademark owners from unfair competition.

The judgment reinforces the notion that trademarks serve as identifiers of the source of goods or services. Any attempt to create a mark that closely resembles an established trademark with the intent to confuse consumers undermines this fundamental purpose. Therefore, the courts must be vigilant in preventing such deceptive practices to maintain the integrity of the marketplace.

Conclusion:

The Delhi High Court’s decision in this case highlights the importance of assessing trademark similarity in the context of consumer perception and intent to confuse. When there is evidence of deliberate imitation, courts must prioritize similarities over dissimilarities to prevent consumer deception and protect trademark owners' rights.

This case serves as a significant precedent, illustrating that courts will not tolerate attempts to exploit the goodwill of established trademarks through deceptive similarity. It emphasizes the broader implications of trademark law in safeguarding the interests of both consumers and legitimate businesses in the marketplace. By upholding these principles, the courts contribute to a fair and transparent commercial environment where trademarks continue to serve their essential role as indicators of source and quality.

Case Citation: Four Pillars Enterprises Co. Ltd. Vs Mahipal Jain and Ors :10.06.2024: [2024:BHC:2478] CS(COMM) 472/2023:Delhi High Court: C Hari Shankar, H.J.

Disclaimer:

The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman

IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney]

Email: ajayamitabhsuman@gmail.com

Mob No.:+91-9990389539