- Case number
- C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 153/2021
- Court
- Delhi High Court
- Date of judgment
- Judge
- C. Hari Shankar
- Outcome
- Allowed
Headnote
Refusal of a pharmaceutical word mark under section 11(1)(b) for deceptive similarity to an earlier registered mark, set aside. Phonetic similarity is assessed on the test in In re Pianotist Co.'s Application, approved by the Supreme Court in Amritdhara Pharmacy and Khoday Distilleries: take the two words, judge them by look and by sound, consider the goods, the nature and kind of customer likely to buy them, all the surrounding circumstances, and what is likely to happen if each mark is used normally. Applying it, the marks looked different, one being an adjective of common English usage and the other a coined word with no etymological meaning; they sounded different, having three syllables against four, with different concluding syllables, which convey a distinct impression when pronounced. A meaningless, arbitrary and coined word is entitled to additional protection. It was also not known whether the two pharmaceutical compositions were the same, and a difference would be a further mitigating factor against confusion.
Headnote by BRB Legal, written from the judgment: a summary for reference, not legal advice. Read the judgment itself before relying on it.