Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

46. Having stated the above, it is necessary to note that the anti-dissection rule is not inconsistent with ascertaining whether the competing marks are similar by taking note of their dominant parts. It is not impermissible to evaluate the portions of the composite marks for the purposes of determination of the overall similarities between the competing marks. The guiding principle being that the exercise is for the purpose of determining the overall similarity of the competing marks and not the similarities between the components of the competing composite marks. Clearly, if the composite marks are dissimilar the fact that portions of the marks may be similar would be of a little relevance.

47. We consider it apposite to refer to the following text from McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition, which explains the said principle as under: -

"23.15 Comparing Marks: Differences v.
Similarities [1] The Anti-Dissection Rule [a] Compare composites as a Whole : Conflicting composite marks are to be compared by looking at AIR 1955 SC 558 them as a whole, rather than breaking the marks up into their component parts for comparison. This is the "anti dissection" rule. The rationale for the rule is that the commercial impression of a composite trademark on an ordinary prospective buyer is created by the mark as a whole, not by its component parts. However, it is not a violation of the anti-dissection rule to view the component parts of conflicting composite marks as a preliminary step on the way to an ultimate determination of probable customer reaction to the conflicting composites as a whole. Thus, conflicting marks must be compared in their entireties. A mark should not be dissected or split up into its component parts and each part then compared with corresponding parts of the conflicting mark to determine the likelihood of confusion. It is the impression that the mark as a whole creates on the average reasonably prudent buyer and not the parts thereof, that is important. As the Supreme Court observed: "The commercial impression of a trademark is derived from it as a whole, not from its elements separated and considered in detail. For this reason it should be considered in its entirety." The anti-dissection rule is based upon a common sense observation of customer behavior: the typical shopper does not retain all of the individual details of a composite mark in his or her mind, but retains only an overall, general impression created by the composite as a whole. It is the overall impression created by the mark from the ordinary shopper's cursory observation in the marketplace that will or will not lead to a likelihood of confusion, not the impression created from a meticulous comparison as expressed in carefully weighed analysis in legal briefs. In litigation over the alleged similarity of marks, the owner will emphasize the similarities and the alleged infringer will emphasize the differences. The point is that the two marks should not be examined with a microscope to find the differences, for this is not the way the average purchaser views the marks. To the average buyer, the points of similarity are more important that minor points of difference. A court should not engage in "technical gymnastics" in an attempt to find some minor differences between conflicting marks.

[emphasis supplied]

48. In M/s South India Beverages India Private Limited v. General Mills Marketing Inc. & Anr.2, the Division Bench of this Court had also observed "while a mark is to be considered in entirety, yet it is permissible to accord more or less importance or 'dominance' to a particular portion or element of a mark in cases of composite marks".

49. We also consider it relevant to refer to the following observation of this Court in Vasundhra Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. v. Kirat Vinodbhai Jadvani & Anothers5: -

"33. Having stated the above, it is also necessary to bear in mind that examining the dominant part of the trademark for comparing it with the conflicting mark is solely for the purpose of determining whether competing marks are deceptively similar when viewed as a whole. It is, thus, not permissible to hold that two competing marks are deceptively similar by examining a portion of one mark and comparing it with the portion of another mark, if the composite marks viewed as a whole are dissimilar...."