Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

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 23 (2015) 61 PTC 231 24 211 (2014) DLT 296 FAO (COMM) 217/2025 KUMAR Signing Date:16.02.2026 20:07:05 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 FAO (COMM) 217/2025 KUMAR Signing Date:16.02.2026 20:07:05 should not engage in "technical gymnastics" in an attempt to find some minor differences between conflicting marks.
*****
37. The factual contours of the said case may be succinctly noted in order to appreciate the findings arrived at by the Court. The respondent board had denied the registration of appellant's mark 'ENERCON' on the opposition made by the proprietor of the registered trademark 'TRANSFORMERS ENERGON'. The appellant challenged the said rejection on the ground that word FAO (COMM) 217/2025 KUMAR Signing Date:16.02.2026 20:07:05 'ENERGON' was not a dominant part of the registered trademark and therefore negated any likelihood of confusion. The Court rejected the plea of the appellant and observed that both the elements of the opposer's registered trademark i.e. 'transformers' and 'energon' were equally distinctive and dominant. The Court added that assessment of the similarity between two marks means more than taking just one component of a composite trade mark and comparing it with another mark; on the contrary, the comparison must be made by examining each of the marks in question as a whole, which does not mean that the overall impression conveyed to the relevant public by a composite trade mark may not, in certain circumstances, be dominated by one or more of its components."
33.2. An analogy that aptly illustrates the significance of a dominant element in a composite mark is that of mixing milk and water. If a small quantity of milk is added to a half-glass of water, the mixture becomes cloudy - the change is perceptible, but the dominant character remains watery. Conversely, if the same amount of water is added to a half-glass of milk, the result still appears to be milk - the dilution is imperceptible. Though the components are the same, the perceptual impact differs, depending on which element dominates. Similarly, in trademark analysis, the presence of common elements across marks does not automatically indicate a likelihood of confusion. What matters is the relative prominence and distinctiveness of the elements. Just as the milk in the second example visually and qualitatively overwhelms the water, a dominant feature in a mark can subsume other components and shape consumer perception. Therefore, while assessing deceptive similarity, due weight must be given to the dominant element, without disregarding the composite nature of the mark.

47. Thus, where the Court is considering a composite mark of the plaintiff such as CHACHA SAREE BAZAR PVT. LTD., if anyone part of that mark is dominant, the Court can examine whether the whole mark of the plaintiff is deceptively similar to the whole mark of the defendant by examining whether the dominant feature has been copied in the defendant's mark. As the Supreme Court in Pernod Ricard and the Division Bench of this Court in South India Beverages have clarified, this does not amount to re-writing Section 17(2) and permitting vivisection of a composite mark. It emanates from the principle that a consumer of average intelligence and imperfect recollection, who sees two marks in both of which the same feature is dominant, and other features are subsidiary, would recollect the marks on the basis of their dominant feature. If the dominant feature is identical, or if the dominant features are deceptively similar to each other, therefore, the overall impression that such a consumer would form is similar. There is, therefore, likelihood of confusion or association between the marks in the perception of such a consumer of average intelligence and imperfect recollection.