Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

28. The Registrar of Trade Marks granted registration. He held that, though the rival marks were device marks, they were composite marks in which the distinctive words which appeared thereon constituted the dominant part. Inasmuch as the words "Ambal" and "Andal" were not, according to the Registrar, phonetically deceptively similar, registration of the mark was refused. SAC appealed, against the decision of the Registrar, to the High Court. The High Court disagreed with the view of the Registrar and held that the words "Ambal" and "Andal" were so phonetically similar that the danger of confusion between them was imminent and unavoidable. The appeal of SAC was, therefore, allowed, against which Chettiar appealed to the Division Bench. The Division Bench dismissed the appeal, against which Chettiar appealed to the Supreme Court.

16 "Chettiar" hereinafter 17 "SAC" hereinafter FAO(OS) (COMM) 143/2025 KUMAR Signing Date:21.10.2025 13:00:21

29. The Supreme Court noted that, under Section 12(1) of the 1958 Act, which corresponds to Section 11 of the 1999 Act, a mark, which was deceptively similar to an existing registered trade mark, and the registration of which was, therefore, likely to cause confusion, could not be registered. In the mark "Sri Ambal", the Supreme Court observed that "Ambal" was the essential feature and that "Sri" the subsidiary part". This was because, of the two words, "Ambal" was the more distinctive and would "fix itself in the recollection of an average buyer with imperfect recollection". Thus, the test for determining the essential feature, or the dominant part, of a composite mark, is to identify that part of the composite mark, if any, which fixes itself in the psyche of an average buyer with imperfect recollection.

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.

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 FAO(OS) (COMM) 143/2025 KUMAR Signing Date:21.10.2025 13:00:21 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.