Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

14. Adverting ourselves to the case under consideration, we find that the mark of the respondent - plaintiff 'HAAGEN DAZS' is what may be termed as a 'Composite Mark' i.e. made up of more than one element.

15. Analysis of composite marks in the cases of trademark infringement pose peculiar problems and has led the Courts to develop the rules of 'anti-dissection' and identification of 'dominant mark'.

The Rule of Anti-Dissection

16. This rule mandates that the Courts whilst dealing with cases of trademark infringement involving composite marks, must consider the composite marks in their entirety as an indivisible whole rather than truncating or dissecting them into its component parts and make comparison with the corresponding parts of arrival mark to determine the likelihood of confusion. The raison d'être underscoring the said principle is that the commercial impression of a composite trademark on an ordinary prospective buyer is created by the mark as a whole and not by its component parts [994 F.2d 1359, 1362 (9th Cir. 1993) Fruit of the loom, Inc. v. Girouard; 174 F. Supp. 2d 718, 725 (M.D. Tenn. 2001) Autozone, Inc. v. Tandy Corporation].

The Identification of 'Dominant Mark'

19. Though it bears no reiteration that 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. Thus, a particular element of a composite mark which enjoys greater prominence vis-à-vis other constituent elements, may be termed as a 'dominant mark'.

20. At this juncture it would be apposite to refer to a recent decision of this Court reported as 211(2014) DLT 296 Stiefel Laborataries v. Ajanta Pharma Ltd. The Court whilst expounding upon the principle of 'anti- dissection' cited with approval the views of the eminent author on the subject comprised in his authoritative treatise -McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition. It was observed:

"41. The anti-dissection rule which is under these circumstances required to be applied in India is really based upon nature of customer. It has been rightly set out in McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition about the said rule particularly in Para 23.15 which is reproduced hereunder:

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 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-

36. We may highlight that even on earlier occasions judicial forums seisin of such disputes have held both the elements occurring in a composite trademark to be dominant. At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer to the judgment dated November 23, 2010 passed by the Court of Justice of the European Union (8th Chamber) in Case NoC-204/10P Enercon v. Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

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 '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.