Arochem Ratlam Pvt Ltd vs Arom Alchemists Private Limited on 12 August, 2025
30. The test of infringement is matter of first impression and
in so far as the Plaintiff's mark is concerned, the same is word mark
"AROME" and apart from this word there are no other material and it is
this word "AROME" which constitutes the single, prominent, essential
memorable feature of the Plaintiff's mark. There is no question of
dissecting the Defendant's mark as the Plaintiff's entire mark has been
subsumed in the Defendant's mark. The Defendant having copied
phonetically and deceptively similar mark "AROM" though by adding
the words "ALCHEMIST" infringes the Plaintiff's registered trade mark.
There is no quarrel with the principles laid down in Phonepe Private
Limited vs EZY Services and Another (supra) and when the principles
are applied to the present case, it is evident that the dominant part or
the essential feature of the Plaintiff's registered trademark i.e.
"AROME" has been copied by the Defendants.