The main legal point established is that likelihood of confusion in trade mark jurisprudence is assessed based on phonetic and visual similarity, nature of the goods, and the kind of customer likely to buy those goods. Coined words with no etymological meaning are entitled to additional trade mark protection.

JUDGMENT (Oral)

1. This is an appeal against an order dated 27 August 2018 passed by the Examiner of Trade Marks in the office of the Registrar of Trade Marks, whereby Application No. 2668081, filed by the appellant, seeking registration of the word mark "ELMENTIN" for a pharmaceutical composition of Amoxycillin and Clavulanic Acid, stands rejected by the Examiner under Section 11(1)(b)¹ [11. Relative grounds for refusal of registration. -
(1) Save as provided in Section 12, a trade mark shall not be registered if, because of -
*****
(b) its similarity to an earlier trade mark and the identity or similarity of the goods or services covered by the trade mark,
there exists a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public, which includes the likelihood of association with the earlier trade mark.] of the Trade Marks Act 1999. The ground of rejection is that the mark is deceptively similar to an existing earlier trade mark "ELEMENTAL", also registered in respect of medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations in Class 5, in favour of one Juggat Pharma Pvt. Ltd.

2. I have heard Ms. Niranjana Kaur, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, learned CGSC for the respondent.

3. Ms. Kaur submits that the marks "ELMENTIN" and "ELEMENTAL" cannot be treated as phonetically similar and that, therefore, the ground of rejection of the appellant's application is without basis.

4. Mr. Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar reiterates the grounds contained in the impugned order and submits that the phonetic difference between "ELEMENTIN" and "ELEMENTAL", if anything, is miniscule and that, as "ELEMENTAL" already stood registered under the same class for medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations, there is no cause for this Court to interfere with the impugned order dated 27 August 2018 passed by the learned Examiner of Trade Marks.

5. Having examined the matter and considered the rival submissions, I am of the opinion that it may not be correct to hold that the word "ELEMENTIN" is phonetically similar to "ELEMENTAL".

6. The two words, property articulated, have distinctly different sounds. Even the concluding syllable of the two words is different. Phonetic similarity for the purposes of likelihood of confusion between words in trade mark jurisprudence, it is settled, has to be assessed on the basis of the following test enunciated in In re. Pianotist Co.'s Application, (1906)23 RPC 774, accorded approval by the Supreme Court in, inter alia, Amritdhara Pharmacy v. Satya Deo Gupta, AIR 1963 SC 449 and Khoday Distilleries v. Scotch Whisky Association, (2008)10 SCC 723:

"You must take the two words. You must judge of them, both by their look and by their sound. You must consider the goods to which they are applied. You must consider the nature and kind of customer who would be likely to buy those goods. In fact, you must consider all the surrounding circumstances; and you must further consider what is likely to happen if each of those trade marks are used in a normal way as a trade mark for the goods of the respective owners of the marks."

Applying the Pianotist standard, it is difficult to accept the finding, of the learned Examiner, that ELMENTIN and ELEMENTAL, when used for pharmaceutical preparations, are so similar to each other as to confuse the public. They look different. "ELEMENTAL", as an adjective of "element", is a word of common English usage, synonymous with "fundamental", whereas "ELMENTIN" is clearly a coined word, which has no etymological meaning. They sound different. ELMENTIN has three syllables, ELEMENTAL has four. The concluding syllables - which are known to convey a distinct ocular impression when pronounced - are also different. ELMENTIN is a meaningless and, therefore, arbitrary and coined word and is, therefore, entitled to additional trade mark protection, as held in Kirorimal Kashiram Marketing & Agencies Ltd. v. Shree Sita Chawal Udyog Mill, (2010)44 PTC 293 (DB) and South India Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v.