2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 6335

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
C. Hari Shankar, Om Prakash Shukla, JJ
Anuradha Sharma – Appellant
Versus
Jiva Ayurvedic Pharmacy Limited – Respondent
FAO (COMM) 334/2025 | CM. APPl. 75353/2025

Trademarks must be compared in their entirety based on overall impression. Infringement is not established if the composite marks, when viewed holistically, are distinct. Added distinguishing features effectively negate claims of deceptive similarity and potential consumer confusion, failing to meet the threshold for permanent or interlocutory injunctions.

Headnote:(A) Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Sections 17, 28(3), 29(2)(b) and 30(2)(e) - Trademark infringement and passing off - Interlocutory injunction - Appellate court interference - The Anti-Dissection rule mandates that trademarks must be compared as a whole, focusing on overall impression rather than isolating individual components - While dominant features may assist in analysis, the ultimate test for infringement is whether the mark in its entirety creates a likelihood of confusion for a consumer of average intelligence and imperfect recollection. (Paras 40, 41, 43, 62)

(B) Passing off - Essential ingredients - Goodwill, misrepresentation, and damage - For a claim of passing off, the plaintiff must establish that the defendant has engaged in misrepresentation likely to deceive the public, causing actual or potential harm to the plaintiff’s prior established goodwill - Added matters, such as disclaimers or trade-identifying prefixes, are significant in distinguishing competing goods and services. (Paras 44, 45, 73, 76)

Facts of the case:
An appeal was filed against an order granting an interim injunction in favor of the plaintiffs, restraining the defendants from using a specific mark. The plaintiffs asserted prior use and registration of their mark, claiming the defendants’ mark was deceptively similar, leading to trademark infringement and passing off. The defendants contended the marks were distinct, asserting that their mark was derived from common terminology and included unique descriptors, thereby precluding deception. The trial court initially granted the injunction, which the appellate court subsequently reviewed.

Findings of Court:
Upon a holistic comparison, the appellate court determined there was no visual, phonetic, or conceptual similarity between the rival marks viewed as a whole. The inclusion of distinguishing words and phrases in the defendants' mark served to mitigate any potential consumer confusion. The court concluded that the lower court erred in its analysis by failing to give adequate weight to the composite nature of the marks and the necessity of establishing the classical trinity of passing off.

Issues: The primary issues addressed were whether the registered marks were deceptively similar to warrant an infringement claim and whether a prima facie case for passing off had been established based on the evidence of goodwill and misrepresentation.

Ratio Decidendi: Infringement is not established when, after a holistic examination of competing composite marks, they are found to be distinct in the minds of an average consumer. A court must avoid dissecting marks into isolated components. Furthermore, in an action for passing off, the presence of distinct added elements effectively clears the potential for misrepresentation, rendering the claim of confusion unsustainable.

Result: Appeal allowed; impugned order set aside.