Info Edge (India) Limited vs Pradeep Namdeo & Anr.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on: 24.02.2026
Judgment delivered on: 10.03.2026

C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 34/2025 & I.A. 16734/2025
INFO EDGE (INDIA) LIMITED .....Appellant

versus
PRADEEP NAMDEO & ANR. .....Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant : Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Ms. Mehak Rahul Chaudhry,
Mr. Akshay Bhardwaj and Mr. Hitesh Malik,
Advocates.

For the Respondents : Ms. Nidhi Raman, CGSC with Mr. Om Ram and
Ms. Nikita Singh, Advocates for R-2.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
J U D G M E N T
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J.
1. Present appeal has been filed under Section 91 of the Trade Marks
Act, 1999 (hereafter referred to as “the Act” ) on behalf of the appellant
seeking quashing of the Order dated 25.03.2025 (hereinafter referred to as
“impugned order” ) passed by the Registrar of Trade Marks in the
Opposition No.1303503 filed by the appellant against the trademark
registration application of the respondent no.1 bearing application
no.6212666 whereby the Registrar dismissed the said opposition, and
allowed the registration of respondent no.1’s mark “NAUKRIYAN”.
2. The facts in brief as narrated in the appeal are as under:
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:10.03.2026
20:11:05
CA(COMM.IPD-TM)34/2025 Page of
1 19

a) The appellant claims to have adopted the trademark
“NAUKRI” and registered its domain name www.naukri.com on
27.03.1997 and commenced the use thereof. On 15.09.1999, the
appellant also registered the domain name www.naukri.org. Appellant
applied for and secured the registration of trademark “NAUKRI”
bearing registration no.88594 in Class-09 on 29.11.1999.
Subsequently, the appellant registered its subsidiary, bearing the name,
Naukri Internet Services Private Limited on 09.12.1999.
b) Sometime in the year 2000, the appellant claims to have
adopted and commenced the use of the distinctive logo showing
device of the man as . On an infringement by some persons, the
appellant instituted a lawsuit in this Court and vide the Order dated
05.03.2002, this Court held the trademark “NAUKRI/NAUKRI.COM”
to be inherently distinctive and having acquired secondary meaning as
also a well-known trademark. In 2003, the appellant secured
registration of the trademark in Classes 35 and 42 bearing
registration no. 1244668.
c) Appellant claims to have also secured registration of the mark
NAUKRI.COM in Class 42, NAUKRI.CO.IN and NAUKRI.ORG on
21.01.2004, 13.02.2004 and 17.02.2004 respectively. The appellant
also registered the domain names www.naukri.co.in and
www.naukrigulf.com in the year 2004 and 2006 respectively.
Similarly, the appellant has quoted other registrations as well, which
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:10.03.2026
20:11:05
CA(COMM.IPD-TM)34/2025 Page of
2 19

are annexed to the paperbook, running into five pages commencing
from page no.73.
d) In order to protect its trademark registrations, the appellant had

filed various lawsuits, which are enlisted as under:
(i) Info Edge (India) Ltd. and Ors. vs. Sumanta Bhacvttacharya
and Ors. [2017:DHC:2190]: Defendant was restrained from using
the mark NAUKRIE.COM.
(ii) Info Edge (India) Ltd. and Ors. vs Mr Rakesh Kalia
[CS(COMM) 36/2015]: Defendant was restrained from using the
marks , NAUKRINEWS.COM,
NAUKRINEWS.CO.IN, NAUKRINEWS.IN.
(iii) Info Edge (India) Ltd vs Akash Deep & Ors. [CS(COMM)
366/2016]: Defendants were retrained from using the marks
CVNAUKRI.COM, CVNAUKRI.CO.IN, CVNAUKRI.IN,
CVNAUKRI.ORG and RESUMENAUKRI.COM.
(iv) Info Edge (India) Ltd vs Ms Shruti Attre & Ors. [CS(COMM)
710/2016]: Defendants were restrained from using the mark
"nownaukri.com".
(v) Info Edge (India) Ltd. and Ors. vs Mr. Sanjeev Goyal [CS
(OS) No. 783/2006]; Defendant was restrained from using the mark
Noukri.com.
e) It is stated that respondent no.1 filed application bearing
no.6212666 for the mark in Class 35 on a
proposed to be used basis on 09.12.2023, and was published in the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:10.03.2026
20:11:05
CA(COMM.IPD-TM)34/2025 Page of
3 19

Trade Marks Journal No.2136 on 25.12.2023. The appellant filed its
notice of opposition under Opposition No.1303503 against the
respondent no.1’s mark on 24.04.2024. The respondent no.1 filed its
Counter Statement on 31.05.2024. On 14.11.2024, the appellant filed
its evidence in support of the opposition under Rule 45 of the Trade
Mark Rules, 2017 (hereafter referred to as “the Rules” ), while the
respondent no.1 filed its evidence in support of its application under
Rule 46 of the Rules on 09.01.2025. Additional evidence was filed by
the appellant on 10.02.2025 and hearing was conducted on
17.03.2025. Post hearing, written submissions by the respective parties
are stated to have been filed.
f) Vide the impugned order dated 25.03.2025, the Registrar
dismissed the appellant’s Opposition No.1303503 against respondent
no.1’s mark in Class-35, and allowed the
application to proceed for registration. On the same day, the certificate
of registration was issued in favour of the respondent no.1.
g) Aggrieved thereof, the appellant has preferred the present
appeal.
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT:-
3. Mr. Nikhil Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, at
the outset contented that, the appellant was a prior adopter of the trademark
“NAUKRI” as also the domain names www.naukri.com and
www.naukri.org as far back as in the year 1999. He would submit that even
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:10.03.2026
20:11:05
CA(COMM.IPD-TM)34/2025 Page of
4 19

the distinctive logo showing device of a man as was adopted in the
year 2000, for which the appellant also secured registration in Classes 35
and 42 in the year 2003. Similarly, the mark NAUKRI.COM,
NAUKRI.CO.IN and NAUKRI.ORG were registered in Class 42 as far
back as in the year 2004. Simultaneously, the domain names
www.naukri.co.in and www.naukrigulf.com were registered in the year
2004 and 2006 respectively. Learned counsel would submit that the
appellant also secured registration of the mark “naukrionmobile” in Class
42 in the year 2006 itself. He would contend that, having regard to the fact
that the appellant had adopted and put into use not only the trademark
“NAUKRI” but also the domain names and the device as far back as
between the years 1997 and 2000-2004, the Registrar ought to have
considered that the application of respondent no.1 for the mark “naukriyan”
was neither honest nor bonafide, and rather a dishonest adoption of the
registered trademark of the appellant.
4. Learned counsel would also emphasize that the Registrar completely

overlooked the fact that not only was the word mark “naukriyan” almost
identical but also deceptively similar not only to the mark “NAUKRI” and
the device but the application of respondent no.1 was also on a
proposed to be used basis. He would submit that all the relevant evidence in
support of the contentions with documentary evidence was placed before
the Registrar to simply overlook the overwhelming evidence, which would
be fatal to the impugned order.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:10.03.2026
20:11:05
CA(COMM.IPD-TM)34/2025 Page of
5 19

5. Learned counsel would also emphasize that the appellant was always
vigilant and sensitive to protect its intellectual property rights and
trademark which commenced as far back as in the year 2002 when this
Court had recognized the mark “NAUKRI” as a well-known trademark. He
would submit that once a mark has been declared as well-known, it
mandates a higher degree of protection from the statutory authorities. He
submitted that due to the open, long continuous and extensive use and the
advertisement efforts taken by the appellant coupled with the superior
quality of services provided by the appellant under the mark “NAUKRI”,
the said mark has acquired wide and enviable goodwill and reputation and
secondary meaning which services would be exclusively associated with
the appellant.
6. Learned counsel submitted that the rival marks are almost identical
and deceptively similar. In order to lay emphasis upon the similarities, the
learned counsel submitted the following points:
a. The impugned mark contains the whole of the appellant’s

trademark “NAUKRI” as its leading, essential and memorable feature.
Once the essential features of the earlier trademarks are shown to be
present in the trademark in question, the alleged differences in the
other parts of the mark would be immaterial;
b. The work “naukriyan” in the impugned mark is nothing but a
plural of the appellant’s trademark “NAUKRI”. This position is
admitted by the respondent no.1 in its Counter Statement and evidence
in support of the application. The mere distinction of singular and
plural cannot be considered as any distinction at all;
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:10.03.2026
20:11:05
CA(COMM.IPD-TM)34/2025 Page of
6 19

c. Respondent no.1 has copied even the manner of writing the
word “naukriyan” from appellant i.e., Hindi word, written in English
and depicted in lower case;
d. The addition of the letters “yan” at the suffix is irrelevant since
the appellant has also registered and is using “NAUKRI” marks with
added suffix such as “onmobile”, “learning”, “gulf”, “premium”, “e-
hire”, “RMS” etc. Thus, members of trade and public would assume
that respondent no.1’s services under the impugned mark are another
offerings of the appellant itself;
e. Just like the appellant’s trademark, the impugned mark is
preceded with a device of man shown in the form of an arch, having a
separate head with a different colour. The changes made by
respondent no.1 to its device mark are insignificant, considering that
every intelligent copying introduces some changes. The rival device
mark is closely and deceptively similar. In this behalf, the appellant
relies on a list of judgments containing representations of device
marks held to be deceptively similar.
f. The words “Changing millions of lives” at top right side of the
impugned mark in very small font, is barely visible and does not
outweigh the striking similarities between the rival trademarks. The
said words do not form part of the respondent no.1’s domain name
“www.naukriyan.com”.
g. The rival trademark is being used as domain names of websites
viz., www.naukri.com and www.naukriyan.com accessed through
computers, which have applications like autocorrect/auto spell and
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:10.03.2026
20:11:05
CA(COMM.IPD-TM)34/2025 Page of
7 19

predictive text, and which suggest the word on first few alphabets
thereof being typed/punched on the keypad, making human mind
addictive thereto. It is, therefore, not unlikely that a user trying to visit
the appellant’s website www.naukri.com ends up at respondent no.1’s
website www.naukriyan.com and vice-versa.
Predicated on the above, learned counsel would forcefully submit that
having regard to the deceptively similar features, the Registrar ought to
have rejected the application for registration filed by respondent no.1 under
Section 11 of the Act.
7. Learned counsel would also stoutly contend that the Registrar
committed a gross error by overlooking and ignoring the judgments passed
by this Court in various lawsuits protecting its intellectual rights over the
subject trademarks and more importantly completely ignored the judgment
of this Court recognizing the trademark “NAUKRI” as a well-known mark.
Additionally, he contended that other judgments of this Court passed in
favour of the appellant also ought to have persuaded the Registrar to reject
the application of the respondent no.1. He submitted that in both the rival
trademarks the essential feature is the word “NAUKRI” and that merely by
adding the letters “yan” would by itself not make it so distinctive as to not
confuse an unwary customer with average intelligence who may get
deceived as to whether the services are those of the plaintiff or are at least
associated with the plaintiff’s. This would be more so, since both the
appellant as also the respondent no.1 are providing the same services.
8. Learned counsel also emphatically argued that the respondent no.1
has clearly made admissions which itself would disentitle respondent no.1
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:10.03.2026
20:11:05
CA(COMM.IPD-TM)34/2025 Page of
8 19

from asserting that there is a clear distinction between the trademarks
“NAUKRI” and “naukriyan” along with their respective device marks. In
support thereof, learned counsel invited attention of this Court to the
counter statement of respondent no.1 filed before the Registrar and
appearing at page 162 of the paperbook which reads, “ Although, the
applicant’s claim the said mark as a whole and which is the plural form of
common word Naukri, which means job.” He would submit that the said
admission is reiterated by the respondent no.1 in the affidavit of evidence
filed before the Registrar and mentioned in para 8 of the said affidavit,
appearing at page 2301 of the paperbook, which reads, “ However, the claim
of the said mark as a whole that is the plural form of the common word
Naukri, which means job ”. Learned counsel forcefully contended that in
view of the fact that the respondent no.1 himself agrees and admits that
there is no palpable difference between the two rival marks and the letters
“yan” added to the word “NAUKRI” would only depict plurality of the
word “job” or “naukri” in Hindi, the registration of mark “naukriyan”
cannot be sustained.
9. In such circumstances, he would contend that on the basis of the
admission, the registration of the respondent no.1’s trademark “naukriyan”
along with the device mark, which too is deceptively similar, the impugned
order ought to be set aside and the registration so granted to the respondent
no.1 be rejected.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT NO.2:-
10. On the other hand, Ms. Nidhi Raman, learned CGSC staunchly
supported the impugned order and contended that the Registrar has passed a
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:10.03.2026
20:11:05
CA(COMM.IPD-TM)34/2025 Page of
9 19

reasoned and speaking order.
11. Referring to the application of respondent no.1 she would submit that

the mark applied for is absolutely distinct not only phonetically but visually
too. Even the device mark adopted by the respondent no.1 is absolute
distinct from that of the appellant. She would submit that this is not a case
where the Registrar did not compare the rival marks or has overlooked any
essentiality or distinctiveness between the marks. Delving further, she took
this Court through the entire impugned order. She stated that the word
‘NAUKRI’ and ‘naukriyan’ are absolutely distinct, be that pronunciation or
phonetic or visual and cannot be stated to be similar or deceptively similar.
She would submit that the impugned mark when considered as a whole
appears as a stylised label featuring distinctive typographic characters
displayed in a colour scheme comprising dark blue with white colour
background with a device of a man and a tagline “Changing million
lives” placed upon the word ‘naukriyan’. In contradistinction, the mark
of the appellant prominently features the element in blue
colour over the word mark ‘NAUKRI’. Thus, there is no similarity and no
likelihood of any confusion at all.
12. Dilating further, Ms Raman would submit that apart from the above,
the overall perception of the impugned mark, including its colour, font
style, and design employed in the label has a significant difference and this
pronounced dissimilarity renders both marks distinct from each other and
thus, respondent no.1’s mark is entitled to be registered. Merely because the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:10.03.2026
20:11:05
CA(COMM.IPD-TM)34/2025 Page of
10 19

word ‘NAUKRI’ features common to both, it cannot be said that a person
with average intelligence and imperfect recollection would be deceived or
confused. Moreover, according to her, the marks ought to be considered as
a whole without dissecting it as the marks and/or device marks, and when
viewed in that manner, both marks are distinct.
13. So far as the device mark of the appellant and that of respondent
no.1 is concerned, she would rely upon the observations of the
Registrar in the impugned order in para 13 and 12 (as numbered in the
impugned order), and the same have been reproduced hereunder:
“13. The opponent also pressed the objection that the representation of the
prominent element in the applicant’s mark closely resembles, and is
purportedly derived from, the opponent’s registered mark . Upon initial
examination, there exists a prima facie lack of similarity between the
element of applicant’s mark and the opponent’s mark. Indeed, the element
of applicant’s mark stands notably distinct from the aforementioned
opponent’s registered mark, both in visual appearance and structural
composition. The element featured in the applicant’s mark is very
artistic element in the shape of a walking human figure carrying a briefcase
and wearing tie, which is fundamentally disparate from the opponent’s
aforementioned mark , which is a blue curve having a orange dot over
it. Based on a discerning examination of the marks, it becomes evident that
the element of applicant’s mark does not exhibit any substantial
resemblance to, nor does it appear to have been influenced by, the design
incorporated in the opponent’s mark. In light of these observations, it is not
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:10.03.2026
20:11:05
CA(COMM.IPD-TM)34/2025 Page of
11 19

tenable to assert that the element of the applicant’s mark has been
derived or copied from the opponent’s mark .
12. Based on the analysis and reasoning presented above, it is clear that
there is no evidence on record to show that either the applicants have
copied or dishonestly adopted the impugned mark, I have no hesitation to
hold that the applicant’s mark is visually, structurally and phonetically
different from the Opponent’s mark. I uphold the proprietary claims of the
applicants under Section 18(1) of the Act. The applicant’s adoption of the
impugned mark is honest and there is no likelihood of confusion or
deception in the public and therefore, the application is entitled to
registration.”
14. On the aforesaid basis she would submit that the appeal has no merits
and ought to be dismissed.
-
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION:
15. At the outset this Court may note that respondent no.1 was served on
18.11.2025, however, was proceeded ex-parte on 19.11.2025, thus, there is
no opposition on record on his behalf.
16. Since, the lis germane to this appeal is whether the rival marks are
similar or deceptively similar or are distinct so as to not cause confusion or
deception in the mind of an unwary consumer with average intelligence, it
would be in fitness of things to first set out the comparison table between
the two marks which is as under:
Impugned Mark Appellant’s Trademarks
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:10.03.2026
20:11:05
CA(COMM.IPD-TM)34/2025 Page of
12 19

Examination of the marks indicates that the word ‘NAUKRI’ of the
appellant is subsumed within the mark ‘naukriyan’ of the respondent no.1.
The font is very similar if not identical; the small font is common to both
marks; the only essential and dominant feature of the appellant i.e.,
‘NAUKRI’ is fully contained in the mark ‘naukriyan’; the word ‘NAUKRI’
is a Hindi word but written in English which too is common; both words
depict only ‘job’ or ‘jobs’, which are not distinct by themselves in the sense
of the common vernacular parlance, where one (naukriyan) is the plural of
the other (NAUKRI); the image deployed in both marks may cause
confusion looked at from the viewpoint of a common man with average
intelligence and imperfect recollection, even if it is assumed that there are
minor differences between both.
17. Another essential aspect that needs consideration is whether any

distinctiveness is achieved by the mark of the respondent no.1 by merely
adding “yan” to the word ‘NAUKRI’. It does not seem to be plausible.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:10.03.2026
20:11:05
CA(COMM.IPD-TM)34/2025 Page of
13 19

When two marks are to be compared, it is trite that essentially the
similarities or deceptive similarities are to be looked at, first from the
common man’s point of view and not the distinctive features. If the
comparison of similarities do not appeal or are not likely to cause any
confusion or deception in the mind of the consumer with average
intelligence and imperfect recollection, the mark opposed may be
registered. However, if such confusion or deception is likely, then
registration of such marks ought to be refused.
18. Undoubtedly, the word ‘NAUKRI’ is a Hindi word for ‘job’ in
English, while ‘naukriyan’ is a plural for the Hindi word ‘NAUKRI’ and
would connote ‘jobs’ in English, which by itself cannot be said to be such
an essential distinctive feature so as to not create confusion or deception in
the mind of the general public. Thus, the mark ‘naukriyan’ is deceptively
similar and most likely to confuse the general public. ( See: New Balance
Athletics Inc vs. “Nine” Plus Shoes Private Limited, 2023:DHC:5342, H-
D U.S.A., LLC vs. Vijaypal Dhayal Owner/Proprietor of Red Rose
Industries, 2025:DHC:2849, Louis Vuitton Malletier vs. Spread Home
Products Private Limited & Ors., dated 04.12.2024 in CS(COMM)
1079/2024 ).
19. It may be significant to note that respondent no.1 in his Counter
Statement and evidence submitted before the Registrar had clearly stated
that “ Although, the applicant’s claim the said mark as a whole and which is
the plural form of common word Naukri, which means job.” and “ However,
the claim of the said mark as a whole that is the plural form of the common
word Naukri, which means job ”, respectively. This indicates that
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:10.03.2026
20:11:05
CA(COMM.IPD-TM)34/2025 Page of
14 19

respondent no.1 also understood that both the marks connote the same
meaning except that the word “naukriyan” is only the plural of the word
‘NAUKRI’. In such circumstances, adoption of the word ‘naukriyan’ does
not appear to be bonafide .
20. It is also to be borne in mind that the appellant as well as the
respondent no.1 are providing similar/common services, which too would
mean that the consumer base is common. It can be also noted that the
services availed of by the class of persons may not really be vigilant as to
whose services they seek to avail, which too propels this Court to disagree
with the findings of the Registrar.
21. The Registrar as well as Ms. Raman had laid great emphasis on the
device mark of respondent no.1 to submit that the colour scheme; the
placement; man with a head; holding a briefcase are the essential distinctive
features and would thus not create any confusion. This Court is unable to
accede to the said observation and submission. When the above analysis
and observations in the preceding paragraphs are taken as a whole, the
adoption of the arching design of a man with a tie and a suitcase in a hand
does not seem to draw any essential distinction from the arching design of a
man adopted by the appellant. On that score too, the argument of learned
counsel for respondent no.2/Registrar does not appeal to this Court.
22. The Registrar also failed to take into consideration the judgments and
orders passed by this Court in appellants own case whereby infringers using
different forms of the word ‘NAUKRI’ registered in the name of the
appellant were injuncted from such infringement and protected the
appellant’s rights by construing the said word mark as essential and
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:10.03.2026
20:11:05
CA(COMM.IPD-TM)34/2025 Page of
15 19

prominent and exclusive to the appellant. Having regard to the previous
decisions of this Court too, the impugned order is unsustainable.
23. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgement in South

India Beverages Private Limited vs. General Mills Marketing Inc. & Anr.,
(2014) SCC OnLine Del 1953 to submit that the word ‘NAUKRI’ in the
registered trademark of the appellant and that of the respondent no.1 is the
only essential and dominant part, and thus, is not hit by the anti-dissection
rule on which the Registrar relied. The relevant paragraph reads thus:
“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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:10.03.2026
20:11:05
CA(COMM.IPD-TM)34/2025 Page of
16 19

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-dissection rule is based upon a common sense observation of
customer behavior : the typical shopper does not retain all of the
individual details of a composite mark in his or her mind, but retains
only an overall, general impression created by the composite as a
whole. It is the overall impression created by the mark from the
ordinary shopper's cursory observation in the marketplace that will
or will not lead to a likelihood of confusion, not the impression
created from a meticulous comparison as expressed in carefully
weighed analysis in legal briefs. In litigation over the alleged
similarity of marks, the owner will emphasize the similarities and the
alleged infringer will emphasize the differences. The point is that
the two marks should not be examined with a microscope to find
the differences, for this is not the way the average purchaser views
the marks. To the average buyer, the points of similarity are more
important that minor points of difference. A court should not
engage in “technical gymnastics” in an attempt to find some minor
differences between conflicting marks.
However, where there are both similarities and differences in
the marks, there must be weighed against one another to see which
predominate.
The rationale of the anti-dissection rule is based upon this
assumption:“An average purchaser does not retain all the details of a
mark, but rather the mental impression of the mark creates in its
totality. It has been held to be a violation of the anti-dissection rule
to focus upon the “prominent” feature of a mark and decide likely
confusion solely upon that feature, ignoring all other elements of
the mark. Similarly, it is improper to find that one portion of a
composite mark has no trademark significance, leading to a direct
comparison between only that which remains. ”[Emphasis Supplied]
21. The view of the author makes it scintillatingly clear, beyond pale of
doubt, that the principle of ‘anti dissection’ does not impose an absolute
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:10.03.2026
20:11:05
CA(COMM.IPD-TM)34/2025 Page of
17 19

embargo upon the consideration of the constituent elements of a
composite mark. The said elements may be viewed as a preliminary step on
the way to an ultimate determination of probable customer reaction to the
conflicting composites as a whole. Thus, the principle of ‘anti-dissection’
and identification of ‘dominant mark’ are not antithetical to one another
and if viewed in a holistic perspective, the said principles rather
compliment each other.
22. We may refer to the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for
the Federal Circuit reported as 380 F.3d 1340 Re Chatam Int’l, Inc,
wherein the Court enunciated the interplay between the principle of ‘anti
dissection’ and identification of ‘dominant mark’. The Court, while
ascertaining whether the mark ‘JOSE GASPAR GOLD’ was similar to the
registered mark ‘GASPAR’S ALE’, held that ‘GASPAR’ was clearly the
dominant element in the two marks and resembled the relevant mark enough
to cause a likelihood of confusion, to cause a mistake or to deceive.
Relevant would it be to note that the defendant in the said case urged that
the approach of splitting of the marks was in violation of the anti-dissection
rule. The said contention was repelled by the Court and it was pertinently
observed that there was no violation of anti-dissection rule because
the marks were any way examined in entirety, and each individual term in
the marks were given more or less weightage depending on the overall
impression it appeared to create. The Court was of the view that both marks
convey the commercial impression that a name, GASPAR, is the source of
related alcoholic beverages, tequila or ale. In other words, the commercial
significance of ALE in the registered mark ‘GASPAR'S ALE’ and JOSE and
GOLD in appellant's mark ‘JOSE'S GASPAR GOLD’ assumed less
significance in the opinion of the Court.
xx xx xx
26. Dominant features are significant because they attract attention and
consumers are more likely to remember and rely on them for purposes of
identification of the product. Usually, the dominant portion of a mark is
that which has the greater strength or carries more weight. Descriptive or
generic components, having little or no source identifying significance,
are generally less significant in the analysis. However, words that are
arbitrary and distinct possess greater strength and are thus accorded
greater protection. [174 F. Supp. 2d 718, 725 (M.D. Tenn. 2001) Autozone,
Inc. v. Tandy Corporation].”
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:10.03.2026
20:11:05
CA(COMM.IPD-TM)34/2025 Page of
18 19

[Emphasis supplied: Bold and Underlined]
There cannot be a quarrel with the said proposition and having regard
to the analysis above, it is clear that the word ‘NAUKRI’ is in fact an
essential and dominant part of the rival marks, and thus, the rule of anti-
dissection may not apply to the facts of the present case.
24. As an upshot, the impugned order dated 25.03.2025 of the Registrar
is quashed and set aside, resultantly, the Registration Certificate dated
25.03.2025 issued to the respondent no.1 is also quashed and the Register
of Trade Marks be rectified by removing the impugned trademark
within four weeks from date of receipt of this order.
25. Thus, the appeal is allowed in the above terms, however, without any
order as to costs. Pending application also stands disposed of.



TUSHAR RAO GEDELA



FEBRUARY 12, 2026/ anj / rl
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:10.03.2026
20:11:05
CA(COMM.IPD-TM)34/2025 Page of
19 19