Dissimilarity in prominent wordmarks outweighs geometric background similarities, negating deceptive similarity in composite trademarks.

The Plaintiff, a prominent food products company, adopted the "BRITANNIA" trademark in 1918 (declared a well-known mark in 2024)

In 2018, the Plaintiff registered device marks (TM Nos. 3827311 and 3827312) featuring a distinctive five-sided pentagonal structure with arched bottoms containing the word "BRITANNIA"

In March 2024, the Plaintiff discovered the Defendant using a similar pentagonal structure containing the word "RENEWTRIA" for flavored candies and condiments, claiming use since October 2022

The Plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction and an interlocutory application (I.A. 31014/2024) for a temporary injunction, alleging that the Defendant's mark slavishly copied the essential geometric features of its registered device marks

The Defendant contended that the marks are visually and phonetically distinct when compared as a whole and that the goods are sold through different trade channels (exclusive e-commerce)

1. Whether the Defendant’s mark "RENEWTRIA" within a pentagonal structure is deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s registered device marks under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

2. Whether the geometric pentagonal structure, absent the word "BRITANNIA," constitutes a dominant or distinctive feature of the Plaintiff’s marks.

3. Whether the Plaintiff’s failure to identify the specific registration being infringed in the comparison table of the plaint rendered the claim vague.

The court applied Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which defines trademark infringement based on similarity of marks, identity of goods, and the likelihood of consumer confusion or association

It relied on the "anti-dissection rule" and the principle of comparing composite marks "as a whole" to assess deceptive similarity from the perspective of a consumer with "imperfect recollection"

The court further applied the principles from Britannia Industries Ltd. v. ITC Ltd., which hold that if dissimilarities in prominent features outweigh similarities, the possibility of confusion is obviated

Procedurally, it observed Order VI Rule 2 of the CPC regarding the necessity of pleading material facts with precision

The Court first noted that the Plaintiff’s plaint was "deliberately vague" as it failed to specify which of its 19 registrations was allegedly infringed, hindering the Defendant’s ability to respond

On the merits of deceptive similarity, the Court found that the wordmarks "BRITANNIA" and "RENEWTRIA" were the dominant features of the rival marks and were visually and phonetically distinct

Applying the "as a whole" test, the Court determined that the stark differences in the wordmarks, color schemes (red/yellow/green vs. black/orange), and packaging outweighed any similarity in the pentagonal border

Furthermore, the Court held that the Plaintiff failed to provide evidence that the geometric pentagonal structure alone—without the word "BRITANNIA"—had acquired secondary meaning or distinctiveness

Regarding trade channels, the Court observed that the Defendant’s exclusive sale through e-commerce platforms involved a "mindful" purchasing process, further reducing the likelihood of confusion with the Plaintiff’s bakery goods

The Court directed the Defendant to maintain books of accounts and file audited statements of gross sales turnover for the impugned mark every six months until the final disposal of the suit