Holistic comparison of composite marks featuring distinct prefixes and source-identifiers negates trademark infringement and passing off.

The Plaintiffs (Respondents herein) claim to be the proprietors of the "JIVA" trademark, used since 1992 for Ayurvedic products and wellness services, holding multiple registrations in various classes

In 2022, they discovered the Defendants (Appellants herein) were operating a wellness retreat under the name "SHATAM JEEVA" and using the mark "SHATAM JEEVA (By Baidyanath)"

The Defendants, associated with the established "Baidyanath" brand, registered their device mark in 2018 under Class 5 to commemorate their centenary

The Commercial Court, vide order dated 17.11.2025, granted a temporary injunction in favor of the Plaintiffs, finding the marks deceptively similar and the Plaintiffs to be prior users

The Defendants appealed this order to the Delhi High Court.

1. Whether the Defendants’ mark "SHATAM JEEVA" is deceptively similar to the Plaintiffs’ registered "JIVA" marks, thereby constituting trademark infringement.

2. Whether the use of the impugned mark by the Defendants amounts to passing off.

3. Whether the Commercial Court erred in granting an interlocutory injunction by failing to apply the anti-dissection rule and the "classical trinity" test for passing off.

The Court applied Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which defines infringement based on the likelihood of confusion among the public

It relied on the Anti-Dissection Rule and the Dominant Feature Test as elucidated in Pernod Ricard India Private Limited v. Karanveer Singh Chhabrra, emphasizing that marks must be compared as a whole rather than by isolating individual components

For passing off, the Court applied the "classical trinity" principles—goodwill, misrepresentation, and damage—as established in Brihan Karan Sugar Syndicate (P) Ltd. v. Yashwantrao Mohite

Furthermore, the Court exercised its appellate jurisdiction under the principles of Wander Ltd. v. Antox India P. Ltd., which restricts interference unless the lower court’s order is arbitrary or perverse

The High Court found that the Commercial Court failed to provide a coherent legal basis for the injunction, specifically neglecting to distinguish between infringement and passing off or return a finding on goodwill

Upon a holistic comparison of the marks, the Court noted significant visual, phonetic, and conceptual differences: the Plaintiffs use "Jiva" (with an 'I') alongside a lotus device, while the Defendants use "Shatam Jeeva" (with 'EE') featuring an 'S' inside a circle with herbs

Applying the anti-dissection rule, the Court held that even if "Jiva" is a dominant part, the overall commercial impression of "SHATAM JEEVA" is distinct

Crucially, the addition of the prefix "Shatam" (meaning 'hundred') and the source-identifier "By Baidyanath" was held to sufficiently distinguish the Defendants' services, making confusion unlikely for an average consumer

Regarding passing off, the Court observed that the trade dresses were entirely different (lotus vs. herbs) and the Plaintiffs failed to establish any misrepresentation by the Defendants

The High Court held that the Commercial Court’s findings were untenable for ignoring the distinguishing elements of the rival marks

Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order dated 17.11.2025 and allowed the appeal, vacating the injunction

It clarified that these findings are prima facie and shall not influence the final merits of the suit