1. Introduction
The choice in Corn Merchandise Refining Co. v. Shangrila Meals Merchandise Ltd.[i] stays one of the crucial pivotal judgments within the discipline of trademark regulation. On this case, the Court docket discovered that the trademark “Gluvita,” registered by the defendant, was deceptively much like “Glucovita” which is a mark registered below class 30 named as Dextrose (d-glucose powder blended with nutritional vitamins), and will trigger deception or confusion below Sections 8(a) and 10(1) of the Commerce Marks Act, 1940.[ii] The ruling emphasised on phonetic similarity, suggesting even minor resemblances might mislead shoppers. Whereas the judgment established a key precedent, it has positioned overreliance on phonetic similarity, risking monopolization inside trademark courses, which is unfavourable from a utilitarian perspective. This publish critiques the resolution by inspecting the constraints of the “common intelligence” take a look at utilized by the Court docket and advocates for a extra balanced and versatile framework in trademark jurisprudence that higher displays shopper behaviour and market dynamics.
2. Critique of Phonetic Similarity as a Major Criterion in Trademark Infringement Instances
Trademark infringement jurisprudence ceaselessly prioritizes phonetic similarity when figuring out the chance of confusion.[iii] Whereas phonetic resemblance undoubtedly performs a task in shopper notion, extreme reliance on this issue can distort the nuanced evaluation required for trademark disputes. The landmark case of Cadila Healthcare Restricted v. Cadila Prescription drugs Restricted exemplifies this problem, because the Delhi Excessive Court docket initially handled phonetic similarity as a decisive consider figuring out infringement. Nevertheless, this strategy was revised by the Supreme Court docket in 2001, which advocated a factorial technique moderately than an unique concentrate on phonetics. Consequently, critiquing Cadila utilizing Hoffmann-La Roche v. Cipla[iv] misinterprets the precedent, inadvertently counting on an outdated case to evaluate a newer authorized framework. This contradiction underscores the necessity for a extra exact understanding of how phonetic similarity ought to operate inside broader trademark evaluation.
Trademark regulation seeks to stop shopper confusion whereas safeguarding honest competitors. Given this goal, evaluating infringement solely primarily based on phonetic similarity disregards different very important parts that form model id. Visible look, market positioning, and branding methods are equally vital in distinguishing one trademark from one other. Fashionable jurisprudence acknowledges this necessity, as seen within the Supreme Court docket’s shift away from phonetic exclusivity in Cadila in the direction of a extra complete analysis.
For example, the Tobacco Plain Packaging Act 2011, [v] which was reviewed below WTO dispute settlement mechanisms, bolstered that model differentiation extends past phonetics.[vi] The Act mandated uniform packaging for tobacco merchandise, successfully eradicating visible parts of branding. This led to a WTO problem, whereby model house owners argued that the Act diluted their emblems by eliminating their distinctive visible points. The WTO’s evaluation acknowledged that emblems are multifaceted, encompassing visible, phonetic, and conceptual parts. This attitude helps the argument that phonetic similarity alone can’t function the first criterion for figuring out trademark infringement. [vii]
A crucial problem in counting on Cadila and Hoffmann-La Roche as guiding precedents for broader trademark disputes is the distinct regulatory setting surrounding pharmaceutical emblems. The chance of confusion commonplace for pharmaceutical merchandise differs considerably from that of normal shopper items. Public well being issues necessitate heightened scrutiny, as confusion between similar-sounding drug names might have extreme penalties. This elevated commonplace, acknowledged in Cadila, underscores that pharmaceutical trademark disputes shouldn’t be used as normal precedents for different industries the place shopper threat is decrease.
Conversely, the current case pertains to non-pharmaceutical merchandise and follows a unique analytical framework. The juxtaposition of those instances raises a elementary query: ought to pharmaceutical trademark rulings affect broader trademark jurisprudence? Given the stricter threshold for confusion within the pharmaceutical sector, making use of comparable ideas to normal trademark disputes dangers conflating distinct authorized requirements.
Additional, there are questions relating to the equity of the registry , that are raised since they fail to conduct the essential major phonetic public search earlier than the acceptance of the marks which clearly showcases that comparable marks do exist, resembling glucose and glaxose-D(Annexure -A). In Insead v Full stack Training,[viii] the Court docket directed the registry to conduct each phrase mark and phonetic searches on the preliminary stage, the handbook clearly outlines {that a} phonetic search is a part of the examiner’s duties when assessing the relative grounds for refusal below the rule 33 of the emblems guidelines, this showcased, how the act of the in poor health acts of registry frivolous litigations that merely delay the proceedings of the courtroom.
3. Monopolisation of 1 class
The impugned judgment of corn merchandise might permit corporations to assert unique rights over frequent or generic-sounding phrases, thereby successfully monopolizing language inside sure product classes.[ix] The Part 11(1) of the Commerce Marks Act[x], prohibits the registration of a mark that’s “an identical with or much like an earlier trademark,” however the Act supplies leeway if the coexistence of marks doesn’t trigger confusion amongst shoppers. Within the case of the Nandhini Deluxe v. Karnataka Cooperative Milk.,[xi] it was seen that similar-sounding emblems—’Nandhini’ and ‘Nandini’ have been allowed to coexist, if the emblems have been visually distinct and used for various merchandise; therein one was for milk and different for a series of the eating places, and thus there couldn’t exist a monopoly over one class. Additional within the case of Vishnudas Buying and selling v. Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd.,[xii] it was said that it’s typically seen that there’s trademark declare over a broad class; nonetheless if the merchandise are considerably completely different then it mustn’t monopolize all merchandise in that class.
The emblems, thus, now assist in the existence of a number of merchandise moderately than act as a barrier to entry.[xiii] By granting corporations unique rights over similar-sounding phrases, it helps in co-existence of a number of, significantly smaller or newer corporations that will not have the assets to create wholly unique or distinctive model names.
4. Revisiting the “Common Shopper” Customary
The notion of an “common shopper” with imperfect recollection is inherently flawed,[xiv] because of its vagueness and lack of ability to mirror the large spectrum of shopper training, socioeconomic backgrounds, and cultural experiences. This assumption of a homogeneous shopper base overlooks the fact that people might have various ranges of understanding relating to merchandise like “Glucovita” that are dietary in nature and their opponents. Courts ought to chorus from presuming common confusion amongst shoppers when encountering similar-sounding emblems. A extra nuanced strategy is required, contemplating components such because the product’s class, value vary, and the accessibility of data via digital platforms. In right now’s technologically superior world, shoppers of common intelligence are more and more prone to cross-check product origins and model specifics utilizing the wealth of data available on-line, thereby minimizing the potential for confusion or deception.[xv] Customers buying a product like “Glucovita”typically related to well being, vitality dietary supplements, or wellness—are prone to be extra discerning and knowledgeable than the typical shopper in a normal market. These shoppers are likely to have a greater understanding of product composition, advantages, and model id, making them much less prone to confusion by similar-sounding emblems. They could additionally depend on product-specific analysis or suggestions, additional decreasing the chance of deception. Due to this fact, making use of a normal commonplace of “common intelligence” overlooks the nuanced buying behaviour in specialised markets like Glucovita’s.
5. The Want for Trademark Safety
The utilitarian idea in mental property regulation asserts that authorized protections ought to primarily serve to maximise societal welfare by fostering innovation and creativity whereas making certain that the advantages of those developments stay accessible to the general public. This philosophy is rooted within the precept of reaching “the best good for the best quantity.” Seen via this lens, the Corn Merchandise judgment raises considerations, because it dangers stifling competitors and innovation by granting unique rights over descriptive or generic phrases. [xvi] For example, permitting emblems like “Gluco” in Glucovita might monopolize generally used language, thereby proscribing different companies from successfully speaking important product attributes. Such monopolization might hinder market competitors and restrict shopper selection, contradicting the broader targets of trademark regulation, which goal to stability model safety with honest market practices. A extra nuanced strategy is important—one that forestalls unjustified monopolies whereas safeguarding the distinctiveness of real emblems. This stability would be sure that mental property legal guidelines encourage creativity with out impeding honest competitors or shopper entry to data.
Conclusion
In conclusion, whereas the Corn Merchandise resolution clarifies trademark regulation, has its flaws. The extreme concentrate on phonetic similarity, potential for monopolization, and shortcomings of the typical shopper take a look at underscore the necessity for a extra nuanced framework. Courts should embrace a holistic strategy that promotes competitors, innovation, and shopper welfare.
ANNEXURE- A
Finish Notes
[i] Corn Merchandise Refining v. Shangrila Meals Merchandise Ltd, AIR 1960 SC 142.
[ii] Misleading similarity in emblems with respect to medicinal merchandise has a threatening impact – a quick overview. IIPRD. https://www.iiprd.com/deceptive-similarity-in-trade-marks-with-respect-to-medicinal-products-has-a-threatening-effect-a-brief-overview/
[iii] Commerce Marks Act, 1999 Part 2(1)(h).
[iv]F. Hoffmann-La Roche v Geoffrey Manners AIR 1970 SC 2062
[v] Tobacco Plain Packaging Act 2011, § 20 (1), (2), (3) (Prohibition on Commerce Marks and Marks usually showing on retail packaging), Panel Report, paras 7.2723, 7.2764, 7.2794, 7.2867-7.2868.
[vi] Shree Nath Heritage Liquor Pvt Ltd. v. Allied Blender & Distillers Pvt Ltd, FAO (OS) 368 and 493/2014.
[vii] Barton Beebe, J. C. F. (2023, March 24). Are we working out of emblems? an empirical research of trademark depletion and congestion. Harvard Regulation Overview. https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-131/are-we-running-out-of-trademarks/
[viii] Insead v Full stack Training. C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 1/2021, Order dt. Could 17, 2023.
[ix] Barooah, S. P., About The Writer Swaraj Paul Barooah ., Kaushal, T., Byadwal, Y., & SpicyIP. (2020, September 4). Visitor publish: Monopolizing generic phrases?. SpicyIP. https://spicyip.com/2014/01/guest-post-monopolizing-generic-terms.html
[x] Commerce Marks Act 1999, S.11(1).
[xi] Nandhini Deluxe v. Karnataka Cooperative Milk 2018 SCC ONLINE SC 741.
[xii] Vishnudas Buying and selling v. Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd., AIR 1996 SC 2275.
[xiii] N, A. R. (2019, April 9). Comparable marks for dissimilar items in the identical class. SC IP. https://www.sc-ip.in/publish/similar-marks-for-dissimilar-goods-in-the-same-class
[xiv]Bharadwaj Jaishankar , Jaishankar, B., & Parashar, Okay. Who’s a mean shopper with imperfect recollection?. Who Is An Common Shopper With Imperfect Recollection? – Trademark – Mental Property – India. https://www.mondaq.com/india/trademark/1156842/who-is-an-average-consumer-with-imperfect-recollection
[xv] The “common shopper take a look at” in an knowledgeable society. S.S. Rana & Co. (2024, June 14). https://ssrana.in/articles/the-average-consumer-test-in-an-informed-society/
[xvi] PAUL, RITU, Mental Property Rights: A Utilitarian Perspective (Could 9, 2021). Out there at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/summary=3842429 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3842429
About Writer: The Writer Stuti Mehrotra is a fourth-year BBA LL.B. (Hons.) scholar at O.P. Jindal International College, deeply focused on exploring the intersections of mental property and shopper rights via crucial authorized evaluation.
Picture supply: right here
