Deceptive similarity test for trade marks turns on overall resemblance, and "SKINCLINIQ" was found too dissimilar to "CLINIQUE".

In assessing deceptive similarity under trade mark infringement principles, competing marks must be compared as complete words from the perspective of an average consumer with imperfect recollection, focusing on overall visual, structural and phonetic resemblance rather than dissecting one mark into parts. On that approach, "CLINIQUE" and "SKINCLINIQ" were found not to be identical and not sufficiently similar to create likely confusion, with the substantial price difference between the products further reducing the scope for confusion. The interim injunction was therefore not justified.

---

---

Issues: Whether the mark "SKINCLINIQ" was deceptively similar to the registered mark "CLINIQUE" so as to sustain an interim injunction for infringement under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

Analysis: The governing test where the competing marks are not identical is whether, viewed as a whole from the standpoint of a person of average intelligence and imperfect recollection, the impugned mark is likely to cause confusion by reason of overall visual, structural and phonetic similarity. The marks must be compared as complete words and not by dissecting one mark into component parts and then matching a part of it with the registered mark. Applying that approach, the court found that "CLINIQUE" and "SKINCLINIQ" are not identical and do not present sufficient overall structural or phonetic resemblance. The court also noted that the substantial difference in price between the products reduced any realistic scope for confusion.

Conclusion: The mark "SKINCLINIQ" was not held deceptively similar to "CLINIQUE", and the interim injunction was not justified. The conclusion was in favour of the appellant.

---