Passing off and distinctiveness of a letter mark defeated where composite names were sufficiently different and confusion was unlikely.

A single letter or letter combination can operate as a protectable mark only if distinctiveness and secondary meaning are proved on the facts. The plaintiffs used "PP" only in composite forms such as "PP Jewellers" and "PP Towers", not as a standalone mark, so the court compared those composites with the defendants' composite names and marks. In a passing off analysis, the decisive question is whether the impugned marks are likely to deceive or confuse the relevant consumer class. The court found the added words in the defendants' marks sufficient to distinguish them, held that confusion among buyers of commercial space was unlikely, and declined ad interim injunction relief.

---

---

Issues: Whether the plaintiffs had shown a prima facie case for interim injunction on the basis that the letter mark "PP" had acquired distinctiveness and goodwill so as to restrain the defendants from using "PP" in their corporate names and real estate-related marks on the ground of passing off.

Analysis: A single letter or combination of letters can function as a mark, but protection depends on distinctiveness proved on the facts. The plaintiffs had used "PP" only in composite forms such as "PP Jewellers", "PPJ", "PP Towers" and "PPT", not as a standalone mark. The comparison therefore was between the plaintiffs' composite marks and the defendants' composite names and marks, including "PP Buildwell", "PP Prime Properties", "PP Mall" and "PP Shopping Mall". In passing off, the essential question is whether the impugned mark is likely to deceive or confuse the relevant consumer class. The plaintiffs failed to establish that "PP" by itself had acquired secondary meaning or distinctiveness in relation to their goods or services. The added words in the defendants' marks were sufficient to distinguish them, and confusion among purchasers of commercial space in malls or complexes was found unlikely. The existing registrations of the defendants' composite marks also remained operative for the time being.

Conclusion: The plaintiffs were not entitled to an ad interim injunction, and the applications were rejected.

---