Trademark infringement by deceptive similarity: phonetic resemblance and likely confusion outweighed excise and trade-channel differences.

Trademark infringement under Section 29 of the Trademarks Act was found on the basis of deceptive similarity between "OLD MONK" and "TOLD MOM". The Court applied the broad and essential features test, holding that microscopic comparison is irrelevant where the overall phonetic resemblance creates a likelihood of confusion. It further held that differences in excise classification between IMFL and country liquor, as well as trade-channel distinctions, did not defeat infringement once similarity of marks and goods was established. The overall get-up and label arrangement were also insufficient to dispel confusion, and the plaintiff's goodwill was likely to be harmed. Permanent injunctive relief was granted against use of the impugned mark or a deceptively similar variant for alcoholic beverages.

---

---

Issues: Whether the defendant's use of the mark and label "TOLD MOM" in relation to alcoholic beverages infringed the plaintiff's registered trademark and label "OLD MONK", and whether the difference in excise classification and trade channels prevented a finding of deceptive similarity.

Analysis: The Court applied the statutory test under Section 29 of the Trademarks Act, 1999, focusing on identity or similarity of the marks and goods and the resulting likelihood of confusion. It held that infringement is assessed on the broad and essential features of the competing marks, not by microscopic comparison, and found a high phonetic similarity between "OLD MONK" and "TOLD MOM". The Court further held that, for the alcoholic beverages in question, the distinction between IMFL and country liquor did not materially distinguish the products in the eyes of consumers, and that trade-channel differences could not defeat a statutory infringement claim once similarity was established. The overall get-up and label arrangement were also found insufficient to dispel confusion, and the Court accepted that the plaintiff's goodwill was likely to be harmed by the defendant's adoption of the impugned mark.

Conclusion: The defendant's mark and label were held to infringe the plaintiff's registered trademark and label, and the plaintiff succeeded in obtaining injunctive relief.

Final Conclusion: The Court granted permanent protection to the plaintiff's registered mark and restrained the defendant from using the impugned mark or any deceptively similar variant for alcoholic beverages.

Ratio Decidendi: In an infringement action, the decisive inquiry is whether the impugned mark is identical or deceptively similar to the registered mark and whether the goods are the same or similar, with confusion presumed where the statutory conditions are met; trade-channel or pricing distinctions do not override that statutory test once infringement is established.

---