Composite trademark infringement turns on overall impression, dominant features, and phonetic resemblance in assessing consumer confusion.

In trademark infringement of a composite mark, the mark must be viewed as a whole, but the anti-dissection rule does not prevent assessment of the relative prominence of constituent elements. Dominant features may be examined to gauge overall commercial impression, and even partial appropriation can infringe where essential features are taken. The respondent's coined and arbitrary mark was held entitled to strong protection, and the appellant's mark was found to bear substantial phonetic resemblance. Applying the test of confusion from the perspective of an unwary consumer of average intelligence and imperfect recollection, the Court found no basis to exclude confusion or identify a uniquely dominant constituent, and upheld the interim injunction.

---

---

Issues: Whether an interim injunction restraining use of the impugned mark was justified on the ground that the respondent's composite mark was likely to be infringed by the appellant's mark, having regard to the anti-dissection rule, dominant feature analysis, phonetic similarity, and the standard of confusion in the mind of an average consumer.

Analysis: The Court held that a composite mark must ordinarily be viewed as a whole, but the anti-dissection rule does not bar consideration of the relative prominence of constituent elements. In a composite mark, dominant features may be examined to assess overall commercial impression, and lesser appropriation than complete copying can still amount to infringement where the essential features are taken. The respondent's mark was found to be a coined and arbitrary expression deserving strong protection. The Court further held that the appellant's mark bore substantial phonetic resemblance to the respondent's mark, and that likelihood of confusion must be tested from the standpoint of an unwary consumer of average intelligence and imperfect recollection, not by side-by-side comparison or by reference to price difference or packaging variations alone. On the materials, the Court found no basis to treat one constituent of the respondent's mark as uniquely dominant or to negate confusion.

Conclusion: The interim injunction was upheld and the appeal failed because the appellant's mark was likely to cause confusion and infringe the respondent's trademark.

Ratio Decidendi: In assessing trademark infringement of a composite mark, the mark must be considered as a whole, but constituent features may be weighed for dominance, and a finding of likelihood of confusion may rest on substantial similarity in overall impression and phonetic resemblance from the perspective of an average consumer with imperfect recollection.

---