India: Delhi High Court, Division Bench Order On Allied Blenders & Distillers Pvt. Ltd.

Last Updated: 15 October 2015
Article by Anand & Anand

Trademark and copyright law 101 – a note on Shree Nath Heritage Liquor Pvt. Ltd. v. Allied Blenders & Distillers Pvt. Ltd. and Sentini Bio Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Allied Blenders & Distillers Pvt. Ltd.

Authored by: Ms. Abhilasha Nautiyal and Mr. Shrawan Chopra, Anand and Anand 

A division bench of the Delhi High Court, comprising of Justice Pradeep Nandrajog and Justice Pratibha Rani, in a recent order held the marks 'Officer's Special' and 'Collector's Choice' as likely to be confused with Allied Blenders and Distiller's mark 'Officer's Choice' for whisky. The Learned Bench also found the label for 'Officer's Special' to infringe the copyright in the 'Officer's Choice' label.

The key findings of this order include the following:

1.     Principles for determining likelihood of confusion between competing trademarks

2.     Likelihood of confusion when marks have the same or a similar meaning

3.     Storage and retrieval of ideas from memory

4.     Impact of different trade dress when the marks are semantically similar

Principles for copyright infringement

1.    Principles for determining likelihood of confusion between competing trademarks:

The order borrows general principles of likelihood of confusion from McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition, Ed. IV -

    i.              Likelihood of confusion (i.e. confusion is probable and not simply possible) is the standard for both trademark infringement and passing off.

    ii.              Priority of use of the party that alleges trademark infringement and/or passing off needs to be considered.

    iii.              To establish trademark infringement and/or passing off in most cases it needs to be shown that an appreciable number of buyers and not the majority of buyers are likely to be confused. Even 1% of India's population will be an appreciable number of buyers.

    iv.              Likelihood of confusion may be proved in many ways, such as - through survey evidence; by showing actual confusion; through arguments based on a clear inference arising from a comparison of the marks in question and the context in which the marks are used.

      v.              Under Section 29 of the Trademarks Act, 1999, confusion is presumed if the marks are identical and are used for identical goods/ services.

    vi.              Confusion can be of the following categories:

Point of sale confusion - this refers to confusion that takes place at the time of purchase.

Post sale confusion - this includes confusion of those other than the purchaser.

Initial interest confusion - this refers to confusion that may be caused initially, i.e. prior to purchase, but at the time of purchase of the alleged infringer/ tortfeaser's product or using its service, the consumer is not confused.

Reverse confusion - this occurs when consumers purchase the goods or use services of the senior user thinking them to originate from the junior user.

  vii.              When a person knows that the mark in question does not originate from the senior user but the senior user is called to mind, then it's a step before confusion. If on the other hand, the consumer is in a state of wonderment if there's a connection, this is confusion. Further, if this consumer then purchases the junior users product, this is then deception.

The order also records the factors that need to be considered while determining likelihood of confusion between marks (including the Cadilla (Indian SC); Polariod; Sleekcraft and Du Pont factors). In the facts of this case, the court considered the following factors:

      i.              Nature of the mark

The court endorsed categories of marks explained by the US Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit in Abercrombie and Pitch v. Hunting World. Broad categories of trademarks are - generic, descriptive, suggestive and arbitrary or fanciful.

      ii.              Degree of resemblance between the marks

  • The court discussed in detail the concept of semantic similarity between marks (See Section 2 below).
  • The court emphasized that the test for comparing composite marks is whether the defendant has copied the 'Essential Feature' of the plaintiff's mark
  • The court also reiterated that even if a mark is common to the Trade Marks Register, it may not be common to the trade, for which extensive evidence needs to be shown.
  • The court reiterated the law on disclaimers in trademarks - for passing off, statutory disclaimer will have no bearing if the mark has acquired secondary meaning; A disclaimer does not travel to the market place, hence for comparison of two marks, the disclaimed portion can also be considered.

    iii.              Nature of goods/ services in respect of which  the marks are used

    iv.              Class of purchasers who are likely to buy the goods

    v.              Mode of purchasing the goods or placing orders for the goods

The court observed that associations in memory tend to decay over time, leading to forgetting as well as recall of the wrong targets.

    vi.              Intention of the defendant

The court also took into consideration that dishonest intention of the two appellants. In the Sentini appeal, the appellant had argued similarity of the mark 'Officer's Special' and 'Officer's Choice' in opposition proceedings before the Trade Marks Registry. In the Shree Nath appeal, the appellant had knowledge of the mark 'Officer's Choice' as it had mentioned the same in a reply to the Trade Marks Registry.

2.    Likelihood of confusion when marks have the same or a similar meaning:

      i.              The court further developed the 'test of similarity in idea' for determining similarity between trademarks. The court used semantic relationships between words to determine similarity between marks.

      ii.              Semantic relationships (also called sense relations) between words are of the following types:

  • Hyponyms:

A word with a broad meaning constituting a category into which words with more specific meanings fall

  • Synonymy:

A word or phrase that means exactly or nearly the same as another word or phrase in the same language.

  • Antonymy:

Words that covey the opposite.

    iii.              Synonyms may be absolute (words with the exact same meaning) or relative (words or phrases that are relatively similar). Absolute synonyms are considered to be a logical impossibility.

    iv.              Relative synonyms are classified as follows:

  • Synonymy with different degrees
  • Synonymy with different emotions
  • Synonymy with different styles
  • Synonymy with different collocations

      v.              The court applied the relations of relative synonymy and hypernymy in the present appeals to hold that 'Collector' and 'Officer' are related by hypernymy and relative synonymy. The court also held that the mark 'Officer's Special' is a relative synonym of the mark 'Officer's Choice'.

    vi.              The court cautioned that protection should be accorded only to those sense relations of the word where the context in which they are applied to the brand name is the same, which causes similar ideas to be conveyed in the minds of the consumers.

3.    Storing and retrieving ideas from memory:

While deciding if the marks in question were deceptively similar, the court discussed how ideas are stored and retrieved from memory.

i.              The court discussed how similar words, concepts and items that are linked by associations are grouped together in the brain.

ii.              Information is retrieved from the memory with the help of retrieval cues. These cues may not directly elicit the brand name but may enhance the likelihood of a particular brand, or set of brands, being elicited.

iii.              The court also discussed the process of reconstruction of information or the generation of false memories. This means that consumers have imperfect recollection and may generate false memories (i.e. recall a semantically related brand) when recalling a particular brand.

4.    Impact of different trade dress when the marks are semantically similar:

The court relied on a study (Distinctive Brand Cues and Memory for Product Consumption Experiences, International Journal of Research in Marketing [22 (2005) 27-44]) and various Trademarks commentaries to explain the likelihood of confusion in cases where the marks are semantically related and products' trade dress is dissimilar:

i.              Cue formed from the meaning of the brand is much stronger than the cue formed by the packaging of the product of the brand. Therefore, if the meaning of the brands is similar/same, then the difference in packaging may still lead to confusion.

ii.              There is a likely consumer belief that brand names identify different choice alternatives uniquely, while packaging colours and shape often do not.

5.    Principles for copyright infringement:

The court reiterated the following general principles in copyright infringement:

i.              Copyright protects expression of an idea and not the idea itself.

ii.              A registration is a not a prerequisite for copyright.

iii.              According to Section 2 (c) of the Copyright Act, 1957, an artistic work means a painting, a sculpture, a drawing (including a diagram, map, chart or plan), an engraving or a photograph, whether or not any such work possesses artistic quality; a work of architecture and any other work of artistic craftsmanship.

iv.              Copyright infringement may be of the following kinds:

a.         Direct infringement

b.         Indirect infringement

  • Contributory/ induced infringement:

One who contributes to or promotes copyright infringement may be liable for contributory or induced infringement.

  • Vicarious infringement:

One who controls the acts of the infringer may be liable for vicarious infringement.

v.              To establish copyright infringement, the right holder must show:

a.         Ownership of the work

b.         Copyrightability of the work

  • The work should be original
  • The work should have a 'modicum of creativity'
  • The work should be protectable expression.

c.          Copying of the work by the Defendant

  • This can be proved by showing substantial similarity between protectable elements. According to Copinger and Skone on Copyright, South Asian edition, 2008, this test has been put in a number of similar ways such as 'Has the defendant made a substantial use of those features of the claimant's work in which copyright subsists?'
  • In the United States, the abstraction-filtration-comparison test [as first laid down in Computer Associates Ltd. v. Altai Inc. 23 USPQ 2d 1241 (2nd Circuit 1992)] has been followed by some courts for substantial reproduction, especially in software infringement cases.

Originally published on The Legal 500

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Singh & Associates
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Singh & Associates
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions