Trademarks play a vital function in creating a logo call and goodwill of any commercial enterprise. Now not most effective does it facilitates in creating a trademark value however additionally, aids in revenue technology. Being of such vital importance, a trademark is liable to get infringed and/or misused. One such way of the trademark is making "deceptively similar" trademarks. "Deceptive similarity" trademarks can be understood as a trademark created, almost similar or a glance-alike of an already existing trademark as a way to misinform and confuse the customers. This concept of misleading similarity has been mentioned within The Trademarks Act, 1999 underneath section 2(h) as: "A mark will be deemed to be deceptively much like any other mark if it so almost resembles that different mark as to be possible to misinform or reason confusion."
The concept of deceptive similarity has been broadly recognised as a ground for trademark infringement beneath various trademark regimes. Below the Indian legal system as nicely, the misleading similarity is recollecting as a floor for no longer granting the registration of the trademark to an applicant through the registrar of trademarks. But, the act does no longer ascertain any standards that may decide the ambit and scope of the phrase "Deceptive similarity," for this reason, there may be a vacuum. With a purpose to cast off the vacuum, its miles important to note the judicial stand on various cases regarding the said rely. Indian courts have handled several instances offering with landmark concepts and guidelines in matters of deceptive similarity. On the way to adjudicate cases of intellectual houses and deceptive similarity, standards of phonetic and visual similarity, goodwill, reputation, take a look at of likelihood, and so on. Had been recognised as a few criteria to check misleading similarity, with the aid of the courts
Within the case of Cadila fitness care ltd. v. Cadila pharmaceutical ltd. Supreme Court laid down sure pointers for adjudication of topics concerning the deceptive similarity of trademarks. On this unique case, the parties to the case had been the successors of the Cadila organization. The dispute arose on the difficulty of promoting of a medicinal drug utilizing the defendant under the name "falcitab" which changed into just like the name of a remedy which turned into being manufactured with the aid of the plaintiff beneath the call "falcigo". Both the medication has been used to treat the same sickness and therefore, the contention turned into that the defendant's logo name is creating confusion between the consumers. Injunction turned into demanded utilizing the plaintiff. As a defence, the defendant claimed that the prefix "falci" has been derived from the name of the disease, i.e., falcipharam malaria. The court discovered that due to the diverse population of the country and ranging infrastructure of the clinical profession due to language, urban-rural divides, and many others. And with the chances of medical negligence, it is essential that confusion of marks have to be strictly averted in pharmaceuticals and drugs. The court, thereby, held that being scientific products greater precaution and care ought to be taken and the names of the brand, consequently, being phonetically similar shall amount to being deceptively similar.